Ruminate on this…

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader just had a horrible idea. In a Scotch whisky induced fog while watching a movie with Mrs. Maximum Leader an idea popped to the forefront of his mind.

Earlier in the day, your Maximum Leader read a series of articles on the failure of US intelligence agencies to predict/stop the 9/11 attacks. (Some are here, and here.) Now, surely all Americans can agree the attack on the US was a horrible tragedy. And we may further agree that we (Americans) are now motivated to take on various threats to our nation in a fashion we would not have prior to the attacks. Having said that, had we stopped the 9/11 attacks before they happened would the world be a safer place today? Would it less safe? Would our safety be unchanged?

Your Maximum Leader will have to mull this one over more.

Carry on.

Minion Mailbag Vol 2

Greetings again loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will dip again into his minion mailbag and see what he finds… Let us examine this message:

Dear Naked Villain:

I noticed this paragraph on your site:

“We need to find a way to work with the significant educated
middle class of Iraq to build a new model for the Muslim
world. One in which democracy works. Where ethnic and
religious differences are tolerated. And one in which
peacefully co-existing with your neighbours is valued.”

It is granted that a democratic ruling model has never been a
great success in the muslim world, but until WWII there were
areas of religious tolerance, relative peace, and co-
existance. Usually these were followed by brutal periods of
intolerance, where conversion by force was the rule fo the
land. One such place was Palestine, from about 1800-1940-ish.
All faiths were welcome. Most could own land, run business,
and live day-to-day. Peaceful coexistance was valued. Not to
say all were equal. A Jew or Christian (People of the Book)
had most rights, but paid a religious tax and could not hol
certain public offices. An unrelated faith would not usually
be able to own property and would have to partner with a
local to run a business. Point being that there is nothing
inherently intolerant, violent, or death-loving in most
Islamic practice. (The Taliban are a high profile exception-
they are just evil and deserving of whackage.) This history
may provide the seed we need to encourage mainstream Islam to
veer more towards tolerance and away from the extremist
groups.

-Edwin Thomas (of the Hidden Empire)

Dear Edwin Thomas:

Firstly, your Maximum Leader hopes that this Hidden Empire stuff doesn’t get out of hand. As you all are aware, those who refuse to accept the dominance of the MWO will have to be dragged out and shot. Their bodies will be left to bloat in the sun. That said, allow your Maximum Leader to respond to your very thoughtful message.

Your Maximum Leader feels he now needs to revise and extend his remarks from an earlier blog. (At the time of the earlier blog he was feeling particularly upbeat and optimistic. Rest assured he is now back to his nakedley (nakedly?) villainous self.) While he certainly does hope that the educated middle-class of Iraq can form the core of a successful democratic state; he also fears that many years of the brutal Hussein regime has crippled that middle-class. And consequently, those people are not secure enough economically to be a strong core for a democratic state. One can hope that with the lifting of sanctions, the gradual influx of capital, the growing outflow of oil, and the restoration of basic services the economy of Iraq and the fortunes of the middle class will grow. Of course, the wiping out of the final reminants of the Hussein regime and the establishment of security within Iraq is another cornerstone of a stable democratic state.

Your Maximum Leader needs to address the implication that the educated middle class of Iraq (such as it is) is also westernized to a degree. At least insofar as toleration is concerned. Your Maximum Leader does not mean to imply that the Iraqi middle class is imbued with western style toleration. Your example of the Palestine under the Ottomans as a place where tolerance was valued is one that we can all hope will be utilized by those hearty souls who will lead (or help lead) Iraq in these dangerous times ahead. But, your Maximum Leader feels it is important to point out that Jews and Christians were tolerated in the Ottoman Empire in as much as they were very small minorities who lived in confined geographic areas. It is easy to tolerate minorities with limited political and economic rights. It becomes much more difficult to tolerate a minority with equal political rights (especially one that might be protected in some way) and with equal economic rights. And it may be nearly impossible to tolerate a minority who have translated political and economic opportunity into great success (ie: Israel). Especially if the majority is not nearly as well off as the minority. Examining the problem this way begins to illuminate the current problem we have in the middle east. Your Maximum Leader will commend to you Bernard Lewis’ Article The Roots of Muslim Rage which is a good primer for much of the very intelligent and helpful material Lewis has published.

So where is your Maximum Leader going with this discourse on toleration? Simply, he doesn’t feel that the middle class of Iraq is ready now to be tolerant of significant Jewish or Christian populations in their country. They may not be ready for toleration of other muslims in their country. This is a significant problem.

Additionally, your Maximum Leader is not fully convinced that the Iraqi middle class is desirous of a secular democracy. They may be all for democracy, and perhaps even a degree of toleration. But, your Maximum Leader is confident that any Iraqi legal code will give some preference to the tenets of Islam that are common to Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Democracy ca come in many forms, it is the preference for us in the west to have secular ones. Established religions are not incongruent to democracy. But this gets to the heart of the toleration issue as well. Democracies do not have to be tolerant. There is such a thing as a democratic tyranny.

Your Maximum Leader doesn’t mean to parse terms so closely. But, he feels that given the current environment in the world (and the United States); and the continuously escalating rhetoric and expectations for Iraq a little parsing might be in order. It is the firm belief of your Maximum Leader that most people assume that the US is hoping to midwife a secular, western-style republic in which the rights of minorities are protected in Iraq. Your Maximum Leader believes this is possible utilizing a modified federal system under a constitutional monarch. A federal system could provide some autonomy to each of the three major ethnic/religious groups in Iraq. A constitutional monarch may help to unite the country under what is (your Maximum Leader believes - inarguably) a traditional governance structure. Moving towards this type of system, or any system will take time and much effort. Direct US involvement will need to continue for 3-5 years at least. (Conceivably many more.) And US support (economically and politically) will be needed for many more. But the prospect for the middle east with such a nation near its centre is hopeful.

Your Maximum Leader hopes that the people of Iraq (all of them) will be willing to work towards breaking the mold of dictatorial or autocratic states that have dominated the muslim world. But, your Maximum Leader firmly believes that democracy is hard work. You have to be totally committed to the idea and practice of democracy. Your Maximum Leader, as a good Hobbesian, believes that the natural state of man is dictatorship. (Indeed this belief is a cornerstone of his desire to establish the MWO.) Dictatorship is easy. (Trust me on this one…) You just do what you are told, you get along, and if you are lucky your basic needs are met and you can manage a decent life. Iraqis have to commit themselves to change. Without it, as soon as the US starts to withdraw, Iraqi democracy - such as it will be - will start to unravel.

Carry on my minions!

Great Headline.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has just gotten himself a chuckle from this headline from the Times of London:
Iraq wakes up and demands the bodies of evidence.

Those wacky Brits and their double entendres. Your Maximum Leader loves it.

Carry on.

Photographic Proof!

Greetings again loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader presents (courtesy of US Central Command and the Reuters Newswire) the Hussein boys.

Carry on in your minionly ways.

Family Album

For “Graphic Death Photos”, they are strangely anti-climactic. I was hoping to see dismemberment. Sonny Corleone looked nastier. Viewer discresion is advised.

Hussein family album here.

Another Movie Reference

Uday… DEAD! Qusay… DEAD! Dean Wormer… DEAD!

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Damn Dirty Apes!

Greetings loyal minions! This amused me. Your Maximum Leader is sure this will make it on Letterman tonight.

Jinx!

Loyal Minions! It seems your Maximum Leader and his Minister for Air and Space Power posted our congruent thoughts at nealy the same moment…. Weird.

Look how they massacred my boys…

Greetings again loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is awaiting (with gruesome glee) the release of photographic proof of Usay’s and Qusay’s demise. From the way they (that mysterious “they”) are talking about it, one would think they got it worse than ole Santino Corleone on the turnpike.

Hussein boys

I like to think of the scene in “the Godfather” where Sonny is brought to the morgue. With Saddam saying “Se how they massacred my boys….” with a tear in his eye.

it likesssss the titles, yes it does, Precioussss

Gollum gives the new titles a thumbs-up.

We also salute our troops as they remove Saddam’s most trusted props from beneath him. Here’s hoping Saddam himself won’t be far behind.

One does have to wonder, though, at the stupidity of hiding out in Iraq, and in a damn mansion, no less.

Here– a haiku from yours truly, the Maximum Leader’s Poet Laureate, in celebration of the Hussein Brothers’ demise:

Hussein boys are trapped
rockets strike their jacuzzi
four testicles boil

Thoughts on Iraq

Greetings again loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is taking this time to comment on the situation in which the US finds itself in Iraq. To begin, your Maximum Leader was an early supporter of the war against Saddam Hussein. Indeed, your Maximum Leader (in those days before his blog page) had a very long and ongoing discussion via e-mail with his Poet Laureate and Minister for Air and Space Power about the need (or lack of need) for war. Without being too egoistic, your Maximum Leader will quote his own old e-mail messages to bring you all up to speed on some of the arguements he made for war.

The basic civic building block of the modern world has been (and for a long while will continue to be) the nation-state. As we all know the Latin root of
the word Cvilization is the word for City. All modern civilizations started as City-States, which were essentially a concentrated group of people who
shared similar cultural traits like ethnicity, language, religion, and social mores. These City-States grew up over the centuries into the modern
nation-state. These nation-states act together, essentially, as people act together. That is to say there is a strong degree of self-interest motivating
actions. Nations would become freinds and allies out of interest and would war out of self-interest as well. The first Nation-state to be born out of an
abstract ideal, and not to have evolved out of some earlier form, is the US. This is my first point.

I should state that it is clear that the US is the inheritor of a particular Anglo-Western tradition, and you could make an arguement that we did evolve
from England/Britain. But, I am a firm believer in what is called in History as the “School of American Exceptionalism.” This is to say that there are
certain ideas and beliefs we hold dear that are “exceptions” to the regular order of things. This school of thought is not popular in academe today (due
mainly to those weirdo francophile deconstructionists), but has many adherents outside of the Ivory Tower.

What makes us different is that though we came from the Anglo-Western tradition, we shed much of the weighty baggage of the Anglo-Western tradition
that didn’t seem to fit with the abstract ideals we claimed to be our guiding lights. These are the famous lines of Jefferson from the Declaration of
Independence that both haunt and motivate us as a people. What did we shed? Established religions, rigid class structure, and most of all the sheer burden of always living according to our historical antecedents. Shedding the historical/cultural/social baggage that STILL is present in Europe was the first step in making the US the great power it is. It also, although it is sometimes unclear how, guides our national actions.

My second point is just to reiterate that nations act in self-interest. The
whole world like to pay lip service to “collective security” and the “will of
nations,” etc, etc. But it is our interests that continue to movtivate our
actions. If a nation in our times can wrap their actions in the robes of
collectivism that is great. But, if not, it generally doesn’t dissuade action.

My third point, and this one seems to just jump out of nowhere - but it is
really implied in my introduction - Nation-states must act according to the
nature of their people. As I started off, what is the basic building block of
civil order? It is essentially the group of people sharing a similar cultural
tradition. For the US, the overriding cultural tradition is the abstraction
that is the foundation for our civic order, the words of Jefferson about life,
liberty, and happiness. We have, over our 200+ years become a pluralist
society in many ways, but ultimately we all agree in the basic ideas of the
founding.

Your Maximum Leader then proceeded to discuss the former (1980s era) cozyness between the US and Iraq.

When the US was engaged in the Cold War with the USSR we did cozy up to Saddam
Hussein. In fact, as the Poet Laureate pointed out, during the Cold War we cozy’ed up with
many a brutal dictator against the USSR. This is motivated by three things.
The first two are: self-interest (it is good to have friends against a strong
enemy); and optimism (we can affect change with our friends and make them nice
democratic clones of ourselves in time). The third idea is that the Communist
system of the USSR (and the world revolution that it espoused) was essentially
dehumanizing and evil. This was the dirty little secret that no one would talk
about until Reagan just said it. Most people (on all sides of the political
spectrum) were horrified at his comments, but they knew (and many will now
admit) that he was right. We had to cozy up to the unpleasant dictators
because the alternative was much worse. We made a value judgement that our
values were better tan the other side, and we acted.

Should our past action now taint our current actions? No. The world situation
has changed. We won the Cold War and all of the equations about foreign
relations changed. We now can judge according to different situations, but I
will posit that the ultimate guide for our actions remains the same. During
the Cold War, Iraq could cozy up to both the USSR and the US because of its
counterbalance to Iran (which one could argue was the first country to break
out of the bi-polar world of the Cold War and was the first to step into the
new world order of the 21st Century). It is important to note that BOTH the US
and USSR courted Iraq. We gave money and intellegence, the USSR equipment.
Have you ever wondered why if we were SOOOO cozy with Saddam he is still using
all that old Soviet armour and equipment? We wouldn’t sell him any!

To move along, we are still acting according to our principles in our current
dealings with Iraq. It is the other circumstances that have changed. The USSR
is no longer the force it was. We are now threatened by Islamic terrorists.
That is one of the primary movers of our thinking. We are still acting with
moral authority. Iraq is a threat to the US (self-interest), its neighbours
(our belief - although tenuous- in collective security), and its people are
oppressed by a brutal dictator (our moral values).

So, as you all can see, your Maximum Leader formulated a position in favour of a war with Iraq. A portion of my excerpted message did make mention that Saddam Hussein was a threat to US interests by his making and using WMD against his own people and Iran in the past; and there can be no guarantee that he would not make and use (or supply to others) WMD in the future.

Given the current state of world affairs, the menace posed by Islamist terrorists to the US, and the role Iraq played in a continually unstable region of the world, your Maximum Leader believed then (as he does now) that the war was a good move for us on the world stage.

Would that move be without difficulty? No, of course not. Did we plan enough about what to do after the war? Your Maximum Leader said before the war that there will always be unintended consequences of any action. But Iraq was not like a chess game. There were so many permutations to examine that to take the time to examine them all would preclude ever taking action. We needed to have a general plan (and we did - to establish a free, democratic, pluarlist Iraq), but to spell out a detailed plan would have been ridiculous. Your Maximum Leader will point out that when we were fighting in WW2 we didn’t spell out a detailed plan for Germany after the war. In 1942 could you have spelled out a plan for what we were going to do to Germany when we won the war? (Remember that we declared war on Japan on Dec 8, 1941. We didn’t declare war on Germany until a few days later - and then only
after they declared war on us first. We often forget that FDR was worried that the Nazis wouldn’t declare war on us and that we wouldn’t be able to justify
war on Germany without their acting first.) The argument that the US shouldn’t have moved against Saddam until we have a plan about what
to do once we whip him is not an arguement at all. One might as well worry about whether you will use a condom or not when sleeping with a girl you
haven’t even asked out yet. (To use a bad analogy.)

So what does all this mean now that we have beaten Saddam, killed his sons, and occupied his country? It means that we have taken a step towards acting in accordance to the long-standing principles upon which our nation was founded. It means that although the going is tough and we are taking casualites daily, we must stay the course. To deviate would both doom the Iraqi people to another dark age, and would encourage more attacks on the US. Your Maximum Leader firmly believes that Islamists like Usama Bin Laden and his wicked cronies attacked the US in large part because they believed they could get away with it. To change course when e have invested so much blood and treasure into this course would signal weakness and invite further attack.

What do we need to do? We need to find and kill Saddam. This may very well break the back of continued resistance and guerrilla fighting. We need to find a way to work with the significant educated middle class of Iraq to build a new model for the Muslim world. One in which democracy works. Where ethnic and religious differences are tolerated. And one in which peacefully co-existing with your neighbours is valued. Such a nation in the Middle East would go a long way to insuring the long-term security of the US.

What will not help us in our current situation? Continued harping on who was responsible for allowing the President to quote bad intellegence. (Although it appears as though someone has taken the blame.) Your Maximum Leader was not born yesterday and realizes that human intellegence is sometimes faulty. That is the chance you take with dealing with people. Continued focus on the small group of people in Iraq who continue to fight us, and the representation of that group as a majority in Iraq, is not helping our position. And the contant focus on WMD and why we haven’t found them is not a help either. Your Maximum Leader knows (as does any thinking person in the world) that Saddam had them at one time. It doesn’t take time to fabricate more. And we have found the equipment needed to fabricate the weapons. In time I believe we will find traces of the WMD - but not finding them does not mitigate the strong reasons for ousting Saddam in the first place.

Carry on my minions!

Change to titles?

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has opted to change the title style of his blog. He is not sure he likes it. Any loyal minions with an opinion about this subject are welcome to comment on it.

Huzzah! Uday and Qusay have ceased to be.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was pleased to read a confirmation by a US General that the murderous bastards Uday and Qusay Hussein will no longer walk this earth. May they reside for all eternity inverted in a Danteian pit of flaming feces while their entrails are being feasted upon by imps.

News from Paris Greetings loyal

News from Paris

Greetings loyal minions. Big news day overseas… It seems the Eiffel Tower is on fire.

    About Naked Villainy

    • maxldr

    Villainous
    Contacts

    • E-mail your villainous leader:
      "maxldr-blog"-at-yahoo-dot-com or
      "maximumleader"-at-nakedvillainy-dot-com

    • Follow us on Twitter:
      at-maximumleader

    • No really follow on
      Twitter. I tweet a lot.

Send us your intimate cell phone photos. We’ll not put them on the web. Promise.

    Villainous Commerce

    Villainous Sponsors

      • Get your link here.

      Villainous Search