2022 Republican Primaries in Pennsylvania and across America: Trump vs. Principled Conservatives

The 2022 Republican Primary Elections in Pennsylvania, which were certified last week, and across the Union have been a contest between Donald Trump and Trumpism (protectionism, nativism, isolationism, authoritarianism, corruption, cruelty and dishonesty) on the one side and Reagan-Thatcher-style conservatives and moderates on the other. Most Trump-endorsed candidates won their Republican nominations as the overwhelming majority of candidates in the primaries either had sought Trump’s endorsement, or at least were Trumpist or had publicly acquiesced to him and Trumpism, through silence or by offering little criticism. Trump is still regarded as by the GOP as its leader. But there were notable exceptions in key contests in various States, where Trump-endorsed candidates lost, including to Trump critics. The nomination of some of the most Trumpist candidates have jeopardized the Republicans’ chances in the General Election in November. They also left divisions in the party in States like Pennsylvania, where local party leaders and members openly rejected Trump’s interference and preferences for those less true to conservative or even to Trumpism. Trump’s main criterion for support was not the party’s platform or conservative principles, but fealty to him and acceptance of his false claims of election fraud against him in the 2020 election, despite the revelations from the bipartisan January 6 Congressional Committee investigating the Trump-inspired insurrection that disrupted the certification of the vote of the Electoral College. His claims and those of his supporters were rejected by many Republican election officials, members of Congress and judges, among others. In addition to Trump’s dominance of the party, another factor was overt support by Democrats for the most extreme Trumpist candidates as a strategy to make it easier for Democratic nominees to defeat such Republican nominees in the General Election. This foolish strategy, however, risks defeat to conspiracy-theorists and radicals who espouse authoritarian and nativist beliefs, and even at best, increases the influence of Trump over the GOP and further marginalizes true principled conservatives within the Republican Party. Republicans must continue to reject Trump and Trumpism by nominating principled, qualified candidates untainted by either and Democrats should stop being short-sighted and focus instead on what is better for America, which is that one of the two major parties ought not to be an unprincipled cult of personality that is corrosive of politics and representative government.

Foreign Digest: Syria and China

Syria The United States and Israel have struck pro-Iranian militants and Iranian rockets that threaten Israel, respectively, in Syria. The pro-Iranian militants fired rockets two American bases. The U.S. leads an international coalition in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State, the offshoot of al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. Islamist Iran uses its ally Syria as a conduit for funds and arms for militants and terrorists. It also supports Syria’s Bashar Assad, whose regime sponsors terrorism through its cooperation with Iran and by giving safe harbor to terrorists, in the Syrian Civil War. The war began in 2011 as an uprising against tyranny and has killed over half a million people and displaced millions. Russia also supports Assad. The U.S. and its allies have backed Syrian democratic forces among the many sides in the war, while Turkey has supported its own faction, but the Americans have avoided confronting Syria directly, except as punishment for using chemical weapons, focusing primarily instead on the Islamist terrorists. Syria is sanctioned by the U.S. for state sponsorship of terrorism. China The United States recently conducted its routine maneuvers in the South China Sea in support of the principle of freedom of the seas. Every American Administration since President George W. Bush has sent warships periodically through the Taiwan Strait, which Communist China claims. The mission comes at a time when the Chinese Communists have been threatening more vociferously to use force to reunite Taiwan with mainland China. The island province and some islands off the shores of China are the remnants of the Republic of China, which had been the Chinese government before the Communists won the Chinese Civil War in 1949. In the South China Sea, Communist China had seized the Paracel Islands, which were claimed by Vietnam, and some of the Spratly Islands, which are disputed among several Asian States. Freedom of the seas has been an American principle since the U.S. defeated the Barbary Pirates in the early Eighteenth Century.

“Gender-Neutral” Language Proposal Rejected by the Italian Parliament

Some languages have gender, a grammatical term for the assignment of masculine and feminine forms to words. English lost most of its gender after the invasion of the Normans in the Eleventh Century, leaving it with masculine forms for ordinary matters and feminine forms for loftier matters, as I have posted. See my post from June 2011, More Language for Conservatives to Avoid: Gender vs. Sex William Cinfici: More Language for Conservatives to Avoid: Gender vs. Sex, in which I explain that this assignment of grammatical forms is often arbitrary and not about sex, the division into male and female, a word that is thus not a synonym for gender. In other languages, however, gender continues to be used for most or at least many words. A proposal recently from the Left for the Italian Parliament to use “gender-neutral” forms for titles of officeholders was rejected overwhelmingly as being contrary to the Italian language and unnecessary, as the masculine forms do not necessarily indicate the sex of the officeholders, but are correct grammar. A masculine form of a word does not necessarily include only males, either in Italian or other languages, including English, as it is the ordinary form of the word. Unlike languages that have human authorities (usually monarchs) safeguarding the language or even governing what is proper to the language and what is not, Italian, like English (in America and other non-British Commonwealth States or territories), is not determined by politics. Language has been handed down by tradition and is conserved by lexicographers. New words may be coined, or foreign words loaned, but a language would become a different dialect or language if its forms were to change, just as it would if the meanings or pronunciations of its words were to change. Maintaining the proper grammar, meanings and pronunciations of a dialect or language thus aids communication and unity. Moreover, because laws are written, the meaning of the words cannot be changed as an illegitimate way to change the meaning of the laws without going through the representative and deliberative process. The Italian Parliament was right, therefore, to reject artificial “gender-neutral” language, as the masculine forms of the Italian language are already neutral about sex.

Foreign Volunteers in Ukraine Are Not Mercenaries and Ukrainian Resistors Are Not Terrorists

Contrary to Russian disinformation, international volunteers in Ukraine fighting against Russian aggression, are not “mercenaries.” They are not fighting for money, but self-finance their mission to defend Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Volunteers come from around the world, but certain people are particularly concerned about Russian aggression or Russian tyranny under Vladimir Putin, the ex-Soviet intelligence officer who is trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union. Chechens, Georgians, Moldovans, Belarussians, and other Eastern Europeans are among the most represented contingents. Also contrary to Russian disinformation, Ukrainian resistors in Russian Federation-occupied parts of Ukraine are not “terrorists,” but are engaged in a guerilla campaign against Russian military forces. Terrorists target innocent civilians to intimidate the populace to give into their demands, but guerillas target government targets in small-scale attacks, sabotage, etc. These ad hominem attacks are part of a pattern from Putin’s Russia, which has falsely been accusing the free representative republican Ukrainian Government of being “fascist.” Similarly, Russia labeled all Chechens as “terrorists,” just as they labeled all opponents of Syrian tyrant Bashar Assad as “terrorists,” and any opponent of Putin is dismissed as “criminals” or “foreign agents.” Russia continues to use these false labels because they are effective, not only because Putin does not tolerate an independent press, but also because the professional media in the West and around the world routinely repeat Russian propaganda and disinformation in order to give both sides of a story, although sometimes the story is only the false Russian claims. Putin has attracted supporters from not only the far Left that typically favors anti-American dictators, but also from far Right “nationalists” with his phony emphasis on sovereignty, while violating that of other States as he tries to restore the Soviet Union. His bitterness toward the West for winning the Cold War and his greed for Russian wealth are his main motivations, not any valid principles he pretends to uphold in order to gain domestic and international favor.

A Conservative Basis for the Presidential Records Act

The Presidential Records Act requires Presidents to retain official documents, which, apart from documents that are classified as secret, are then catalogued and archived at that National Archives. Professional media reports about the federal law usually describe its intent as safeguarding presidential records from destruction for the benefit of historians. These expressions are true, but what is only implicit in them is what of greater significance: the purpose of the act is to help the public and the Electors, through the work of archivists and historians, to make better informed judgments about past Presidents and their Administrations. It is also to aid the people’s and the States’ representatives, the Congress in making laws. As a conservative and a historian, I especially appreciate the conservation of historical records, not only for the sake of historical interest for academics, but for the public interest, which is what the study of history is for, as history is the conservation of memory.

The Afghan War Was Not the Longest War in American History

The anniversary of the takeover of Afghanistan by the Islamist Taliban, who had harbored Islamist terrorists when they had been in power before, including al-Qaeda, the organization responsible for the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, is an opportune time to refute a widespread misleading statement about the Afghan War led by the United States and its allies to overthrow the Taliban. The War in Afghanistan was not “the longest war” in United States history, as the professional media, politicians and political commentators keep saying. Their reference to the Afghan war as such undoubtedly contributed to public opinion in favor of the premature withdrawal that allowed the Taliban militia that had harbored the al-Qaeda terrorist organization responsible for the deadliest terrorist attacks in history, the September 11 Attacks, to return to power. I had posted on this subject in my post, Afghanistan Is Not the Longest Ever U.S. War, in June of 2010: William Cinfici: Afghanistan Is Not the Longest Ever U.S. War, but even after 11 years, my point remains accurate that a false comparison is made. Longest Continuous Campaign: As a theater or battle within the War on Terrorism, perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to the Afghan War as the longest continuous campaign in American history, but it was not the longest major or even minor war, even if it were dated to have begun in 1996, with the first American missile strike on al-Qaeda. Comparison to Other Minor and Major Wars: The U.S. has not continuously been at war in Afghanistan since 2014, as there were only sporadic engagements since the U.S. ended its combat role, shifting to an advisory and support role while occasionally conducting drone strikes against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan had already become a minor war after the fall of the Taliban in 2002, but even counting the sporadic engagements and drone strikes as a war misleadingly counts the Afghan war longer than other wars. Other major American wars have become minor wars, such as the last two years each of the American Revolution until 1783 and the Vietnamese war after the U.S. withdrawal in 1973, but the common methods of counting of the length of such wars varies. A better example is the Liberation of Kuwait, as the Baathists of Iraq have continued to engage in combat against Americans since the 1991 ceasefire to the present. Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime had violated the ceasefire many times and then after his fall, Baathists and other Islamists inspired by their regime engaged in a guerilla campaign, working with other jihadists, including currently al-Qaeda in Iraq’s offshoot, the Islamic State. Thus, I have noted previously, the Liberation of Iraq was a second campaign of the Liberation of Kuwait, instead of two separate wars, interspersed with and succeeded by a minor war phase, although the second campaign was subsumed within the ongoing Global War on Terrorism. Other minor wars also involved sporadic engagements, sometimes frequently, over a longer period than the Afghan campaign, such as against Libya under dictator Muammar Qaddafi from 1981 to 2011, against the Syrian Assad regime from 1982 to 2017 and against Islamist Iran from the 1980s to 2020. Furthermore, what are commonly described as separate major or minor wars are often better understood as series of campaigns of wars, which were far longer than the Afghan campaign. For example, the U.S. has been engaged against Jihadists from the Eighteenth Century, from the Barbary Wars to the present. It was engaged in a series of major and minor wars against International Communists during the Cold War from 1946 to 1991. Even one of the individual campaigns of the Cold War, the Korean War, continued past the major war phase from 1950 to 1953, as there were a series of many clashes afterward until 1985. A Battle of the War on Terrorism: Moreover, Afghanistan, like Iraq and Syria have been, was a battle or campaign in the ongoing War on Terrorism, as Libya also had been several years after the fall of Qaddafi. Somalia is another example, where Americans have been in combat sporadically since 1993 and where there is a current advisory mission, as part of the campaign in the War on Terrorism against al-Qaeda’s largest affiliate. The War on Terrorism continues even in Afghanistan with the recent drone strike against the leader of al-Qaeda. Length of War Proved Perserverance, Not Problems: Regardless of how the Afghan War compares to other wars or series of wars, the length of the war did not represent a military failure or a failure to provide adequate support for the allied Afghan government, but a failure of the will to defeat the Taliban, instead of the strategy only of preventing their takeover, which was then abandoned with the Trump-Biden withdrawal, as I have posted. The length of the campaign had been a sign to both enemies and allies of American willingness to be patient, to endure and to be loyal to allies. Considering that Islamists have been engaged in warfare since the Seventh Century, twenty years was not a long time, especially considering the relatively small force and the few casualties. U.S. and allied forces have thus far successfully prevented Afghanistan from becoming such a safe haven for terrorists as to become again an international threat, but only continued vigilance will prevent it again.

Communist Chinese Promises and Threats to the Republic of China on Taiwan

Communist China has again been threatening Taiwan with military incursions and an explicit threat to use force to reunify it with mainland China. The island of Taiwan and its offshore islands, and the coastal island groups of Quemoy and Matsu, as well as part of the disputed Spratly Islands constitute the Republic of China, which is the remnant of the republican Chinese State taken over by the Communists in 1949 after the Chinese Civil War. The Republic of China’s parliamentary government, along with many Chinese refugees, re-located to Taiwan and remained in power as a government-in-exile until transitioning to a fully participatory liberal representative parliamentary republic in 1990. Taiwan has been peaceful, free and prosperous. Communist China’s claims of sovereignty over Taiwan, which it regards as a renegade province, are based solely on its victory in the civil war 73 years ago and its international diplomatic recognition, but its victory was incomplete, leaving the de jure Chinese government in power in Taiwan and the other islands. The Chinese Communist Party, which effectively rules mainland China as a one-party state, has never subjected itself to free and fair elections and tolerates no dissent. Around a dozen foreign States, including the Holy See, recognize the Republic of China on Taiwan as the legitimate Chinese government. The United States recognized Communist China in 1971, but, like many foreign States that also recognize Peking, maintains official, but non-diplomatic relations with Taiwan, as governed by a 1979 federal law that also pledges the U.S. to defend Taiwan. As I have posted, Communist China pressures States to recognize it in favor of Taiwan or even not to maintain non-diplomatic relations that refer to Taiwan, as if the island is independent. Peking also pressures international organizations not to include Taiwan. Communist China recently offered its “one country, two systems” regime for Taiwan, as it had for the former British territory of Hong Kong in 1997 and the former Portuguese territory of Macao in 1999, but, as I have been posting, has violated its promises of autonomy and political liberty for those territories. Communist China had also conquered Tibet in 1950, which it also represses. The Taiwanese are therefore rightly skeptical of Peking’s promises. The United States should continue to engage with the Republic of China and support Taiwan militarily enough to deter Communist Chinese aggression. Foreign States should continue to recognize the Republic of China or maintain or even upgrade their relations with Taiwan. The international community should support freedom and representative government and oppose threats of violence by Communist China.

Blog and Personal Note

With my last post, I am pleased to report that I have now posted more times this year than in any year since 2019, before I experienced vision and — especially — computer problems, among other problems. As is apparent, some vestiges of the computer problems remain that prevent indentation and line spacing, which presents challenges to communicating as effectively. Thank you for visiting my blog. In these difficult times, I shall continue to post in support of liberty, representative government and good language. Please continue to visit regularly.

The Preferred Name for the Russo-Ukrainian War

The professional media, as well as some political commentators, have created various names for the Russo-Ukrainian War, just as it ignorantly and yet arrogantly creates its own often-grammatically incorrect names for other wars, usually without any consistent convention, and regardless of the official names of these wars, as I have posted previously. The names for wars are in important shrothand way to describe them. In this post, I shall explain why some of the common names should be rejected and suggest which name is the proper one for the war. One of the most common is the “Ukraine War,” which is as grammatically incorrect as the “Iraq War” or the “Vietnam War,” as opposed to the “Korean War” or the “Mexican War.” “Ukrainian War” or the “War in Ukraine” are other names that are sometimes used. Although these names are grammatically correct, they fail to name the aggressor in the war: the Russian Federation. They thus imply that the war is strictly a civil war, which it has not been since it began in 2014, when Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine, despite a treaty after the breakup of the Soviet Union with the former Soviet Republic to recognize Ukrainian independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, including Crimea, in exchange for Ukraine’s relinquishment of former Soviet nuclear weapons. A deal was also struck between Russia and Ukraine for a base in Crimea for the Russian Black Sea fleet. The ethnic Russian separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine have been fomented by Russia, led by ex-Soviet intelligence officer, Vladimir Putin. Russians in the free representative republic of Ukraine are far freer than Russians in autocratic Russia. The Russian tyrant’s motive for starting the war is to nothing other than to restore the Soviet Union. The name “Russia-Ukraine War” includes Russia, and lists it first because it is the aggressor, but is grammatically incorrect, just as the “Ukraine-Russia War” is. The name that is the most grammatically correct and which most accurately describes the war is the “Russo-Ukrainian War,” which also is the most consistent with the usual convention for the naming of wars. Moreover, I note the inclusion of the word “War” in the name, as opposed to a “conflict,” as some media or political commentators describe it, as if there is some legitimate dispute between the two States, and not an unprovoked attempt by one to conquer the other. Therefore, it is also acceptable to refer to "Russian aggression against Ukraine," or some similar formulation. Start using "Russo-Ukrainian War" in writing and speech.

The Drone Strike on al-Qaeda’s Leader Does Not Justify the Withdrawal of Troops from Afghanistan

The drone strike by the United States on the leader of the Islamist terrorist organization, al-Qaeda, which I posted about in my last post, does not justify the withdrawal of American-led military forces from Afghanistan last year for several reasons. First, it has not been revealed how the U.S. gathered its intelligence about the al-Qaeda head’s location, but it was likely developed by human sources cultivated by the American troop presence in Afghanistan since 2001, after the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, the deadliest in history. Second, the Trump-Biden withdrawal allowed the leader of al-Qaeda to set up headquarters in the downtown of the Afghan capital for months, which likely facilitated his communication with his terrorist network and its allies. Third, the withdrawal deal was based on a promise by the Taliban militia not to harbor terrorists again were it to take power, which it obviously did not intend to keep. The Taliban leadership is intertwined with al-Qaeda allies and al-Qaeda advised the Taliban on its military offensive to take over Afghanistan last year and regain power. And fourth, unlike the special forces raid in Pakistan that killed al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in 2011, there was no capturing of a trove of intelligence from documents, computers, videos, etc. from the al-Qaeda headquarters. Such raids are difficult because of the lack of a base on Afghan soil from which to stage them, thus necessitating a reliance on satellites and drones. The U.S. had maintained a force of only a few thousand troops, as part of an American-led NATO force that had not been on a combat mission, but only an advisory mission in support of the Afghan government, and was thus hardly taking any casualties. That relatively small force had been sufficient to keep the Taliban from regaining power and again becoming a safe haven for terrorists it obviously has become, despite the major success of this particular drone strike. A small U.S.-led force should have been maintained in Afghanistan, just as there is a small training mission in Somalia against the al-Qaeda affiliate there.

The Leader of the Islamist Terrorist Organization Al-Qaeda Has Been Killed

The United States has killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of the Islamist terrorist organization, al-Qaeda, in a drone strike in Afghanistan. Zawahiri had merged his Egyptian Islamic Jihad into Osama bin Laden’s organization in the 1990s, served as its operational commander and has led the organization since the latter’s death in 2011. Al-Qaeda was responsible for the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, the deadliest in history, among many other attacks before and since. It has affiliates around the Islamic world, as does its offshoot, the Islamic State. The U.S. led an international coalition against the Taliban de facto regime that controlled most of Afghanistan because it had harbored the terrorist organization, overthrowing the Taliban by 2002 and keeping them regaining power until the American-led withdrawal last year. The U.S. has continued the Global War on Terrorism against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Syria and Somalia, although at a low intensity. The disastrous Trump-Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan allowed the Taliban, which is intertwined with Islamist terrorists, to regain power and again provide safe haven for its Islamist terrorist allies, while diminishing the of intelligence or means for U.S. and its allies to target al-Qaeda, while betraying Afghan and other allies. Zawahiri was able to command his organization from the downtown of the Taliban-led Afghan capital for months, surely with the Taliban’s knowledge and approval, despite their pledge not to harbor terrorists again. The withholding of international recognition of the Taliban and of frozen funds by the U.S. is thus validated. Drone strikes are effective at killing the enemy, but not as much as an intelligence-gathering tool that a raid with special forces that also captures documents, computers, videos, etc. Killing the head of al-Qaeda is a major blow to the organization and victory in the war, but must be followed up with the eradication of al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists from Afghanistan, lest the poor central Asian State once again be a source of terror for the world. And the Taliban must be held accountable for their complicity.