chronological - earliest first return to main page latest entry
January 1, 2005 A “Must Read”
This is really a “must read” — with a golden nugget in the middle. “The Heart of America” is from an e-mail sent December 14th to a blogger named Blackfive, and is posted on his site. If you haven’t already seen this, go read it now. You’ll be glad you did.
January 4, 2005 Egypt, Too
Heard on the radio news today (ABC News, 770 KKOB AM, Albuquerque, NM):
The UN’s nuclear watchdog agency has reported that Egypt, too, has nuclear WMD materials. One more client (like Libya and Iraq and Iran) of the nuclear black market that used to be run by the head of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, I guess. Do/did they also have a nuclear weapons program to use these materials? I’m sure they’ll say they don’t — is that cynical of me? I’ll be watching (and listening) for more on this.
January 18, 2005 Iraq and the War on Terror
A friend of mine sent me a message I want to respond to more publicly than average. Here's my response:
One thing you say is "I think the only solution is to make the losses that the radical Moslem community suffers be so large that the survival of their way of life is in danger." That sounds like a suggestion I've heard before, that we let it be known that the automatic response to any US city being hit with a WMD will be that Mecca and Medina will cease to exist. (This may be related: A [possibly apocryphal] story is told that Gene Roddenberry was once asked why there were no Muslims in Star Trek. He reportedly replied "Because it's in the future.")
Of course, we could never take such an action. Indeed, no one in any official — or even public — U.S. position could even make such a statement. In fact, I don't think such a threat — even if it was completely believable, and believed — would be a deterrent, for reasons I identify below.
I do recognize that this war, as you put it, "pits two totally different ideologies against each other." But the ideology opposing us is not Islam but fascism (national socialism). It's not a coincidence that the Ba'ath party that ruled Iraq (through Saddam Hussein) and rules Syria was explicitly modeled on the Nazi party of Germany. That suggests this war will end, just as World War II ended. Or perhaps the war on terrorism is actually the last campaign of World War II. In fact, one author I've seen goes farther than that, and suggests it's the last campaign of our own Hundred Years War (see Judge's article).
Justifying their war against us by our support for the only democracy in the Middle East is no more than pandering to the long-standing racism of the Arab culture. Israel, with or without our support for it, is not the real reason for the current conflict. It's notable that fatwas calling for attacks on Jews and their "supporters" were issued by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1930's — long before the existence of Israel, but not long after he got the guidance of Hitler and his top lieutenants in Berlin. Racism — not Israel — and absolute totalitarian control are the issues.
This is an ideological war, but not a religious war. It's as if the civil rights activists in the 1960's had been Muslims or Communists, instead of being evangelical Protestants — just like many of those that opposed them. Think how different things might have been had civil rights activism been capable of characterization as a religious conflict.
Overall, I think I'm a bit more hopeful than you are. I think the liberal racism that says Arabs and Muslims can't handle democracy is completely wrong. I think the terrorists, with their radical interpretations (which are really deliberate radical misinterpretations) of the Koran, recognize the danger a democratic state and religious freedom pose to their perversion of Islam. That's why they're fighting so hard against us in Iraq, and why Iran and Syria are providing them so much manpower and support. They know the establishment of a liberal democracy in Iraq means the end of the line for them. It will show they are no more relevant to Islam than the Jim Jones and David Koresh cults were to the Christianity they pretended to be a part of. And it will show the people of the Middle East do not want to go back to a perverted modern vision of the seventh century.
A small demurrer: Christianity clearly demonstrated the Jim Jones and David Koresh cults were fringe elements having nothing to do with the core of Christianity. Islam badly needs to demonstrate the same with respect to the perversions these thugs espouse.
And that's why I don't think the large-scale threat I mentioned above would work. The terrorists are not really Muslims any more than David Koresh's followers were really Christians. They are frauds and pretenders, wolves in sheep's clothing, abusing the language and symbols of Islam for their own purposes. The destruction of Mecca and Medina would not affect these thugs any more than it would have affected the more obviously secular Saddam Hussein.
I think democracy has a good chance of taking root in Iraq, just as it seems to be doing in Afghanistan (which the liberals assured us couldn't possibly happen). There will still be problems dealing with the criminal gangs (like Zarqawi's) and their political agendas, and it won't be a cakewalk, but the peoples of these countries are in position to be able to take control of their own governance. If that happens — admittedly not a sure thing — democracy will really be on the march.
This should also have a significant effect on Islam, tending to turn it away from the totalitarian instincts of a couple of its minor sects (cults) and back toward being a religion rather than a political/military movement.
And once these fascists go the way of their predecessors, I think the odds favor a substantial period of greater peace and prosperity.
February 2, 2005 Iraqi Elections
On January 23rd, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said “We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it.” He also said “Be careful of the enemy’s plan to implement so-called democracy in your country.” Thus al Qaeda’s (Jordanian) leader in Iraq has said those people are wrong who say this is an American war against Islam — it’s their war against democracy.
You must understand that people like Zarqawi are not Muslims any more than leaders of the Jim Jones or David Koresh cults are Christians. They are fascists using (abusing) Islamic coloration. (The January 29th Ramirez cartoon shown here provides a different, though parallel, view.) And now the Iraqis themselves have given the best answer to Zarqawi (see the January 30th “Day by Day” cartoon below and lots of pictures from Sunday’s election). It was truly amazing to see the commitment to democracy and self-government the Iraqis showed. One key measure: It looks like they had a higher voter turnout that we did — and we weren’t threatened with death if we voted. (We don’t get an indelible mark to show we voted, either.) That should give a finger in the eye of all the “liberal” racists who have spent so many months and years insisting Arabs and Muslims don’t want, and are culturally incapable of handling, the forms and substance of democracy. Those “liberals” should read some of the Iraqi blogs, like Iraq the Model and Hammorabi and others linked there, among many others. (If they would prefer, there are other sites with a Ba’athist perspective. They couldn’t have functioned under the prior Ba’athist regime, either, any more than these could.) The strength of the Iraqis, and that of the Afghans before them, makes me more positive than ever in my hopes for the Middle East. Update: Reformatted this entry to put the cartoons inline, and changed the wording referring to the cartoons.
February 9, 2005 Supporting Our Troops
Something seems to be happening all around the country. For the last two or three months, I've been seeing (on the Web, not in the mainstream press) an increasing number of small items about popular responses to military personnel — especially those returning from Iraq, and especially in airports — applause, thanks, and expressions of support from citizens to soldiers. A new one I just read was sent to a friend of mine by a fellow churchman.
There were earlier shows of support. When our servicemen were first coming home on leave from Iraq, Defense Department policy just got them back to their U.S. port of entry. Getting home from there, and back there for their return trip, was up to them. At first. Here in New Mexico, Albuquerque radio station KKOB raised tens of thousands of dollars (more than $70,000 as I recall) to reimburse our active duty troops, and especially our National Guard troops, for these out-of-pocket expenses so it wouldn’t cost them anything to come home from the war on leave. (The funds were diverted to other military support activities when the DoD policy changed to pay the servicemen's travel costs.) Other demonstrations of support popped up in other parts of the country.
This “sense of the population” has now been reflected “Anheuser-Busch’s Super Bowl ad (viewable here and here) featuring U.S. servicemen getting a round of applause in an airport terminal.” (The quotation is from here.) The ad has been featured a number of places in the blogosphere (on Michelle Malkin’s site, for example — and note the homecoming stories she links to), and in two three successive days of James Taranto’s Best of the Web column from February 7 through February 9 (the item titled “Then They Spat, Now We Cheer”).
With the response Taranto has gotten, I expect there will be more follow-up in coming days. Two examples from today’s column are indicative. Reader David Krueger says
I pity those both here and abroad who don't understand that this public, spontaneous, unrehearsed and heartfelt honoring of our men and women in uniform is a privilege enjoyed only by the proponents of a just cause.
And Tom Reynolds says
To me, the Anheuser-Busch ad is successful because it reflects a current attitude and practice the media won't report. The war in Iraq isn't Vietnam; it's not a quagmire, and it's not something the media are going to spin as dishonorable or as a failure.
The bottom line, to me, is that the opponents of this war (the Far Left, International ANSWER, and their ilk — “they’re not anti-war, they’re just on the other side”) are an aberration (though a loud one). A clear majority of the population appears to support our actions in the War on Terror, including in the war’s Iraqi Theater, and so support those entrusted to carry out this mission. In essence, the proper comparison for public response to this war is not from Viet Nam, it’s from World War II.
And this isn’t a new development. It has been developing for some time. Note that one incident reported in the second Best of the Web is from 1991.
August 3, 2005 Steven Vincent, RIP
A U.S. journalist has been targeted and killed in Iraq. He was not, as CNN’s former boss Eason Jordan would have it, targeted by U.S. forces — Steven Vincent was targeted, kidnapped at gunpoint, and murdered by the totalitarian fascists in Iraq.
I was not all that familiar with Vincent’s articles. I hadn’t regularly read or identified them. Still, the power of his words is undeniable. Here’s a sample, from a Front Page magazine interview quoted by Arthur Chrenkoff:
Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word “guerillas.” As you noted, mainstream media sources like the New York Times often use the terms “insurgents” or “guerillas” to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilize the phrase “paramilitary death squads.” Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, “insurgents” — and especially “guerillas” — has a claim on our sympathies that “paramilitaries” lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni Triangle gunmen “right wing paramilitary death squads.” Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war.
Supporters of the conflict in Iraq bear much blame for allowing the terminology — and, by extension, the narrative — of events to slip from our grasp and into the hands of the anti-war camp. Words and ideas matter. Instead of saying that the Coalition “invaded” Iraq and “occupies” it today, we could more precisely claim that the allies liberated the country and are currently reconstructing it. More than cosmetic changes, these definitions reflect the nobility of our effort in Iraq, and steal rhetorical ammunition from the left.
The most despicable misuse of terminology, however, occurs when Leftists call the Saddamites and foreign jihadists “the resistance” What an example of moral inversion! For the fact is, paramilitary death squads are attacking the Iraqi people. And those who oppose the killers — the Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, members of the Allawi government, people like Nour — they are the “resistance.” They are preventing Islamofascists from seizing Iraq, they are resisting evil men from turning the entire nation into a mass slaughterhouse like we saw in re-liberated Falluja. Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamofascism — or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought — should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language.
James Taranto says “May he rest in peace.” To which I can only add “Amen.”
When I was here last year, we found an entire artillery battalion, (18 Self propelled Howitzers) hidden in the sands of western Iraq, they had been there for 5 years, and those pictures have since been on the Internet. If one man can hide something the size of an artillery battalion, how hard would it be to hide 55 Gallon drums of Chemical agents?
Go read these pieces. They’re worth it. And thanks to the Mudville Gazette for pointing us to Caelestis’ blog. Recommended.
September 11, 2005 Never Forget!
It has been four years since we were attacked. Do not forget either the villains or the heroes of that day.
November 5, 2005 The Missing WMDs
The rabid left is still pretending that BUSH LIED!!!! Nevertheless, there really is a basis for believing that
The Bush Administration should have known that there was a problem with its analysis of Saddam's weapons program. The tipoff: when it found that it was on the same page as Jimmy Carter.
November 20, 2005 Those Missing WMDs
Reader Jeff Medcalf e-mailed Glenn Reynolds about the white phosphorus use charges that
It seems to me that the Left's position is inconsistent: if WP rounds are WMD, then Saddam clearly had massive WMD stockpiles, and the war was justified.
But, of course, they’re only illegal if they’re ours (which seems, to me, to fit the classic definition of hypocrisy)!
I seriously don’t understand how the Left can keep pretending that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. He used them against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi civilians. He worked hard to develop more WMDs of more types. He worked even harder to hide them from the inspectors, who found sizable amounts of them anyway. After the invasion, coalition forces found large stockpiles of unfilled chemical weapon shells associated with large stockpiles of “pesticides”, gas masks, and decontamination equipment in the same camoflaged ammunition dumps. (I guess they’re not chemical weapons if they’re not filled and ready to fire.) And I would think the 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium the U.S. has now removed from Iraq, as well as the larger amount of natural uranium found, might be indicators of an active nuclear weapons program.
So where did the WMDs go? That is the $64,000 question. Some may have been destroyed to support Saddam’s pretenses. But the best guesses seem to be some WMDs were transferred to Syria and others were buried under the sands like the tanks and jet fighters that have been found. It may be a longer time before they are found again. And after they are found, there will be some with a vested interest in denial who will claim they are not what they are.
I heard today an interview with Senator Joe Biden, and I heard him making a number of statements that are simply not true. (A number of his colleagues have made the same or similar statements — and worse; I’m picking on Biden because I heard him making them today.) He said, as he has said before, that the Bush Administration claimed Iraq had nuclear weapons and was an imminent threat. Sen. Biden either knows these statements are untrue, or has deliberately chosen to maintain his ignorance — including by refusing to read even the intelligence reports that have hit the newspapers and, especially, the testimonies of Iraq Survey Group heads Charles Duelfer and David Kay. And, of course, he must have avoided articles like Norman Podhoretz’ recent one on who is really lying about WMDs and Iraq. (No, I don’t really think that level of deliberate ignorance could have been maintained.)
Differences of opinion are to be expected, and differing interpretations of what various facts mean. But we should be able to expect responsible individuals not to be dishonest about the facts themselves.
November 25, 2005 Exit Strategy
I’ve grown incredibly tired of those who say “the President must define an ‘exit strategy.’” — or words to like effect. This sounds to me like they are insisting that the President define how we will cut & run, abandon our allies, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and declare ourselves defeated — perhaps through the mechanism of declaring a false victory and running away. It sounds a lot like that, but let’s look a little deeper.
At one level, this insistence — this demand — looks rather disingenuous. Why is an “exit strategy” required? What was our “exit strategy” in World War I (the War to End All Wars)? What was our “exit strategy” in Korea? What “exit strategy” did Franklin Roosevelt have in World War II? One does not normally go into something as serious as a war with a plan for how to subsequently back out of it.
At another level, however, we have had exit strategies in those prior wars, and and do have one now. Our exit strategy in World War I was “We win, then we come home.” Our exit strategy in World War II was “We win, then we come home,” expressed in our demand for our adversaries’ “unconditional surrender.” (In that war, too, there were many in this country who thought that was too much to expect.) In this war, the President has repeatedly said our forces will stay as long as it takes to accomplish their assigned objectives “and not one day longer.” That sounds to me a lot like “We win, then we come home.” And that is the proper “exit strategy” for a war we are serious about.
December 14, 2005 An Iraqi Voter Speaks
Compare the words (and ideas) of an Iraqi voter with those of this country’s leading Democrats.
“The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.” — Howard Dean, Democrat party chairman
“And there is no reason… that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — of — the historical customs, religious customs.” — John Kerry, Democrat Senator
“The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home. — John Murtha, Democrat Congressman
“Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done, and President Bush, let them go to hell!” — Betty Dawisha, 77, Iraqi voter
Only one of these four has knowledge of the conditions on the ground in Iraq before U.S. forces arrived, and since. That’s the one worth listening to.
December 28, 2005 Breaking Laws
Much has been written in the last two weeks about the New York Times’ publication of leaked classified information on a National Security Agency program to monitor international communications between terrorists overseas and their contacts in the United States. That publication has created a storm of controversy.
I will not attempt to go through the whole case here — others have already done that better than I could. What I will do is lay out some conclusions that have now become clear. A subset of relevant postings and articles is in a list below.
The New York Times and its supporters are going all out with their claim that the program itself broke the law, and that President Bush broke the law in ordering it. In fact, there is a significant clump of the angry Left who are now saying that ordering this program is an impeachable offense, and are calling for the President’s impeachment. There are at least two key things wrong with this claim:
The Times itself noted in a follow-up article that it was only accidentally that communications inside this country were intercepted. It thus acknowledges those collections as different from the others and, implicitly, the legitimacy of the other interceptions. (Those accidental collections were cases like that of an al Qaeda member, who had not been known to have come into this country, using an international cell phone. The Times’ story indicates that [apparently in an attempt to be sure to avoid breaking the law] those intercepts were deleted.)
The case law is unanimous in saying the president has the authority to order searches and surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information. All the case law — every adjudicated case involving this issue — has come to the same conclusion. Some legal authorities may disagree, or insist this case would produce a new and different result, but that’s what the precedents say. The legal authorities from Democrat and Republican administrations agree: This program is legal. Even the New York Times reported, in a 1982 article reprinted by NewsBusters, that a federal appeals court had said this kind of intercept is legal, though they now pretend otherwise.
It seems to me the Times either knew these things, and published the story anyway, or they failed to do the most basic of research on the most relevant questions. The evidence says the former case is the truth.
The clearest thing in this entire story is that the Times’ sources committed felonies. Disclosing or publishing classified information regarding communications intelligence to unauthorized persons is a specific crime meriting ten years in prison. Other laws deal also deal with the disclosure of classified information to unauthorized persons. Additional laws may also apply since the disclosures directly assisted our terrorist enemies. Those who leaked and published this information did so either with an intent to assist those who want to destroy us or without caring that they were assisting our enemies. If the War on Terror were a “normal” war against another country, these actions would surely be identified as treasonous. They may still constitute treason even though our enemies in this war are not controlled by a national government and the information transfer was not direct and clandestine.
Statistics from the FBI and the Justice Department say more than 100 planned attacks were thwarted by what the Baltimore Sun identified as “domestic surveillance” — probably this program. That’s one attack every other week for the last four years that has been prevented. Thanks to the New York Times and its sources, that information source has been compromised, and the terrorists have already changed their communications strategies. That means the Times and its leakers have made us a lotlesssafe.
One niggling additional detail is that the Times was originally given the information about the NSA program fourteen or fifteen months ago, but held publication of the story till now. That seems to mean the leakers’ agenda was to prevent President Bush’s re-election at whatever cost to the country, while the agenda of the Times and their reporters was to maximize their book deal profits at whatever cost to the country. Or perhaps the Times was just coordinating the timing of their stories with their allies in the Democratic Party leadership to advance the Democrats’ agenda. These people are reprehensible.
At this point, two avenues need to be followed up — one for sure and the other conditionally:
Everyone at the Times who had anything to do with this story must be brought in and made to identify their source(s) of information. The source(s)/leaker(s) must be apprehended, charged, tried, convicted, and imprisoned, along with the reporters, editors, and publishers who published their disclosures. Some have suggested the Times should be closed as a criminal organization.
If there is another terrorist attack in this country or its assets abroad (e.g., ships, embassies, etc.), especially one that might reasonably have been prevented through information that would have been gathered by this program if it had not been compromised, those same individuals and organizations must be held financially responsible for all losses of life and property.
Another thing that needs to be done, despite the continuing efforts of the Times and its allies, is to change the terms of discussion. Since the legality of the program is now established, we need to be talking about the criminal behavior of the Times and its leakers, its reporters, and its publisher.
One more thing: Following John Hinderaker of Power Line, I note that
The Valerie Plame case* has established that any leak of classified information from an intelligence agency is a serious matter, regardless of how trivial the information may be, and must result in criminal investigation and prosecution.
. . . .
Under the Plame precedent, this case is a no-brainer. The intelligence officials who leaked to the Times should be identified, criminally prosecuted, and sent to prison.
If the those on the Left are not to be complete and absolutehypocrites they must immediately call for an investigation to determine who has been leaking this information, and for prosecution of those individuals and organizations to the maximum extent of the law. Failure to do so on the part of any individual or organization should be taken as clear evidence of deliberate, intentional alliance with al Qaeda and other self-declared enemies of the United States.
Laws are made to protect the people, not to be used against them by the enemy. — Walid Phares, The Counterterrorism Blog
The New York Times — a once-great and still-powerful institution — is badly in need of adult supervision. — New York Post Preferably adults with subpoenas. — Michelle Malkin
UPDATE: Added the two quotations immediately above, and related links.
*It is still not clear any law was broken in this case. The special prosecutor has not said that any law was broken in the leak of Valerie Plame’s name, and has not charged the person he said leaked her name with a crime in doing so.
John Hinderaker has written a remarkable summary of the laws and precedents applicable to this case. That summary and a selection of other postings and articles are listed below:
catch them but don’t watch them
href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/20051227/cm_nypost/thegrayladytoyswithtreason">The Gray Lady Toys With Treason
December 8, 2005 Terror & Islam — A Discussion
A group of us have been having a discussion is slow-motion. I want to let all of you in on what’s being said.
I’m going to do this in a way different than any of my other posts. The full discussion record is long and will be getting longer. So, rather than include the discussion as a part of this entry (both here on the main page and in the subject area / category page), I will set the discussion text up as a separate page, in chronological order, with links (in the synopsis below) from this entry to all the discussion’s sections. When there is an addition to the discussion, that page and this entry will expand (and this entry will move to the the current date).
The complete discussion can be accessed here, if desired. A short synopsis of the discussion so far, with links to the individual elements, is as follows:
JB started this discussion with an e-mail suggesting that there is a reason for considering “Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40” a threat.
BT was incensed, and responded with a message noting that extremists are not identifiable by externalities, strongly objected to such profiling, and said clearly that the terrorist ideology is not Islam.
GC suggested one should look hardest at groups that have shown they are a threat, and asked how we can separate terrorists from real Muslims — especially when it seems Muslims won’t.
JB was intrigued with some of the observations expressed, and wondered if the discussion shouldn’t be made more available.
GC sent a subsequent message responding to more of BT’s long message (with graphics!), with the promise of more later.
As of now, that’s where this discussion stands. More to come (possibly) soon.
January 21, 2006 Breaking Laws 2
All the news coverage has made me think more about the NSA intercept program publicized by the New York Times, discussed below. (And one thing I think is the Times doesn’t read anything they haven’t written themselves.)
I’ve seen several people note that, while they would like to be able to put the reporters, editors, and publishers who released the information on this program to the public — and to our enemies — in jail, that can’t be done. They and those supporting the leakers say the legal precedents may allow prosecution of the leakers but would not allow prosecution of the newspaper and its employees.
It appears the precedents they’re thinking about are those set in the “Pentagon Papers” case. In that case, if memory serves, pre-publication restraint was ruled out, as was any prosecution of the newspaper — once again, the New York Times.
It seems to me, however, that this case is clearly distinguishable from that one. This is true in at least three areas:
The Times was, at least arguably, an innocent third party to the theft and disclosure of the papers they published in the previous case. This time they are a direct party to the theft and disclosure of highly classified information.
It was argued at the time, and may have been true, that the “Pentagon Papers” were not properly classified — that the information they contained was actually unclassified, and the papers were improperly classified to keep that information under wraps. This time there is no question about the proper classification of the NSA program and all information associated with it. This is not just ordinary classified information, controlled under regulations pursuant to an executive order; this is a special category of program and information, controlled under specific statutory authority. That was also true in the Rosenberg case in the 1950’s.
The disclosure of the information contained in the “Pentagon Papers” posed no threat to the people or government of the United States. That is not the case here. This time they disclosed a program targetted at people who are trying to kill Americans anywhere they can — terrorists who have sworn their enmity to us. There has already been testimony that information obtained through this program was used to prevent a number of terrorist attacks. And now, thanks to the New York Times, that information source is, at the very least, a lot less fruitful.
There appears to be a strong basis for the prosecution in this case of the faithless leakers, the reporters, the editors, the publisher, and the New York Times itself. I think all should be pursued.
January 29, 2006 The NSA Key
I have been thinking of the NSA monitoring flap in the terms of the clash itself — a manifestation of the Left’s detestation of our current president. That detestation is so large that the Left proclaims this set of leaks without caring about the danger their disclosures bring, or managing somehow to convince themselves that the danger doesn’t really exist. (Whistling past the graveyard, anyone?)
But A.J.Strata reminds us of the real (though seemingly small) change implemented after 9/11. The change is not to monitoring from not monitoring — it’s in what is done with some of the information obtained. Basically, in current terms, the NSA no longer deletes the identity of the U.S.-located recipient of foreign intelligence communications intercepts, and now passes the information on to the FBI for evaluation of whether further investigation is required. Further monitoring, if any, would be under the authority of the FISA court. Go read the whole Strata-Sphere piece.
Strata also summarizes the Department of Justice case supporting the legality of the NSA program.
Clarice Feldman has a related article noting Judge Posner’s arguments on the subject. She comments that Posner
describes the program as far as we know it, detailing why FISA is useful only to monitor known terrorists in the US, and is unusable to discover who in the US is a terrorist. And that is because FISA is modeled on a law enforcement model, not on a wartime intelligence one.
He continues the argument by noting any fear of infringement on civil liberties can be easily resolved — any evidence obtained without a warrant can be used only to interdict terrorist activities and could be barred from use at trial.
Just to round things out, Ed Morrissey has a stunningreport that demonstrates why foreign intelligence monitoring programs have been needed — and used — for decades. I think it makes the point on why we cannot give a terrorist a “pass” just because s/he has gotten through our border.
If you ever needed conclusive proof that the terrorists and terrorist entities (al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, etc.) are not Muslims, this is it. It appears that foreign terrorists, probably al Qaeda in Iraq, are responsible for turning the Golden Mosque (also known as the Al Askari or Askariya Mosque) in Samarra, shown on the left, into the rubble shown on the right.
Omar at Iraq the Model notes that “this particular shrine had been in Sunni territory for a thousand years”* without being harmed, “and the residents of Samarra had always benefited from the movement of religious tourism and pilgrimage.”
We shouldn't be surprised. After all, we should remember what the terrorist rulers of Afghanistan did in this valley, at Bamiyan.
That’s where the tallest statues of Buddha in the world were. They were carved into the sandstone cliffs of the valley in about the third to the fifth centuries A.D., and were 55 and 37 meters tall. Their existence offended the Taliban, so they turned the tallest statue (left below) into empty space (right below) in March of 2001. They destroyed the other statues at Bamiyan, too, and set out to destroy every statue in the country.
I have long maintained these terror groups are not Muslims, but are only masquerading as Muslims as a means of gaining power and setting up their fascist dictatorships. When in control, they act as the fascist totalitarians they are, though they maintain the appearance of a Muslim society because that’s how they maintain control and that’s what they grew up in.
Others have noticed this, too. After the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, for example, the Japan Times ran a story headlined Taliban Fanaticism Is Not Typical of Islam (registration required). The headline is true. And that’s another way of saying our war is against the Islamofascists, not against Islam.
But that still leaves us with a problem: How do we separate the Muslims from the fascists pretending to be Muslims?
UPDATE: See Hammorabi for an Iraqi view of where the responsibility for this crime against humanity lies. (Hint — It’s the Wahhabis.)
* Several of the news reports I’ve seen have said this mosque/shrine is more like 1200 years old. Perhaps the territory has only been Sunni for the last thousand or so.
February 28, 2006 Exit Strategy 2
Rep. Murtha (among others) wants us to run from Iraq. He wants our troops out of this “war we can’t possibly win” — he suggests to Okinawa, so they will be “nearby”. The Left and a sizable chunk of the Democrat’s leadership agree. Many of them say we should run from Afghanistan, as well — some saying we’ve done as much as we can do there.
Therefore, herewith, my recommended exit strategy for both Iraq and Afghanistan — which I saw proposed and published by Blackfive, fifteen and a half months ago (November 17, 2004): In addition to providing an exit strategy, this strategy can also deal with Iran’s nuclear program, their supporting a variety of terrorist groups and harboring members of terrorist groups including al Qaeda, and their probable involvement in the bombing of the Askariya shrine (the Golden Mosque) in Samarra last week as part of their attempts to foment civil war in Iraq to promote their own supremacy.
March 5, 2006 Muslim Manifestos
A group of (mostly) Muslim intellectuals has put forth a manifesto, published first by the Jyllands-Posten in Denmark and posted (with responses) on Agora. Among the dozen signers are Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Salman Rushdie, and Ibn Warraq.
Quite a number of other folks have signed on to this manifesto. Those I have seen who have not (e.g., AJStrata here, with a follow-up here) seem to have trouble with the part that says:
We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of “Islamophobia”, an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
In particular, they seem to have stumbled over one phrase — “criticism of Islam as a religion”, in which they seem to have equated criticism with condemnation. It seems to me, however, that “criticism” as used here is closer to literary criticism or critical analysis. Otherwise — if this “critical spirit” was condemnatory — none of the signers would (or could) be Muslims. Indeed, part of the manifesto’s point is the warped view of the Islamists that considers any non-laudatory comment to be a condemning and stigmatizing attack, and the need to discriminate between Muslims and these Islamists.
I (and others) have long maintained that the Islamists (i.e., Islamofascists, especially including the terrorists) do not represent Islam (see, for example, Terrorists Are Not Muslims and parts of Terror & Islam here). I have said this in different ways, and will do so again. But just now I like the way McQ said it on QandO:
Islamism is a totalitarian ideology to be resisted by all freedom loving people. Islamism does not equal Islam, but is, instead, a totalitarian movement which improperly uses Islam as a basis of its legitimacy (something which must be rejected). Islamism is a reactionary ideology bent on world domination. The end-state would be a totalitarian theocratic regime.
At this point, the fact that the end-state regime would be theocratic is almost irrelevant. The key fact is that it, like its fascist and communist brothers, would be totalitarian.
“Who are the moderate Muslims, and why do they not speak up?” After being asked this question over and over again since 9/11, particularly after the Danish cartoon crisis, we decided to propose the following Muslim Manifesto
Mustafa Akyol and Zeyno Baran — two Turkish Muslim intellectuals, one in Turkey and the other in Washington — explained themselves this way as they published their Muslim Manifesto Against Violence & Tyranny in the Name of Islam. It is a more comprehensive document, detailing doctrinal bases for rejecting “those who promote or practice tyranny and violence in the name of Islam”. Definitely worth reading and considering.
I, too, have asked questions very like this. For example, in this discussion (linked here), I asked
How do we separate the Muslim religion from the terrorists when, generally, Muslims themselves won’t? If Muslims don’t or won’t consider terrorists un-Islamic, why should anyone else?
Perhaps these manifestos — clearly separating the fascists and terrorists from the Muslims — are part of my answer. And if not the beginning, they are at the very least a step in the movement of the Muslim community toward full and public rejection of the Islamofascists and their terrorist agents by the Muslim majority.
May 5, 2006 Political Correctness
And then there’s the apologia for al Qaeda’s admitted terrorist that claims that “he just wanted to be a good muslim”. (Actually, this strikes me more as something from the Looney Left masquerading under a Political Correctnessbanner.)
“He wanted to revive his roots which were in Islam. He wanted to be a good Muslim, a knowledgeable Muslim, who wanted to know how to implement the tenets of Islam and make sense of the society he was living in,’ said Mr Baker.
At the mosque Moussaoui would normally be accompanied by his childhood friend Xavier Jaffo. Both men would take the road to radicalism that would lead them to aspire to martyrdom.
This looks to me like a full admission that the “Religion of Peace”TM isn’t, that much of Islam indeed promotes Jihad as Holy War and demands its adherents attack non-muslims. (Oh, sorry, that’s a non-PC thought! Guess I must not be an active liberal!)
No, I’m not offended by immature ignorant children — even when they’re trying their best to be offensive.
I am offended by fascist liars (yes, I know I’m being repetitive and redundant) who use those they defraud (and their ignorance) for their own purposes, to try to establish their own tyrannies. Examples: I am offended that these people attack as fascist the country that (oversimplifying only slightly) fought the fascists and defeated them in Germany and Italy and Japan. I am offended that they still pretend that “it’s all about oil” when, if it were, we would never have released control of the oil fields we held in early 1991. (Don’t these people have any brains at all? Or do they think we don’t?) I am offended at the fascists’ threatening all who don’t share their warped viewpoints and violating the most basic human rights norms, of their own people as well as of everyong else, as a matter of course.
Cops beating Copts. Muslim police teach an Egyptian Christian his place in Islamic society.
I am offended by those who enforce their control and demonstrate their pretense of being based in a religion, and who demonstrate their insecurity in their own sect’s belief structure, by attempting to destroy any person or group that doesn’t share it (image above and words).
The conspirators and their suckers do not fear my offense, however. That’s because I come from a nationality and an ethnic group that has actually learned something in the past 1600 years, and doesn’t routinely express its offense in violence and destruction and murder.
And when is the last time you saw folks from other religions with signs like these? It seems these are characteristic of onlyone of the world’s major religions.
May 5, 2006 Political Correctness
And then there’s the apologia for al Qaeda’s admitted terrorist that claims that “he just wanted to be a good muslim”. (Actually, this strikes me more as something from the Looney Left masquerading under a Political Correctness banner.)
“He wanted to revive his roots which were in Islam. He wanted to be a good Muslim, a knowledgeable Muslim, who wanted to know how to implement the tenets of Islam and make sense of the society he was living in,’ said Mr Baker.
At the mosque Moussaoui would normally be accompanied by his childhood friend Xavier Jaffo. Both men would take the road to radicalism that would lead them to aspire to martyrdom.
This looks to me like a full admission that the “Religion of Peace”TM isn’t, that much of Islam indeed promotes Jihad as Holy War and demands its adherents attack non-muslims. (Oh, sorry, that’s a non-PC thought! Guess I must not be an active liberal!)
May 24, 2006 Bullets Dodged
Many of us have dodged bullets of one kind or another. Once in a while we may even know it. But not like Pat Gilmore.
Pat Gilmore was a Delta 767 pilot (now retired) who had Mohammed Atta in his cockpit just six weeks before the 9/11 attacks. One can only imagine how he felt when he saw his jumpseat passenger show up on TV as the lead hijacker.
There’s also a reminder (for those who have forgotten) that the 911 attacks were part of a larger plan. Specifically, he notes:
[W]hile only four airliners crashed that day, four more were targeted, and two of them were Delta flights. The only reason these four weren't involved is because they either had minor maintenance problems which delayed them at the gate or they were scheduled to depart after the FAA decided to ground all flights. Theirs are the pilots and flight attendants who REALLY dodged the bullet that day.
Some things require some thought and analysis. Others are simply self-evident and completely obvious. This is one of the latter.
We’re now hearing that coalition forces have found more than 500 chemical weapons munitions. (See, for example, theseinitialstories.) Thus, regardless of arguments over details, it appears that — John Kerry[*] told the truth about Iraq’s WMDs before lying about them. — Teddy Kennedy told the truth about Iraq’s WMDs before lying about them. — Hillary Clinton told the truth about Iraq’s WMDs before lying about them. — Bill Clinton told the truth about Iraq’s WMDs before lying about them. — Nancy Pelosi told the truth about Iraq’s WMDs before lying about them. — Harry Reid told the truth about Iraq’s WMDs before lying about them. — Tom Daschle told the truth about Iraq’s WMDs before lying about them. — etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum
It now appears the top politician who was consistently telling the truth was George W. Bush. (!) (But, of course, the Left has been telling us for years that BUSH LIED! — which just goes to show how deliberately ignorant and/or duplicitous the Left has been in this area.)
* “I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.”
June 23, 2006 A Formal Apology
OK, this Mike Adams piece is two years old — but it’s circulating again — and it’s still on point.
I have decided to make a formal public apology to the entire Arab world in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib. It is my hope that the following apology will help bring some clarity to the situation and, who knows, maybe even lasting world peace:
Dear Arabs,
I am truly sorry that Americans decided to take up arms and sacrifice their own youth in the defense of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the first Gulf War. After we clear up this mess in Iraq, we will refrain from any such activity in the future.
I am truly sorry that I did not hear any of you call for an apology from Muslim extremists after 911. After all, the hijackers were all Arabs.
I am truly sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships throughout the Middle East. I am also sorry that the “leaders” of these nations drive their citizens into poverty by keeping all of the wealth in the hands of a select few.
I am also sorry that these governments intentionally breed hate for the U.S. in their religious schools while American schools do the exact opposite.
I am sorry that Yasir Arafat has been kicked out of every Arab country and has attached his name to the Palestinian “cause”. I am also sorry that no other Arab country will offer nearly as much support to Arafat as we offer to them.
I am sorry that the U.S. has continued to serve as the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arab nations while wealthy Arab leaders blame the U.S. for all of their problems.
I am sorry that left-wing media elites would Rather (pun intended) not talk about any of this, thereby perpetuating your anger towards us. It’s probably really bad for your blood pressure. I am also sorry that most of you lack the medical resources to measure your blood pressure. And, of course, I’m sorry that few of you have indoor plumbing. That’s bad for your health, too.
I am sorry that the U.N. cheated so many poor people in Iraq out of their “food for oil” money so they could get rich while the tortured, raped, and poverty-stricken citizens of Iraq suffered under Saddam Hussein.
I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers after their children are blown to pieces in pursuit of Arafat’s “cause”.
I am sorry that these homicide bombers have as little regard for babies as the local office of Planned Parenthood.
I am sorry that so many people are unable to differentiate between the gang rape rooms and mass graves of Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the conditions of Abu Ghraib on the other.
I am sorry that our prison guards do not show the same restraint that Arabs show when their brothers in arms are killed. (By the way, you shouldn’t be sorry about that.)
I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. I am sorry we have not yet dropped at least 100 Daisy cutters on Fallujah in order to stop that effort.
I am also sorry that cleaning up the mess in Iraq is taking so long. It only took Saddam Hussein about 30 years to accomplish all he did in the realm of human rights. Come to think of it, that’s about ten years less than the duration of our War on Poverty in the U.S. Come to think of it, I’m sorry we haven’t sent all of our gang bangers from South Central Los Angeles to Fallujah.
I am sorry that every time the terrorists hide, it just happens to be inside a “Holy Site”.
I am sorry that Muslim extremists have not yet apologized for the U.S.S. Cole, the embassy bombings, and for flying a plane into the World Trade Center, which collapsed in part on Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which is one of our Holy Sites.
I am sorry that we have not taken a portion of the diet of Michael Moore and shipped it to one of your starving villages in the Middle East. You need it Moore (pun intended) than he does.
I am sorry that your only supporters are professors, journalists, and other assorted Leftists who also support homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, partial birth abortion, and everything that you abhor in this world. I am sorry that everyone else in America is against you.
Finally, I am sorry that I am going to have to end this apology by asking you to kiss the right side of my conservative butt. I’m probably just having a bad day.
For that I am truly sorry.
The original author’s note says “The following editorial contains mildly offensive language. Given the subject matter, the author is sorry that it does not contain highly offensive language.”
July 21, 2006 (update) Terror & Islam — A Discussion
A group of us have been having a discussion is slow-motion. I want to let all of you in on what’s being said.
I’m going to do this in a way different than any of my other posts. The full discussion record is long and will be getting longer. So, rather than include the discussion as a part of this entry (both here on the main page and in the subject area / category page), I will set the discussion text up as a separate page, in chronological order, with links (in the synopsis below) from this entry to all the discussion’s sections. When there is an addition to the discussion, that page and this entry will expand (and this entry will move to the the current date).
The complete discussion can be accessed here, if desired. A short synopsis of the discussion so far, with links to the individual elements, is as follows:
JB started this discussion with an e-mail suggesting that there is a reason for considering “Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40” a threat.
BT was incensed, and responded with a message noting that extremists are not identifiable by externalities, strongly objected to such profiling, and said clearly that the terrorist ideology is not Islam.
GC suggested one should look hardest at groups that have shown they are a threat, and asked how we can separate terrorists from real Muslims — especially when it seems Muslims won’t.
JB was intrigued with some of the observations expressed, and wondered if the discussion shouldn’t be made more available.
GC sent a subsequent message responding to more of BT’s long message (with graphics!), with the promise of more later.
After too long a time, GCfinally sent the promised additional message, which deals with some of the history brought to mind by BT’s earlier message.
JB replied quickly with some thoughts and questions.
As of now, that’s where this discussion stands. More to come?
July 21, 2006 Case Dismissed
There’s a column I first read just under three months ago that my mind keeps going back to. I cannot claim the library the Ottawa Citizen’s David Warren evidently has, or the accomplishments of his lineage, but this column of his comes very close to expressing my feelings on the subject of anti-Muslim bias. His final paragraph summarizes the case well:
Or put it like this. If self-declared Buddhists had been committing acts of terror and intimidation in the name of Lord Buddha, with the same frequency and on the same scale as self-declared Muslims have been doing in the name of Allah for the last many years, I think I would be writing about Buddhism and Buddhists in about the same way. Ditto for Confucians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, or even Christians for that matter. Now, my reader will observe: I hardly ever say anything against Buddhists.
July 27, 2006 Some Plain Talk
Can we have a little straight talk about Hezbollah?
I’m tired of hearing about ”Hezbollah fighters”. George Foreman was a fighter — Hezbollah’s members are something else. Nor are they “freedom fighters” or guerillas. They’re not soldiers, either, though (in their own barbaric way) they perform some somewhat similar functions. And they’re more organized and controlled than your run-of-the-mill terrorists. I think another term is needed.
Hezbollah (the “Party of Allah”) was organized by Iran. It is armed by Iran. Its costs are paid for by Iran. Its operations are directed by Iran.
Let’s just cut to the chase, and call Hezbollah’s members what they are — Iranian mercenaries.
Unlike Hezbollah, Hamas was not founded by Iran. But it is armed and funded by Iran — just like Hezbollah. We probably ought to consider them Iranian mercenaries, too. They certainly do not deserve to be called “soldiers of Palestine”.
Whatever we call them, there is a huge difference between them and legitimate soldiers. This is best exemplified by the two groups’ interactions with civilians. Hezbollah hides among civilians for protection, usually behind women’s skirts and behind children. Hezbollah also targets civilians — much of the time, it targets civilians exclusively. Real soldiers do not target civilians; they do what they can to protect civilians, avoid civilian casualties, and minimize collateral damage — a task made difficult by an enemy that routinely uses civilians as human shields.
I trust you can all see the difference.
(A hat tip to Atlas Shrugs, where I saw it first, for the cartoon.)
August 3, 2006 Qana
A friend of mine wrote me on Tuesday (August 1st), and said
Has anyone else heard the rumor that the Massacre in Qana was caused by Hezbollah, not the Israelis? Rush was suggesting, but did not come out and say it or give references.
I had seen a number of things on the subject, so I wrote back to say that and provide a number of informational links. I updated that today with links to a pair of excellent articles from yesterday. One is Baron Bodissey’s War Porn: “The Qana Massacre Hoax”, which draws parallels among this event, the “Jenin Massacre”, and the Mohammed al-Dura hoax. The other is yesterday’s David Warren column in the Ottawa Citizen, which begins
My reader may be wondering what happened to all the coverage from Qana. As usual, when the “liberal” media begin to realize they’ve been had, the story disappears. But it is never properly corrected. We get a few days of blazing headlines, and round-the-dial TV coverage of an “Israeli massacre”, laden with innuendos, and then — the fade-out. This will not do.
What happened at Qana was, almost certainly, what happened at Jenin in 2002, what happened on a beach in Gaza a few weeks ago, and what has happened on innumerable other occasions.
It now appears most probable that
The people whose bodies were used in the Qana photo-op were killed sometime the night before, probably in houses near the edge of the town, probably in Israeli air raids.
The bodies were brought the next morning to a collapsed building in the center of town, where the photo-op took place. That may be the building that collapsed the morning of the photo-op.
The bodies were placed in a void in this collapsed structure, and brought out after the photographers arrived. A number of the bodies were carried about for the photographers for quite some time.
The activity in the center of Qana to which the photojournalists were invited was not linked to any sort of actual rescue activity.
The location difference accounts for the reported identifications of the family members and the discrepancies in the different stories of “when the building(s) collapsed” and the observed degree of rigor mortis in a number of the bodies. The bodies being brought to the central site from two or more different locations, or at least from two different parts of a site, would explain the differences in the condition of the bodies. The reported lack of male bodies, adult or teen, is interesting. It may be that Hezbollah simply did not bring the male bodies to the photo-op site, to mask the attacked locations being Hezbollah sites and/or in a bid for more international sympathy. Alternatively, it may be that the male household members were not at home when the attacks came, probably out following such peaceful pursuits as firing missiles at Israeli civilians. Either alternative strikes me as deceptive.
JB and I had lunch together last week. Lunch was accompanied, as usual, by a wide-ranging discussion. JB followed up that discussion with a note that said, in part:
Regrettably, the tenor of our conversation on (at least on my side of the table) reached a new plateau. Somewhere between despair and disgust. The biases of the MSM are so obvious, the presentations of the Arab media so outrageous, the machinations of the UN so blatantly political, how can we ever hope for peace in the Middle East?
If we give Hezbollah a pass (read, "cease-fire") it will only be a matter of time before they rearm and we play this game again. Doing so would clearly encourage the rest of the Islamic world to think that we're weak. If we don't slap down Hezbollah hard, now, we'll be playing cease-fire games with a dozen off-spring in five years. Bolton is on to something here.
At least the football season is starting. Like I said, between despair and disgust.
That set off a lot of deep thought, with the following results:
“Somewhere between despair and disgust” is a good description. Similar feelings assault me often these days, too. The current feelings are not brought on by the sense of “there's nothing I can do”, which has produced some similar feelings in the past. This time there is a sense that there is nothing anyone can do — nothing that can be done.
One part of this is due to the war between Israel and Hezbollah (often misreported in the press as the war between Israel and Lebanon). JB is right that we (and Israel) cannot afford to give Hezbollah a pass (“cease-fire”) — we cannot allow the French and whoever to save Hezbollah’s backsides from the consequences of their own actions yet again. JB’s analyses are right on point. My concern, however, is that they may not go far enough. At least part of the time, I suspect ending this threat will require the complete destruction of Hezbollah. In my more hopeful times, I hope it may only take completely defeating Hezbollah and cutting these mercenaries off from their masters (also their allies/suppliers/controllers) in Syria and Iran.
This part is also linked to the continuing problems in Iraq. Those, too, are heavily financed and supplied and directed from Iran. (The direction may be less for the Ba’ath and Sunni elements than for the Shia, but that doesn’t seem to matter much.) Nevertheless, if we can get through this difficult period — if we and those in the Middle East who value freedom can cut off the Iranian interference and prevail — creating real democracies in the Middle East still seems to provide the best long-term hope for the region’s salvation.
With that statement, the hope passes and the despair and disgust return. Indeed, the hope and the despair seem to alternate. The root cause for this is a recognition that we seem to be at a historical turning point, and I don’t yet know which way we will end up turning. Will we succeed and thrive? Or will we slide back into the quagmire and barbarity that was the world of the seventh century?
One thing, along with his message, that has helped crystalize some of these thoughts is yesterday’s article on The American Thinker web site titled A Hinge of History. (A hinge seems an apt metaphor for a turning point, doesn’t it? The hinge is the turning point, and the door can swing either way.) Rick Moran (the article’s author) really seems to have caught what we’ve been feeling, as well as the possible impacts of events coming in the near future.
This morning’s news did little to diminish the despair and disgust, either. Judging from al Qaeda’s past predilections, tomorrow (August 11) was probably their target day. The good news is these guys were caught before they could do their damage. The bad news is in the question of how long we can maintain a perfect record.
I try to remind myself that folks must have felt pretty despairing in 1941-2, too. Yes, I am well aware the situation today is different. But this war is against fascism as surely as was World War II. It’s just harder because the fascist totalitarians this time are hiding behind a religion rather than a government, in the hopes that will make us less likely to attack them. (I’m not the only one feeling a 1941 parallel — see Batchelor’s New York Sun article, which I saw after writing this.)
Yesterday, too, The American Thinker had an article from James Lewis talking about what is for me a disgust-producing part of our generation. That article is titled The Habit of Betrayal. The part described isn’t quite the concern that the Israel-Hezbollah war is, but it is an element of my overall feeling of disgust — and responsible for a lot of what we see in the mainstream media.
I hope I have remembered this next correctly: I recall that the Chinese word for crisis is a digraph made up of the characters that separately mean danger and opportunity. At previous crisis points, our world has managed to step back from the abyss and acatually make some progress. We can only hope that will happen this time as well. The one thing we can be pretty sure of, though, is that whatever happens will be different from anything we project or predict.
And on that cheery note, I close. And now I ask my friend, “Who looks good for the upcoming football season?”
August 30, 2006 Telling Changes
Two relatively small, but very telling, changes noted in recent reports (since “the large is often most visible in the small” — David Warren):
I return to Mr Ben Dov. He noticed the sort of thing so simple and obvious, that it would escape the attention of most intellectual observers. It was about Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, born and raised in the village of al-Bazuriya -- whose great grandparents might easily have sheltered Mr Ben Dov’s grandparents. It was that Nasrallah wears a Persian turban, and Persian clothes. His ancestors would have worn their own version of kaffiyeh and awal (the headcloth and cord), and sharwal (baggy trousers). Nor would his women have worn veils.
“The beach in Gaza is amazing,” Shika had told me earlier. “It is virgin. You wouldn’t believe it.”
“You’ve been there?” I said.
“Of course,” he said. “We used to go there and eat in the restaurants.”
“When?” I said.
“In the early 80s,” he said.
“It was friendly then?” I said.
“Yeah,” he said. “Israel ruled there. The Palestinians were friendly, I think they miss that period. They had money, they could walk freely.”
Read all of that one, too.
September 11, 2006 We Remember!
Do not forget either the villains or the heroes of that day.
December 3, 2006 The Two Trees of Jihadism
I ran across a group of articles a little while ago that brought into focus some of the things my friends and I have been trying to talk about. I’ve taken some time to let these ideas develop, and I’ve had some discussions with other knowledgeable and very analytic people. Now I’ll try to encapsulate here what I think I’ve gotten from them, including much that has come from considerations and researches triggered by them.
One thing that is reinforced is that the jihadists’ ideology is not Islam, no matter howmuch they may claim to be the true Muslims and to speak for Islam. (I confess that I’ve been holding that as a hope as much as a belief; quite a number of others [including (ex-?)Muslims] have written quite persuasively that these doctrines are inherent in Islam.) One trigger was in a Mark Steyn column in which he said that
any religion that needs to do that (coerce “conversions”) is, by definition, a weak one. More than that, the fierce faith of the 8th century Muslim warrior has been mostly replaced by a lot of hastily cobbled-together flimflam bought wholesale from clapped out European totalitarian pathologies.
That told me I needed to do a bit more digging. I had thought that Islamic jihadism came from the thought of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, a Sunni cleric whose 18th century reinterpretation said all post-8th century reinterpretations were invalid; al-Wahhab’s thought spawned the Salafist movement, including the Wahhabi and Deobandi sects. In digging, I learned that modern Salafi jihadism began with the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt in 1928 and of which Ayman al Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden's deputy) was a member. It was this organization that successfully grafted a totalitarian (extreme socialist) political ideology onto the Salafi belief structure. The Brotherhood then spawned Sayyid Qutb, who provided the Brotherhood’s jihadism with the more complete intellectual underpinnings that enabled it to spawn both al Qaeda and the Taliban. So the jihadism we see from the Salafis and Wahhabis today is a 20th century graft onto an 18th century reinterpretation which, by the jihadists’ own logic, it is not an authentic Islam.
Incidentally, this may provide at least a partial answer to the question as to why Arab (or Muslim) societies have been more susceptible than others to European fascist ideologies. They were more susceptible because significant segments of their populations had already accepted a similar/parallel totalitarian socialist ideology. It certainly also didn’t hurt that the translation of Mein Kampf is My Jihad.
That’s not to say jihad is a recent Islamic innovation. Clearly, it’s not. The term jihad has been used — in its current “holy war” sense — at least since the 12th century when Saladin (Salah-ad-Din) was obsessed with jihad and issued a “call to jihad” to take Jerusalem from the Crusaders. Thus, the term jihad has had the meaning the West understands for it at least since the 12th century, and apparently all the way back to the days when Mohammed led his wars of conquest. (It may also be of interest that a 1991 authoritative manual of Sunni Islamic law — ‘Umdat al-Salik, published in English in 1999 — continues to define this class of jihad as “war against non-Muslims”, and notes that the word jihad “is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”) The recent (20th century) innovation is the grafting of a political ideology onto the religious concept.
That leaves the problem of the Shi’ite jihadists, the other “major tree” of jihadism. Their motivation is different. Most Shi’ite jihadists are apparently members of the Hojjatieh sect, which is a Khomeinist group even though it was banned (forced underground) by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini when it opposed his political agenda. The Hojjatieh (Hojjatiyya) Society was founded in Iran in the early 1950s (some references say in 1953) by Sheikh Mahmoud Tavallai, popularly known as Sheikh Halabi, an extremist Shi’ite cleric who founded the group to eradicate members of the Baha’i faith (an offshoot of Islam). This millennialist sect awaits the return of the twelfth imam (the 12th grandson of prophet Mohammed), the so-called “hidden” (Savior) Imam Mahdi who disappeared as a child in 941 AD. They believe he will return only when the world contains enough oppression, misery, tyranny, and sorrow to warrant his coming. As a result, they believe in spreading evil and creating chaos as their way to hasten his return. This is the sect to which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (or Ahmadi-Nejad) belongs, along with Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iraq’s Moqtada al-Sadr.
The Hojjatieh sect went down the Salafis’ religion-to-politics path much more quickly than did the Salafis. It was banned (forced to disband) in 1983 because it opposed religious involvement in political affairs and wouldn’t go along with Ayatollah Khomeini’s “rule of the supreme jurisconsult (Vilayat-i Faqih)”. Now, however, they support the Khomeinist state — and have a shot at making their leader (Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi) the annointed successor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As has been said before “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So now the Hojjatieh approach absolute corruption in Iran, and do their best to spread as much evil as possible throughout the world.
All of which supports Steyn’s assertion (quoted above) that
the fierce faith of the 8th century Muslim warrior has been mostly replaced by a lot of hastily cobbled-together flimflam bought wholesale from clapped out European totalitarian pathologies.
Columnist David Warren also says that the problem is the perverters of Islam, not Islam itself. He says
If I were a Muslim, with the inheritance of Islamic tradition behind me, I’d be deeply ashamed of the babbling idiots who claimed to speak for me. I would be very loud in contradicting them. Their ideology is tied to Islam, and constructed largely with an Islamic vocabulary and rough grammar, but hardly with an Islamic syntax. By this I mean, that it is inconceivable that anything resembling the “blovulations” of the Salafists, and Shia revolutionists of Iran, could emerge from a purely Islamic course of reasoning. There are too many extraneous elements. In the use of Islamic terms, there is too much slapstick and self-parody. . . . But it is certainly true that Muslim authorities, in most preceding centuries, offered a view of God and man’s duties and destiny, that was a whole lot more impressive than the current lot offers. Islam has long been the West’s rival. But we could never have wished our rival to be idiotized to such a degree.
Thus, my digging seems to have produced confirmation that the modern jihadi ideology is not Islam, and not really Islamic, but is the ideology of those who would use and pervert Islam for their own evil purposes.
With that, my encapsulation is complete. But that leaves some questions for consideration. The general one to begin with is, what do we (Muslims and non-Muslims) do about it? How do the Muslims show the problem is the perverters of Islam rather than Islam itself? How do they act to take back their good name from the evildoers claiming to be acting in that name? And what do we do to protect ourselves from these sons of dog crap — and help turn Islam back to the real Muslims?
Does anyone have
December 5, 2006 Redeployment in Iraq
Weapons, terrorists, and money have continued to cross the borders into Iraq from Iran and Syria. So here’s a thought:
How about if we turn primary responsibility for counter-insurgent operations in Baghdad over to the Iraqi army and security forces, and redeploy our troops to secure Iraq’s borders. That way we provide a key test for the Iraqi forces, and move to starve and strangle the insurgents’ supply lines. It would also tend to get more of our troops away from the IEDs.
This thought is in response to the challenge in Glenn Reynolds’ posting on Sunday, and the Mudville Gazette follow-up to it.
December 10, 2006 The ISG Speaks
The Iraq Study Group released its report this week. Much of the report was unsurprising since one or more individuals in the group, or in its staff, have (for their own unknown purposes) been leaking material from the report for weeks.
The good news is that the report rejects any precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, or the issuance of a threat or deadline for such a withdrawal. It clearly identifies the ugly consequences — including the chance of a bloodbath that would make Rwanda look tame — that would almost certainly result from any “declare victory and leave” (like what we used in leaving Viet Nam), or “cut and run” or “redeploy” (maybe to Okinawa) approach. One commentator puts it this way: “If the report helps to politically isolate John Murtha and the get-out-now left, its authors will have done some good.”
The bad news is that the report’s authors clearly believe the U.S. mission in Iraq is doomed. Some of them have thought so since before it began. That is no doubt why the only reference in the report to possible success deals with the possible success of the terrorist side. And why its entire focus seems to be on how the U.S. can leave Iraq in a way it can pretend is not an abandonment. They authors think we should not have gone in, and have been trying to find a way for us to back out.
I don’t intend to go through the whole report and all 79 of its recommendations. But there are a few major points that really require comment.
The first is what the report recommends be done with troop strengths. Here, the report shows the effect of being designed by a committee. The report recommends both troop strength increases and decreases, and I think they do so in a particularly illogical and unprincipled way. They call for a large increase in the troops committed to training the Iraqi forces, substantially increasing the number of American targets. Then, having said the combat troops we have in Iraq are unable to protect the population or themselves, they call for substantial reductions in those troops. This combination seems sure to increase American deaths in Iraq.
But that’s logical compared to the flight of fancy embodied in another panel recommendation. The panel calls for a New Diplomatic Offensive and the formation of an Iraq International Support Group, asking Iran and Syria to help stabilize the situation in Iraq. That would be as funny as a Marx brothers comedy, except that these people are serious. Iran and Syria have been providing men, money, materiel, and direction to the Iraqi insurgent groups and militias since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. They have been the biggest sources of instability in Iraq. Whatever possessed the panel members to think they might be talked into promoting Iraqi stability? At best, this is wishful thinking; at worst, it is either duplicitous or simply insane.
The "bipartisan" Iraq panel has recommended that Iran and Syria can help stabilize Iraq. You know, the way Germany and Russia helped stabilize Poland in '39.
And then there are the words out of left field: Somehow if we force Israel to give up even more, in return for even more empty promises their opponents have never had any intention of honoring, somehow that will help us find a solution in Iraq. That, to me, seems to be lacking reality on a multitude of levels.
I have no doubt the panel’s Middle East sources told them of the need for a solution to the Israeli-Paelstinian questions as a precursor to finding a solution in Iraq. The jihadists have said that before, too. But their anger over Israel is more an excuse than a reason. The jihadists are equally angry that Spain had the temerity to throw off the Muslim yoke in the Reconquista (finished in 1492) and that Europe had the bad form to stop the invading Muslim armies at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Israel is not part of the problem in Iraq, except in the sense that Iran, Syria, and the other jihadists — our enemies and Iraq’s — are also avowed enemies of Israel.
There are also some broader points. One is brought out in an exchange between Jonathan Karl of ABC and two of the panel members:
MR. KARL: You're certainly a group of distinguished elder statesman. But tell me, why should the president give more weight to what you all have said, given, as I understand, you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator Robb; none of you made it out of the Green Zone - why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?
MR. HAMILTON: The members of the Iraq Study Group are, I think, public servants of a distinguished record. We don't pretend now, we did not pretend at the start to have expertise. We've put in a very intensive period of time. We have some judgments about the way this country works and the way our government works, and some considerable experience within our group on the Middle East. . . .
MR. BAKER: Let me add to that that this report by these - this bunch of has-beens up here is the only bipartisan report that's out there.
So even the panel members see the primary value of their report as being in the variety of the labels they wear rather than in their expertise. And yet, whether viewed in terms of labels or of expertise, there are some major ones that are left out. Here, let me cite Bill Bennett:
Ralph Peters has made the point, “Washington insiders pretend to respect our troops but continue to believe that those in uniform are second-raters and that any political hack can design better war plans than those who've dedicated their lives to military service.” The entire report is contemptuous of the military, spoken of as pawns on a chess table, barriers, observers, buffers, and trainers. Never as what they are trained to be: the greatest warriors in the world. Would it have been too much to ask that one general, or even one outspoken believer in the mission from the get-go, be on this commission?
Bennett’s overall view of the report is summed up like this: “Perhaps the most systemic problem with the report is it didn't tell us how to win; it answered how to get out. The commissioners answered the wrong question, but it was the one they wanted to answer.” As James Lileks says, “the report does tell you where some people’s heads have become permanently socketed.”
For myself, I think half the report reflects the panel’s need to (as my father used to say) “Do something, even if it’s wrong!” The other half is pure wishful thinking.
Retired former CENTCOM commander General Tommy Franks said on Wednesday evening that he hoped this report would provide a foundation all factions could come together and build on. I'd like to hope so, too, but I really don’t hold out much hope. I do, however, give strong credence to the prediction he made: If we come home without solving this problem, the terrorists will follow us home.
January 1, 2007 Oil Revenues
Deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was hanged Friday evening (U.S. time). That should take the wind from the sails of the Ba’ath party extremists, since there is now absolutely noway to put Saddam back in charge in Iraq.
That still leaves a lot of challenges, not least from the foreign elements from (and funded and armed) by Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria. In addition, Forbes Magazine identifies oil revenues as another domestic cause of friction in an article in its January 8 issue (registration required for the electronic article version).
The dispute over hydrocarbons is very much at the heart of the civil war raging in Iraq. Sunnis, who ruled under Saddam, want their share of oil riches, which mostly lie in the Kurdish-controlled north and the Shiite south. The factions seem close to a federal law over how to distribute petro-revenues — which might clamp down on the violence — but are hung up on who would have final say, the feds or the regional government.
....
Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani, a Shia, insists that Baghdad will not recognize any contract between foreign oil companies the the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). Nechirvan Barzani, prime minister of the KRG, counters that the Kurds, who compose 17% of Iraq's population, will secede if their authority over regional oilfields is eroded.
This dispute is non-sectarian in nature, and seems unlikely to produce a wave of car bombings. But it is another indication of the complexities to be addressed in trying to help Iraq move from being a dictator’s plaything to being an actual self-governing country.
January 9, 2007 Sniping on Iraq & Plans for Victory
Senator Ted Kennedy today said he was introducing a bill that would prohibit any troop surge without the prior permission of Congress, a move even Senator Joe Biden said was unconstitutional. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted any troop surge would have to be justified to the Congress. Both have insisted they will not cut off funding for the war and for the troops already in Iraq.
This is actually a turnaround for these people and their fellow travelers. They campaigned for election on a “cut and run” platform; now they’re preaching “stay the course.” They castigated President George Bush for being inflexible and not changing strategy, but are attacking again now that he is (reportedly) changing strategy. In any other field of endeavor, such a bait and switch would result in large fines and jail time.
I have been fairly intolerant of these people in the past, but I’m trying to be more tolerant now. With that tolerance, I can understand where these people are coming from. The key to this understanding is the recognition that these people do not believe it is possible to win in Iraq. They believe the U.S. has already definitively lost the war. Believing this, it makes sense that they would insist on our forces leaving the field.
What their actions would actually do, if they were successful, is produce the defeat they pretend has already occurred. The one sure way to lose is to abandon the field, and accept defeat.
And then what? If we abandon the field, do these people really think the jihadists won’t follow us home? That was not the result when we abandoned the field in Somalia after “Blackhawk Down”. The jihadists took our action as weak and cowardly, and stepped up their attacks against us. Similar, but stronger, responses can be expected this time.
Actually, the question is rhetorical — Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, and others (along with people like Cindy Sheehan) have repeatedly said the jihadists would stop if we would. Such extreme self-deception is dangerous to our national security.
Meanwhile weapons, terrorists, money, and direction have continued to cross the borders into Iraq from Iran and Syria — including in the persons of “diplomats” from the rogue regime in Iran visiting to direct their Shia and Sunni forces. So here’s a thought: How about if we turn primary responsibility for counter-insurgent operations in Baghdad over to the Iraqi army and security forces, and redeploy our troops to secure Iraq’s borders. That way we provide a key test for the Iraqi forces, and move to strangle the insurgents’ supply lines and starve the insurgents. It would also tend to get more of our troops away from the IEDs and car bombs.
We should also quit asking our troops to fight this war with their hands tied behind their backs — and quit running our military effort in such a “politically correct” manner. A good first step would be to declare that, in accordance with the internationally accepted laws of war, any place from which our forces are fired upon is a fully legitimate military target, subject to attack and destruction. And then follow up on that announcement. It should only take once or twice for the point to get across.
I don’t know what President Bush will announce tomorrow; all I can speak to now is what I hope for. Bush has a history (though not recent) of staying silent until opponents commit themselves; once they’re out on the limb, he quietly cuts it off. I hope he does that tomorrow, and lets the partisans of defeat fall of their own weight. I hope that, if a surge is announced, a surge is not all that is announced. The plans and strategies we have been following have not been effective, and I hope they are changed. The generals whose counsel he has taken have been ineffective, and I hope they are (as they apparently have been) replaced with generals who have a commitment to and a plan to win.
In short, what I hope for is that everything in tomorrow’s speech follows from and supports the following two statements: 1. Victory is the only exit strategy. 2. Defeat is not an option.
January 17, 2007 Plans for Victory
I’ve waited a few days to let things settle before weighing in on the change in direction put forward by President George Bush a week ago tonight. My two key thoughts on it are
I would have preferred a larger number of reinforcements — perhaps enough to bring the troop strength up to what it was a year ago. But, independent of this number,
The more important part of the speech spoke to the changes in the rules of engagement — many of which were more suggested than stated.
In my view, the rule and mission changes are more important than any changes in the numbers of troops. Adding more troops without changing what they are tasked to do would be, as Gen. Petraeus said a few weeks ago, a mistake. Adding more troops with changed missions and rules, under this new plan authored in part by Gen. Petraeus, is not.
You might want to think I was reading the rule changes into the speech, that they weren’t really there. My only defense, initially, was the knowledge (based on experience and observation) that the specific words used by senior officials are important.
What’s most important, though, is how the changes work. And the initial returns are positive. Even before the speech was delivered, word filtered out of Baghdad that changed operations had already begun. The next day, we learned that action had been taken in Irbil against a pseudo-diplomatic facility (that apparently had no formal diplomatic status) that was providing direction, weapons, and money to Iraqi and foreign terrorists in Iraq. That action occurred two hours before the speech was given. (And now we learn that one of the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard members detained in that raid is wanted on a murder warrant in Austria.)
We are also beginning to see how the terrorists see the speech and our rule and mission changes. Within a few days, we started seeing the terrorists fleeing Baghdad for safer regions, apparently mostly in Diyala. (The fact that they are not going to Anbar province says a lot about how successful our forces have been there.) These movements have now been confirmed by others, so we can be reasonably sure they’re not some observer’s wishful thinking. At least one observer suggests these movements may make it easier to locate and neutralize them. But the most important thing about what’s happening is that the terrorists see a heightened resolve on our part and are reacting to it.
We are beginning to see how Iraq’s non-terrorists are reacting, too. There has been a sharp and unexpected increase in recruits seeking to join the local Iraqi police forces in Anbar province, the most violent province in Iraq up till now. That says Iraqis believe in what President Bush has said, and are putting their lives and livelihoods on the line behind it. (This paragraph is an update, made up of text intended for this item that didn’t get into it as originally posted.)
The final results aren’t in, but this looks promising.
Update: Glenn Reynolds has a similar viewpoint on the surge. He says “The additional troops, such as they are, won't make a difference in that; only a change in approach will.” He also identifies my worry “I don't have a clear sense of whether we'll follow through.”
January 24, 2007 I Couldn’t Believe It!
I couldn’t believe my ears last night, when I listened to Senator Jim Webb’s rebuttal to the State of the Union message. I had to check the transcript. But my ears were right. There was what I’d thought I’d heard, right at the end of the speech.
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
These Presidents [Webb spoke of President Theodore Roosevelt before speaking of Eisenhower] took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action ....
What President Eisenhower did to bring the Korean War to an end was tell the North Korean government it would either end its invasion of South Korea or it would be attacked with nuclear weapons. And he made it absolutely clear to the North Koreans that he was not bluffing.
That’s why I couldn’t believe my ears — I couldn’t believe Senator Webb and his fellow Democrats in the Senate were advocating having President Bush threaten and carry out nuclear attacks in the Middle East to end the conflict there. But there it is: “Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action”
It was already pretty clear the Democrats selected Senator Webb so their rebuttal would be given by someone without a negative record on national security. Still, advocating nuclear warfare is beyond unexpected.
Or maybe these people just don’t know any history.
Update: Obviously, I’m not the only one to notice this. Jonah Goldberg passes on an e-mail on the subject, and Pastorius notes it, too. I’m sure it’s showed up other places as well — it was pretty obvious. (I also added the Eisenhower action link in this update.)
February 4, 2007 Who’s To Blame?
“We gave them a civil war? Why? Because we failed to prevent it? Do the police in America have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year?” — Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, February 5, 2007
February 5, 2007 Iran As Key Player
Iran is increasingly showing up as the key player in the War on Terror. Let’s just look at some of the news in this past week or so.
Iran funds and runs Hizballah. The money, arms, and direction are funneled to Hizballah through Syria. Hizballah chief Hassan Nasrallah admitted this to an Egyptian interviewer, but it’s no surprise since Hizballah was created by Iran in the first place.
Iran funds and supports Hamas. Iranian weapons experts were apprehended by Fatah manufacturing weapons and explosives for Hamas at the Islamic University in Gaza City.
Iran is supplying and supporting forces attacking U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi forces in Iraq. We’ve heard most about the Iranian-supplied new-technology IEDs, but there’s now evidence Iran is supplying other advanced technology weapons to be used against us.
These items, from just this week, clearly demonstrate some key points — especially when combined with other reports from before this past week.
The first two items demonstrate — once again — the falsity of the unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion that Sunnis and Shias cannot cooperate. Those two groups can (and do) cooperate with each other and with “secular” dictatorships more easily than the U.S. cooperated with Josef Stalin’s Russia against Nazi Germany in World War II. And, of course, the first item by itself demonstrates that a militant Muslim theocracy (Iran) can easily cooperate with “secular” Syria, as they previously did with “secular” Iraq.
Those same two items suggest the probability that the two fronts of attack against Israel last summer, initiated by means of kidnappings of Israeli soldiers by Hamas and Hizballah, were carried out under Iran’s direction. (This also suggests the Israeli soldiers, if they have not yet been murdered, will be returned when and if it suits Iran’s purposes.)
Iran has been confirmed to have been working closely with al Qaeda in Somalia.
Some of the weapons Iran supplied were apparently used by the mixed force of Sunni and Shia terrorists defeated at Najaf. New technology IEDs and other advanced weapons have also been used against U.S. and Iraqi forces in and around Baghdad.
Iranian operatives have been captured at Irbil in northern Iraq, where they had been sent to support and direct Sunni and Shia operations against U.S. forces. This was one of a number of incidents which have now demonstrated that the U.S.’ previous “catch and release” program on Iranian agents and forces is over. (This was one of the strategy changes referred to obliquely by President Bush last month.)
There are indications the new tactics are having a positive effect. Those who want us to win the War on Terror — or, at least, not to lose — hope those indications continue and increase.
February 17, 2007 Political Fraud
Early this morning (late last night) I was listening to Senator Chuck Hagel, with the assistance of the PBS “news” reader, repeatedly characterizing a vote for cloture as a vote to allow a debate on the Democrats’ anti-Administration resolution. According to them, the Republicans are trying to prevent a debate on the Administration’s Iraq war policy, while the Democrats (and folks like Hagel) are trying to have that debate.
This is Twilight Zone stuff! A vote for cloture is a vote to cut off debate. It is a device the end debate and force a matter to a vote. To describe a vote for cloture as a vote for debate is an absolute lie. Anyone with an IQ above that of an idiot making such a claim is a liar, and is guilty of deliberate political fraud.
UPDATE: I saw a clip of Senate Majority Leader harry Reid explicitly calling a vote for cloture (to cut off debate) a vote to allow debate. How do he and his fellow travelers get away with such complete lies?
UPDATE II: John McCain made his comment on the Democrats’ resolution two ways: First, he didn't go back to Washington, DC for the vote. Second, he stated his opinion that the resolution is “idiotic”, a “purely political stunt”, and “an insult to the public and our soldiers”. John McCain is absolutely right.
It was predictable — anything that in any way supports what we’re doing in the Middle East or that supports George Bush must be shot down and denied. And so we saw the Administration holding up its press conference laying out the evidence of Iranian interference in Iraq until it could be as sure as it could be that its evidence would stand up even in an American court of law. And we saw its opponents attacking that evidence like a slick defense attorney in a high-profile trial. They have lots of questions, but no answers: “How do you know this?” “What makes you say that?” “Why should we believe you?”
One part of the evidence is going to be very difficult to deny. The government of Iran purchased 800 specialized Steyr Mannlicher HS50 .50 caliber sniper rifles — very expensive (about $19,500 each) and very rare — from an Austrian company. These rifles fire specialized armor piercing rounds which are manufactured by Iran. Within 45 days of the first of these rifles arriving in Iran, one of them had been used to kill an American officer in an armored vehicle. Now more than 100 of these rifles have been collected from terrorists in Iraq — so far — and at least 170 American soldiers have been killed with these Iranian-supplied weapons and ammunition — so far.
Other information also implicates Iran in the payment, training, and supply of all varieties of insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. The only thing we don’t have is a video of people clearly identifiable as Iranian Revolutionary Guards (like those captured in Irbil) actually killing American soldiers.
As noted, this evidence is difficult to attack. Perhaps that’s why it seems to have been so thoroughly ignored by the main media.
March 26, 2007 And There’s Sean Penn
... demonstrating that he barely has enough intelligence to read what’s been written for him by someone brighter than he (even if they are part of the insane Left).
I heard the audio, and I saw the video, of parts of Penn’s rant. Both show his difficulty in making his speech, even when reading from his script.
Incidentally, I found it instructive comparing the audio and video I heard and saw, and the written version linked above, with the very mild descriptions in the San Francisco Chronicle. Why are they covering for these people?
They’re not anti-war. They’re just on the other side.
March 28, 2007 Iran’s Ransom Demand
According to news reports, the Iranian government is demanding an admission from the British government that the its sailors and marines were captured inside Iran's territorial waters before Iran will consider releasing them. This despite the fact that Iran very well knows the hostages were kidnapped from within Iraqi territory. That's even proven by the GPS coordinates Iran gave to Britain to "prove" the sailors transgressed, which clearly showed the attack was in Iraqi waters. (When the British pointed this out, the Iranians responded by providing a new set of coordinates.)
Iran desperately wants to save some face. It has gotten caught in a lie and a fraud, and hopes to avoid responsibility for the actions of its rogue Republican Guard unit which operated in such a negligent manner in committing an act of war against both Britain and Iraq.
But the bottom line is that Iran expects Britain to lie as part of the ransom to be paid for the release release of the hostages Iran well knows were kidnapped from within Iraqi territory. That shouldn't really be surprising. The government of Iran has no honor and lies constantly. So, of course, they would automatically project similar ill behavior onto other governments.
April 1, 2007 Midnight Company
Omar's friends have often asked him what he knows about American soldiers' behavior during house searches. They challenged him because "The Americans never searched your home."
Well, now that's no longer true. American soldiers came to Omar's house last week, and — if others' descriptions of their experiences are true — Omar's description demonstrates that being pleasant and cooperative (and without terrorist arms) makes things go much more smoothly with the Americans.
Ike Skelton, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has banished the phrase "Global War on Terrorism" (and, presumably, the shorthand GWOT) as too vague and non-specific. This has produced the suggestion that GWOT should be replaced by WOIITUSAAPLMGWAAEEFISDGTPTKJIRCSDYBMQTITCSKCAN. I hope this makes Mr Skelton happier (follow the link for the definition).
May 4, 2007 Col. Repya Is Tired
I don't like to reprint things whole — I'd much rather quote them, and point to them. But I'm making an exception for this piece. It's too good not to reproduce in full.
Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced
to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my
deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq to finish my tour.
I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to
return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my
tour in Vietnam. Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months,
but I'm tired:
I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the
courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when
the going gets tough.
I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they 'Support the
Troops' by wanting them to 'Cut and Run' before victory is achieved.
I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty
reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to
report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having on the
battlefield.
I'm tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a
democracy over night.
I'm tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the
voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament.
I'm tired of the so called 'Elite Left' that prolongs this war by giving aid
and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.
I'm tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen
soldiers. A family who's loved ones gave their life in a just and noble cause,
only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly protesters is beyond
shameful.
I'm tired that my generation, the Baby Boom -- Vietnam generation, who have
such a weak backbone that they can't stomach seeing the difficult tasks through
to victory.
I'm tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of captives than
they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and allies.
I'm tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by the press,
but mistreat a prisoner and it is front page news.
Mostly, I'm tired that the people of this great nation didn't learn from
history that there is no substitute for Victory.
Sincerely, Joe Repya, Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army 101st Airborne
Division
The line about those who claim they 'support the troops' particularly struck me. In part, that was because I am also frustrated by the apparent disingenuousness of it. But I have also run across Jay Tea's commentary on The Support Trap, which has brought up the possibility that the Left's self-deception is the only deception involved.
May 9, 2007 Insanities
I saw several reports and interviews on the television while at the gym this afternoon. And some of them were really nuts.
First was a report on Al Sharpton's attack on presidential candidate (former Massachusetts governor) Mitt Romney. What Sharpton said was “As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry about that, that’s a temporary – that’s a temporary situation.” (See also reports here and here.)
Sharpton denies ever saying that. He also claims he was talking about Christopher Hitchens, the atheist he was debating at the time he made the statement. But I — along with much of the country — have heard the audio on both radio and TV. There's no question of what he said.
Sharpton's apologists admit that's what he said, but claim it's not what he meant. They claim he made clear what he really meant to say later in the debate. If that's so, Sharpton should apologize for what he said and make clear that it wasn't what he meant. The fact that he won't do so indicates it really was what he meant, and that he's the same race-baiting bigot he's always been.
Then there's John Kerry. A report on the National Journalweb site says he responded to a question about Building 7 at the World Trade Center on 9/11 by saying “I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion.” It was not clear from the video clip I heard if he was really talking about WTC Building 7, though that was what people like Webster Tarpley asserted very firmly. If Kerry meant what he seems to have said, his connection to reality is much more tenuous that I'd previously thought.
And who is Webster Tarpley? On his web site (no, I'm not going to provide a link) he identifies himself as "Intelligence Expert, Activist, Historian" and author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. I saw him interviewed this afternoon, too. He claims World Trade Center Building 7 was effectively undamaged, and was brought down by a controlled demolition. He says placing the explosives to do that would require several days of work by experts. (No suggestion was made as to how that was accomplished without anyone noticing.) He says Arabs do not have the capability to carry off such a task, and asserts it was an "inside job" carried out by rogue elements within the Bush Administration. Of course, this also means the attack on the World Trade Center's twin towers (and the Pentagon) was also carried out by Bush Administration elements. (He says the destruction of the twin towers was also by controlled demolition with explosives that took days of work by experts to place.) Tarpley does not deny the existence of Al Qaeda, but says it's a sham — "the CIA's Arab legion." He said, too, that there are several Osama bin Ladens, all actors on the CIA payroll.
Listening to Tarpley, I couldn't help wondering what color the sky is in his world. He gives moonbat a whole new level of meaning.
May 13, 2007 Outstanding Marines
New Mexico has a long history of providing men of valor to the U.S. military. Troops from New Mexico rode up San Juan Hill with Colonel Theodore Roosevelt in the Spanish-American War. New Mexico's National Guard (coastal artillery units) were at Bataan and in the Death March at the start of World War II, with many members remaining in Japanese Prisoner of War camps throughout the war. The famous Code Talkers were drawn from the Navajo Reservation of New Mexico and Arizona. Many others from New Mexico, whether in New Mexico by birth or assignment, have served with honor and valor in U.S. military actions from territorial days to the present.
From among New Mexico's more recently valorous men, allow me to bring two particularly outstanding men to your attention. One is from November of 2004 when Falluja was one of the most violent and dangerous places in Iraq. Private First Class Christopher Adlesperger was with one of the teams that moved in to pacify that city on November 10. His squad encountered a well-prepared machine gun position in one of the houses, which turned out to be an enemy command and control position. Adlesperger's response was to attack. He pinned down those at the gun position while he helped his wounded comrades up a stairway he cleared to a rooftop area from which they could be evacuated. From there, though wounded, he was able to use a grenade launcher to make holes in the building wall so he could fire on and destroy the enemy gun position. In doing so, he destroyed the last strongpoint in Fallujah's Jolan District. For this action, Adlesperger was awarded the Navy Cross and has been nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was subsequently promoted to Lance Corporal. LCPL Christopher Adlesperger was killed while leading a clearing mission on December 2, 2004. His Navy Cross was presented to his family on April 13, 2007. Chris Adlesperger graduated from Albuquerque's El Dorado High School.
In the same district of the same city a few months earlier, Captain Douglas Zembiec climbed up on a tank while under fire to guide it to where his men were pinned down. He coordinated the actions of his Marines from atop the tank while bullets and rocket-propelled grenades impacted all around him. He was already badly wounded before climbing onto the tank. And that wasn't the only time. Those who served with him call him a warrior without peer, not much different from those who led the Spartans into combat. He commanded incredible respect from his men, always leading from the front. That action was on April 26, the last day of major fighting before the Marines pulled out of the city under the terms of a cease-fire worked out by politicians and diplomats — a cease-fire that created the conditions under which PFC Adlesperger's unit would have to reenter the city six months later. Since that day in Fallujah, Zembiec has been promoted to Major and given more responsibility. MAJ Douglas Zembiec was reported killed last week in Iraq. As of yesterday, the Defense Department has not yet confirmed his death or provided information on its circumstances. Based on his history, I think we may assume he was taking the fight to the enemy, creating what he called "menacing delimmas for the enemy," when he died. Doug Zembiec graduated from Albuquerque's La Cueva High School where, as a junior, he brought the school its first ever state wrestling title. (He won again as a senior.) MAJ Zembiec was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, and a veteran of combat in Kosovo and the Middle East.
The stories of men and women like these are usually not easily available or widely published. Stories on Major Zembiec and Lance Corporal Adlesperger were printed on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal only because they were from Albuquerque. I suspect some of the papers near Camp Pendleton were the only others to print them. The stories of their heroism apparently were not printed before their deaths. These stories can be found, but they commonly have to be explicitly sought out (as Blackfive frequently does).
And then there is the larger question: Where do we find such men? How do we grow or create them? I don't know the answer, and sometimes think the answer may be unknowable. But I do know we can all be very grateful for men and women like these — and many thousands of others. And we need to do better in telling their stories.
May 24, 2007 Iraqi "Insurgents"
It's an article of faith on the Left that nearly all the "insurgents" in Iraq are home-grown. Thus, the Left asserts these individuals and their attacks are part of the "civil war" in Iraq and not part of the Global War on Terror. Just as an example, I myself heard Alan Colmes on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes show yesterday evening stating as fact that "at least 95%" of the insurgents are home-grown and not foreigners.
An inconvenient truth, for this viewpoint, has been published frequently — and ignored as frequently. It is that the substantial majority of the insurgents are, in fact, imported fighters. The latest is from Gateway Pundit who reports that more than 2/3 of the insurgents — currently 70% — are foreigners imported into Iraq through Syria using forged passports and travel documents provided by Syria.
This is part of a broader issue, which is the reason the Left is so adamant in claiming foreigners are a trivial part of the attacks and attackers. The Left (aside from those who want to pretend the Global War on Terror doesn't exist) wants with all its heart to believe Iraq is a diversion from the Global War on Terror. They need to believe the attacks in Iraq are part of a civil (rather than proxy) war, and that al Qaeda has little or nothing to do with Iraq. Too bad (for them) the facts on the ground tell a different story.
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing."
James Taranto, of the OpinionJournal's Best of the Web column comments:
This gives away the game, doesn't it? The "antiwar" people understand what it means to set a deadline — and they seek to do so because they want America to lose.
Taranto is right. These people are not stupid; they know what they're doing and what the probable effects of their actions are.
This strongly suggests that "They're not anti-war. They're just on the other side." The alternative is that they care only about their own political fortunes, and don't care about the effects of their actions for the country.
We're constantly being told we're losing in Iraq, particularly by the primary newspapers and television networks. These same folks continue on to say "... and we've got to negotiate directly with Iran and Syria."
Funny how those same folks are the ones who decline to report stories about Iraqis turning on al Qaeda (under its many names and guises) and taking — asking — help from U.S. military forces there to help protect their people from the foreign mercenaries.
It also seems to me that the call for us to negotiate directly with Iran and Syria is a direct acknowledgment that those two countries are the current participants in Iraq (the ones providing arms and funds and direction, and most of the manpower) and the violence there is a proxy war rather than a civil war.
Now if they'd just be honest enough to admit it, ....
June 22, 2007 Views of Iran
Jay Nordlinger had a spectacular Impromptus column a week ago (June 13. In one piece of it, he related something he saw at the “Davos in the Desert” conference not long ago:
Well, at this conference, I witnessed a spectacular outburst from a Palestinian journalist, directed at an Iranian official. The Palestinian pointed out that Iran was acting as the enemy of the Arabs, sowing murder and chaos in Iraq, Lebanon, and the PA [the Palestinian Authority] — arming and training Iraqi militias, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
And what kind of murder and chaos is Iran sowing? And how effective is Iran being at their chosen method of warfare? Nordlinger quotes from an article by Victor Davis Hanson:
not only can “a suicide bomber with a $100 vest” destroy “$1 million worth of electrical infrastructure.” In a “gruesome equation,” he can “cast the American engineers into the role of the incompetent or sinister by their failure to repair and rebuild faster than an illiterate can destroy.”
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem we face in asymmetrical warfare — especially when major elements of our own population refuse to recognize we're in a war at all.
Nordlinger provides a fitting summation: “It is worth bearing in mind: Israel and the United States aren’t the only countries that fear and hate the Iranian regime. And those who fear and hate that regime the most, of course, are Iranian citizens themselves.”
Iran has declared war on us — the United States and the West. Can't we at least take them at their word on this?
June 24, 2007 I Didn't Know ...
I didn't know Muslims had ritual butt washings. But apparently they do. Note the captions on a couple of the pictures posted on Michelle Malkin's site:
Masked Muslim moral police force a man wearing clothes deemed un-Islamic to suck on a plastic container Iranians use to wash their bottoms.
The Iranian morality police arrest the infidel after forcing him to drink from the toilet watering cans hanging around his neck.
Note that the Iranian "police" are enforcing their "morality" on people who are not conceivably subject to Islamic law, much less their extremist interpretation.
Here's a simple, less egregious example:
Whipped for wearing a soccer shirt.
This picture, like the others posted by several "new media" folks, are official pictures formally released by FARS and ISNA, the Iranian "news" agencies. I also note that, in these and other pictures, the "police" are all masked — which says to me these people know what they are doing is very wrong and, at some level, they are ashamed of what they are doing. Just like criminals the world over. And yet, from the pictures, they seem proud to be abusing innocent people. So why are they hiding behind masks?
More on this at Gateway Pundit, Captains Quarters, and Ali Eteraz. Ali Eteraz says this is all part of the Iranian government's intimidation and misdirection efforts designed to keep Iranians from protesting the fact that Iran's economy has been so mismanaged, that it is in so deep a hole, that this oil-rich nation must ration gasoline to its population.
June 24, 2007 Islamist Depravity
The Taliban, upstanding leaders of the Religion of PeaceTM that they are, are using six year old children as human bombs in their quest to commit mass murder.
“They placed explosives on a six-year-old boy and told him to walk up to the Afghan police or army and push the button,” said Captain Michael Cormier, the company commander who intercepted the child, in a statement. “Fortunately, the boy did not understand and asked patrolling officers why he had this vest on.”
The British soldiers defused the vest. The child's name and present location have not been released.
What can one possibly say about this? I cannot even begin to comprehend this level of subhuman behavior. The best I can do is quote:
The depravity of Islamists has no bounds. Remember that.
July 4, 2007 Just a Normal Al Qaeda Day
Al Qaeda terrorists are trying to set up a shadow government in Iraq, complete with its own courts, torture houses, and prisons. They are trying to call themselves "The Islamic State of Iraq" but Michael Yon reports the new name is just "lipstick on a pig" there. One reason is the version of Sharia law implemented by the Al Qaeda Muftis (judges) which includes severing the two "smoking fingers" of those caught smoking, beatings for refusing to grow beards, and beatings for such "obscene sexual suggestiveness" as carrying tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag.
Like most bullies, Al Qaeda terrorists make a great show of being fearsome warriors but, also like most bullies, they are cowards. Al Qaeda terrorists hide behind women and children, and attack Coalition soldiers from behind their human shields. Al Qaeda terrorists are caught trying to escape while dressed as women. Al Qaeda terrorists take over a village they think they can hide in and attack American and Iraqi soldiers from, murder every man & woman & child & animal in the village, and rig the houses with explosives when they cut & run — leaving it to the Iraqi army to provide the burial rites of the religion the terrorists pretend to follow. Al Qaeda terrorists cut off the heads of children.
All in a normal day's activities for the Al Qaeda wolves, the pretenders in Muslim sheep's clothing. And, of course, these activities are completely ignored by the New York Times.
July 6, 2007 Sub-Humans
Every time I think they can't possibly get more debased and perverted, they can't possibly sink to an even deeper level of barbarity, the sub-humans of al Qaeda prove me wrong.
The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.
It seems to me the families served in this way were those with whom al Qaeda had been making no progress. This sort of barbaric treatment is unlikely to convert parents to the barbarians' point of view.
There are those who have suggested this is some sort of urban legend. And that is possible. But these actions were clearly believed by the official who reported them, and who showed a firm grasp on what had really been going on in the Baqubah area in the rest of what he said. And I, for one, would not be ready to assert that those rape and kill women and children in front of their families, and who enjoy using power drills on people in al Qaeda torture houses, would shrink from this additional barbarity.
There's a new dispatch from Michael Yon in and around Baqubah, Iraq. He provides new information on what the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers are dealing with there, and some perspective on the al Qaeda atrocity he reported previously (and I commented on here). There is information on a couple other topics as well.
Definitely worth reading. Recommended.
July 15, 2007 ... What She Said
I have wanted to write a piece about the need to quit ignoring the barbarity of those who have declared themselves our enemies, and the need to recognize how very important it is that we not lose — or quit. Now somebody else has done it, and done it much better than I ever could.
The piece combines Michael Yon's on-scene observations with Kathryn Jean Lopez' analysis to make a necessary point with superb clarity. It is titled "Severed heads beat report cards to the truth".
(The January 29th Ramirez cartoon shown here provides a different, though parallel, view.) And now the Iraqis themselves have given the best answer to Zarqawi (see the January 30th “Day by Day” cartoon below and lots of pictures from Sunday’s election). It was truly amazing to see the commitment to democracy and self-government the Iraqis showed. One key measure: It looks like they had a higher voter turnout that we did — and we weren’t threatened with death if we voted. (We don’t get an indelible mark to show we voted, either.) That should give a finger in the eye of all the “liberal” racists who have spent so many months and years insisting Arabs and Muslims don’t want, and are culturally incapable of handling, the forms and substance of democracy. Those “liberals” should read some of the Iraqi blogs, like 
“Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done, and President Bush, let them go to hell!”
Many of us have dodged bullets of one kind or another. Once in a while we may even know it. But not like Pat Gilmore.
Whatever we call them, there is a huge difference between them and legitimate soldiers. This is best exemplified by the two groups’ interactions with civilians. Hezbollah hides among civilians for protection, usually behind women’s skirts and behind children. Hezbollah also targets civilians — much of the time, it targets civilians exclusively. Real soldiers do not target civilians; they do what they can to protect civilians, avoid civilian casualties, and minimize collateral damage — a task made difficult by an enemy that routinely uses civilians as human shields.
