MOVABLE TYPE : TEMPLATE

Splitter?

With Al Qaeda on the ropes, in Iraq (a central front by their own definition) and elsewhere, is Sayyid Imam al-Sharif becoming the hirabist movement's equivalent of Trotsky?

A key point from the Journal editorial:

Zawahiri himself last month repeated his claim that the country "is now the most important arena in which our Muslim nation is waging the battle against the forces of the Crusader-Zionist campaign." So it's all the more significant that on this crucial battleground, al Qaeda has been decimated by the surge of U.S. forces into Baghdad. The surge, in turn, gave confidence to the Sunni tribes that this was a fight they could win. For Zawahiri, losing the battles you say you need to win is not a way to collect new recruits. ...

[I]t is the surge, and the destruction of al Qaeda in Iraq , that has helped to demoralize al Qaeda around the world. Nothing would more embolden Zawahiri now than a U.S. retreat from Iraq, which al Qaeda would see as the U.S. version of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

That should be required reading for the Obama campaign. If we had followed his advice, we'd already have such an emboldened Al Qaeda. But they seem to be in denial:

...if Obama fails to "capitalize"-to take advantage of circumstances his opponent helped create and he opposed-is he guilty of only excessive pessimism? Or has he proven himself to be inflexible, unmoved by new facts, unwilling to admit error and divorced from reality? Hmmm, seems like someone said similar things about George W. Bush.

It does seem ironic.

[h/t to Cliff May for the Journal piece]

[Update a few minutes later]

It's not just Al Qaeda on the run in Iraq. The Mahdi Army and its Iranian allies aren't have a good time, either:

VSSA-logo.jpg Permalink | Printer-friendly version Iraqi Army interdicting Iranian operations in the South By Bill RoggioJune 1, 2008 10:48 PM

Click to view larger interactive map of southern Iraq.

Iraqi and Coalition forces press operations against the Mahdi Army in Baghdad and Basrah despite the cease-fire signed with the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. The Iraqi Army has expanded its operations in Basrah province to the east just along the Iranian border, while 11 Mahdi Army fighters have been captured during operations in Baghdad over the past 24 hours.

Iraqi soldiers and police, backed by US and British advisers, have expanded Operation Knights' Assault to the eastern town of Abu Al Khasib, in a region east of Basrah on the Iranian border. A brigade from the 1st Iraqi Army Division, backed by a battalion from 14th Iraqi Army Division and two Iraqi National Police battalions conducted operations along the border over the past two days. One suspect was detained and 52 AK-47 assault rifles and one submachine gun were found during the sweep.

Abu Al Khasib is on Highway 6 at the border crossing with Iran at Shalamcheh. The Iranian city of Shalamcheh is the main forward operating base for the Ramazan Corps's southernmost command. The Ramazan Corps is the Qods Force command assigned to direct operations inside Iraq. Weapons, fighters, and cash smuggled across the border into Basrah would pass through Abu Al Khasib.

The Iraqi Army has been expanding its operations along the Iranian supply routes in the South during the month of May. After clearing the Mahdi Army and other Iranian-backed militias from Basrah, operations have expanded into Az Zubayr and Al Qurnah.

It's still five months to go until the election, with a lot more potential progress to come. I can imagine the anti-Obama ads, contrasting the (undeniable, at that point) progress in Iraq with video of the evacuations from the embassy roof in Saigon. It could be a repeat of either McGovern, or Carter in 1980.

[Update a little while later]

Victor Davis Hanson has some related observations:

How odd (or to be expected) that suddenly intelligence agencies, analysts, journalists, and terrorists themselves are attesting that al-Qaeda is in near ruins, that ideologically radical Islam is losing its appeal, and that terrorist incidents against Americans at home and abroad outside the war zones are at an all-time low--and yet few associate the radical change in fortune in Iraq as a contributory cause to our success.

Actually, given the pervasive bias in the media on this subject, it's to be expected, not odd at all.

[Early afternoon update]

The Taliban is on the ropes in Afghanistan, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AM

Breakfast Cereals and Garrison Keillor

Don't miss today's Bleat, over at Lileks place. He has a proper fisking of his fellow Minnesotan scribe.

[Late morning update]

As Jay Manifold points out, the permalink is wrong--it's pointing to Friday's Bleat. For now, until it's fixed, just go to today's Bleat.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:42 AM

May 30, 2008
Maybe They Could Use Crayons

There's been quite a bit of commentary about the technological backwardness of the enemy. That is certainly a key distinction between this war and World War II and the Cold war, in which we were at war with technologically advanced industrial states (Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union), whereas the hirabis have virtually no industrial or weapons-making capability, short of nail bombs. I think that it was Rich Lowry who compared the two cultures by writing something like "...we build skyscrapers and jet airliners--that's our idea. They hijack our airliners and fly them into the skyscrapers--that's their idea."

Anyway, there was some buzz recently that they had developed a computer graphic of a nuked Washington DC for one of their propaganda videos.

Nope. They had to lift it from a western video game. They're not only incapable of carrying out our destruction, they're not even capable of simulating it. But it does speak strongly to their intent if they ever get their hands on advanced weaponry, something that, with advancing technology, will become more and more of a problem in the future.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AM

May 29, 2008
What Doesn't?

Apparently, the phrase "War on Terror" offends Muslims. Words fail.

Well, OK, not completely. Somehow, this reminds me of the (feigned?) outrage that the Democrats exhibited when President Bush talked about appeasers in his speech to the Knesset, but didn't name names. You know what? If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. It doesn't really serve your cause when, in response to criticism of someone unnamed, you jump up and shout, "Hey, he's talkin' 'bout me!"

Similarly, how can Muslims be offended by a "war on terror"? Do they think that terror and Islam are inevitably and appropriately identified with each other, and inseparable? Well, if so, stupidity like this just fuels that perception.

[Update in the evening]

Robert Spencer has further thoughts on fantasy-based policy making.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:41 PM

May 25, 2008
I'd Buy One

I think that a bumper sticker that said "I'D RATHER HAVE BUSH'S THIRD TERM THAN JIMMY CARTER'S SECOND" would be a hot seller, assuming that Obama is the nominee. Note, contrary to convention wisdom, I still don't assume that. There's this little thing called a "convention" coming up that will determine that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 PM

"The Sun Sets"

...finally, on the British Empire.

Strange to witness one of the oldest and most successful of nations commit suicide without even being aware of what it's doing.

Strange indeed. And very sad.

[Update, a few minutes later]

You know, if the Saudis wanted to spend their money building Muslim hospitals in the UK (just as the Catholics have their own hospitals in the US), complete with restrictions as to how much hygiene is required on the part of the nursing staff, per sharia law, who could object to them orienting the beds in whatever direction they wished? The only people who would suffer would be the Muslims stupid enough to use their services.

But instead, because Britain, with its NHS (and other programs) has become a welfare state, it's a lot cheaper for them to spend the money bribing MPs to institute such nonsense in the public hospitals, so they can save their money for funding madrassas that encourage people to bomb the Tube.

This would seem to have parallels to the public school system, and the battles over what kind of "science" to teach in science classes. It is an intrinsic pitfall of state-supplied health and education. Not to mention other vital needs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:18 PM

May 21, 2008
Lebanon Has Been Lost

Why is there no news about this? Sorry, but I think that it's more important than both the primaries and Ted Kennedy's brain tumor. I really don't understand it, particularly since it seems like a great opportunity to blame George Bush, and actually (much more rarely) be right.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AM

May 19, 2008
One Of The (Many) Reasons

...that Obama is unlikely to win. Michael Weiss writes extensively about his Iraq minefield:

...there is every expectation that Obama will have his bluff called sooner or later. Adolph Reed, a prominent black leftist intellectual who teaches political science at the University of Pennsylvania, published a fascinating and undervalued essay in current issue of The Progressive magazine. It is titled "Obama No." Professor Reed has followed the resistible rise of this young Chicago politico for quite some time, and he never liked what he saw:

Obama's style of being all things to all people threatens to melt under the inescapable spotlight of a national campaign against a Republican. It's like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that's so big that they can't hide their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they've told different people.
Again, for various reasons, this is not the kind of thing that Hillary! was able to use against Obama, but it will be devastating to him in the fall.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:46 PM

May 16, 2008
"The Real Iraq"

Michael Totten reviews Michael Yon's book:

Iraq is a tragic, unhappy, and often disturbing place, but it's less sinister and frightening up close than it is from a distance. That's because it's a country striving for normality, whose normal aspects rarely make their way into media reports that highlight violence, mayhem, and failure. On TV, Iraq looks like a nation of masked, gun-toting fanatics, but in person, one finds friendliness, solidarity, and reasonableness amid the chaos. "Just because Iraqis have 'Allahu Akbar' on their flag," Yon writes, "doesn't mean they're going to blow up the World Trade Center any more than 'In God We Trust' means we're going to attack Communist China." "Iraq does not hate America," he insists. "If they hated us, I'd be urging an immediate troop withdrawal, because there would be no hope of winning this war. If the Iraqis hated us, we would be fighting the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi Army. Instead, we're fighting alongside them."

Yon convincingly argues that the U.S. is winning in Iraq, at least for the moment. "The enemy learned that our people and the Iraqi forces would close in and kill them if they dared stand their ground. This is important: an enemy forced to choose between dying or hiding inevitably loses legitimacy. Legitimacy is essential. Men who must always either run or die are no longer an army and are not going to found a caliphate." The outcome, though, is still in doubt. If Petraeus's surge strategy fails or is prematurely short-circuited by Congress, the American and Iraqi forces will almost certainly lose. "Maybe creating a powerful democracy in the Middle East was a foolish reason to go to war," Yon concludes. "Maybe it was never the reason we went to war. But it is within our grasp now and nearly all the hardest work has been done." Which makes the present moment the moment of truth in Iraq.

Barack Obama might productively read it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:11 PM

May 12, 2008
No Revolution This Year

Glenn Reynolds has a review of Ron Paul's book. I haven't read the book, but I agree with the points made in the review about Paul's views, and the difference between Rothbardians and Heinleinians.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:41 AM

May 10, 2008
Hezbollah's Apologists

It's been a rough week (and year) for them. I expect Obama to want no-conditions negotiations with them any minute.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 PM

May 08, 2008
Dhimmification

Sam Harris has a long piece at (of all places) the Huffington Post on the unwillingness of western civilization to stand up for its own values against radical Islam. And as others have noted (and he notes himself), this is particularly ironic:

In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders' film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a "kill fee." I declined.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:34 AM

April 28, 2008
Creeping Sharia

Bruce Bawer, on the cultural surrender of the west, aided and abetted by our own media, and the multi-culturalists in both academia and government.

Not exactly a new theme, but it doesn't hurt to repeat or remind, for those who haven't seen things like this, or have gone back to sleep.

It's a long piece, but this is really the nut of it:

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, KhoÃ‚Âmeini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies' basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success.

Sadly, he makes a good case.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:39 AM

April 27, 2008
Rest In Peace

Pamela Bone, who broke with the Left over the common cause that so much of it found with radical Islam, has died of cancer.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 PM

A New Member?

Since Saddam was removed from power, there's been a vacancy in George Bush's three-nation "axis of evil." It looks like Syria has decided to apply for the position (and did so long ago, and even at the time was no doubt an unindicted co-conspirator--one wonders why Bush didn't include it in the beginning). Now, Austin Bay discusses the disturbing relationship between the two dictatorships of Syria and North Korea, and their increasingly evident first-strike posture.

Given Nancy Pelosi's idiotic visit with Assad earlier, and the dictator-soothing noises coming from the Obama campaign, Israel has to be very nervous about the Democrats running both the executive and legislative branch. Don't be surprised to see more strikes on Syria, and on Iran itself, this fall, if it looks like Obama is going to win, or does win--they won't want to wait until it's too late, after he's taken office in January.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:46 AM

April 25, 2008
Naming The Enemy

Are we at war with Jihadism?

Of course it is true that Islamic reformers are trying to redefine the very troubling concept of jihad as a positive: viz., an internal struggle for personal betterment. Much as I'd love them to succeed, it is a well-intentioned folly -- largely because of modern culture, which puts such a premium on authenticity. If you want to encourage the reformers, then encourage them to drop the concept of jihad altogether. As a matter of history, jihad is a military obligation. As long as it is accorded a central place in Islam, the militants are always going to be deemed more authentic, more true to the faith of Mohammed, than the reformers.

If correct, this makes the latest State Department policy all the more idiotic.

I still prefer the term Hirabis myself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 AM

March 14, 2008
Actually Reading The Report

One of the prevailing myths (though that's a generous term--perhaps Big Lie would be more accurate) of the left was that Saddam had no ties to terrorism prior to his removal (Obama has used it as a central theme, in fact, of his campaign). Many in the media reported a few days ago that a recent Pentagon report had substantiated this template. However, as Ed Morrissey notes, they could have done this only by not reading the report, relying instead on spin and leaks from the Pentagon. Those who did actually read it would come to an opposite conclusion:

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

And why would anyone be surprised that this was the case? He hated the US, and Israel, and was rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers' families with cash. Other than the other myth (that he was secular, and they were extreme Islamic fanatics, and would have nothing to do with each other), why wouldn't he collaborate and cooperate with them against a common enemy?

If the McCain campaign is smart, they'll use this to school Obama again. Particularly since his proposed solution--to not have invaded Iraq--involves the need for a time machine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:32 AM

March 10, 2008
Beware The Experts

Michael Totten has a report from an interesting area of Iraq, with some cautionary words:

Be wary of any "expert" who says they know what's going on everywhere in Iraq. It's impossible to have both a general and a granular understanding of that country in real time. You can know one area well, or you can know several areas superficially, but you cannot have an intimate understanding of the entire country while it's in upheaval and flux. It doesn't matter how many times you've been there or how how many articles and languages you read.

One of the reasons I don't pay much attention to the trolls in the comments section.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:11 AM

Guitar Heros

Michael Yon has a long but interesting post about helicopter combat in Iraq:

Sometimes I sit up on a hill and watch them in the air. The other day two Kiowas were screaming low right over the rooftops and doing hard turns. I couldn't see the combat because they were too far away, but I knew they were toe to toe and there was plenty of shooting going on or they wouldn't have been flying so violently. It's scary watching them because I've met them and know they are mortals doing the work of immortals. At any second there could be a fireball. A "fallen angel." I remember the call over the radio last year of a "fallen angel" down by Baghdad. All aboard had been lost.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 AM

March 09, 2008
Blackbird Memories

From a former pilot.

...the plane was dripping, much like the misshapen model had assembled in my youth. Fuel was seeping through the joints, raining down on the hangar floor. At Mach 3, the plane would expand several inches because of the severe temperature, which could heat the leading edge of the wing to 1,100 degrees. To prevent cracking, expansion joints had been built into the plane. Sealant resembling rubber glue covered the seams, but when the plane was subsonic, fuel would leak through the joints.

One of the sayings of the program was that if the plane wasn't dripping, don't bother to get in--someone forgot to fuel it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AM

March 08, 2008
Why Do They Hate Us?

Apparently, that's what Ahmadinejad should be asking about the Iraqis:

Weeks of hard work by Iranian emissaries and pro-Iran elements in Iraq were supposed to ensure massive crowds thronging the streets of Baghdad and throwing flowers on the path of the visiting Iranian leader. Instead, no more than a handful of Iraqis turned up for the occasion. The numbers were so low that the state-owned TV channels in Iran decided not to use the footage at all.

Instead, much larger crowds gathered to protest Ahmadinejad's visit. In the Adhamiya district of Baghdad, several thousand poured into the streets with cries of "Iranian aggressor, go home!"

But, but... I thought that our foolish adventure in Iraq only created an Iranian puppet there?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:20 AM

March 05, 2008
Anti-Cleric Revolt?

This seems like good news, if true:

"In the beginning, they gave their eyes and minds to the clerics; they trusted them," said Abu Mahmoud, a moderate Sunni cleric in Baghdad, who now works deprogramming religious extremists in American detention. "It's painful to admit, but it's changed. People have lost too much. They say to the clerics and the parties: You cost us this."
"When they behead someone, they say 'Allahu akbar,' they read Koranic verse," said a moderate Shiite sheik from Baghdad, using the phrase for "God is great."

"The young people, they think that is Islam," he said. "So Islam is a failure, not only in the students' minds, but also in the community."

A professor at Baghdad University's School of Law, who identified herself only as Bushra, said of her students: "They have changed their views about religion. They started to hate religious men. They make jokes about them because they feel disgusted by them."

If militant Islam is the enemy, this seems like a victory to me. Let's try to spread the infection throughout the Muslim world.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:21 AM

March 04, 2008
Where Have The Heros Gone?

It's not a new subject, but Lileks muses on what's happened to Hollywood (and popular culture in general):

...imagine a story conference for the Beowulf movie: you know, I see modern parallels here - not surprising, given the timelessness of the epic. But the Mead Hall is civilization itself, an outpost constructed against the elements, and Grendel is the raging force that hates the song they sing-

"They hate us for our singing!" Knowing chuckles around the table.

No seriously, he does hate them for their singing. That's the point.

He hates what they've built, what they've done, how they live their lives.

"Maybe he has reason. That's the interesting angle. What drives Grendel?"

Yes, you're right. You're absolutely right. No one's ever taken the side of the demon in the entire history of literature, especially the last 40 years. By all means, let us craft an elaborate backstory for the guy who breaks down the door and chews the heads of the townsfolk, that we may better understand how we came to this point.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:00 AM

March 02, 2008
Confused

Selena Zito writes that all of the remaining presidential candidates are Scots-Irish.

Really? This is the first I'd heard that Hillary! was of Scots-Irish descent. I'd always assumed that she was from Puritan stock. That's the way she's always acted. And Obama is obviously, at best, only half Scots-Irish.

Zito doesn't seem to quite get the concept, either:

How can there be such scant understanding of a 30 million-strong ethnic group that has produced so many leaders and swung most elections?

Perhaps because political academics and pollsters parse the Scottish half off with the WASP vote and define the Irish-Catholic half as blue-collar Democrats. They are neither.

There is no "Irish-Catholic half" of the Scots-Irish. Scots-Irish aren't Irish at all. Neither are they Scottish. They were mostly Anglo-Saxon, not Celtic. They were also a violent people with an honor culture, mercenaries from the border area between England and Scotland. As the article notes, they were sent by the English to colonize Ulster, to get them out of Britain after the war between England and Scotland was settled and they had no more need for them. The ones too violent for Ulster were shipped off to America, so they're a double distillation of the most violent culture that the British Isles produced. After they fought (mostly for the South) in the Civil War, many of them headed out west.

People who think that America is too violent blame it on the proliferation of guns. But they confuse cause and effect. We have a lot of guns because we have a lot of Scots-Irish (aka rednecks). But it comes in pretty handy during war time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:29 AM

March 01, 2008
The Moderate Muslim Supermajority

Michael Totten writes that there are a lot more moderate Muslims than we think.

I blame the media, which rewards the radicals with lots of (biased) news coverage, and ignores those who speak out and fight against them. I think, like Michael, that it's appalling that they pay any attention at all to CAIR. They need to actively seek out true moderate representatives of Islam.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PM

Crickets Chirping At The ICRC?

With all the hue and cry about Korans in toilets in Guantanamo, where are all the staunch defenders of the Geneva Conventions now?

The terrorists are operating within civilian areas, many times with the actual assistance of these civilians, and more often than not with their tacit approval. Brace yourselves for the palestinian propaganda offensive going into overdrive, including stories about civilian deaths, many of which may not be true.

Here's another point:

We are lectured a great deal about the importance of democratizing the Middle East as, somehow, a strategy to defeat terrorism. I do not want to reargue this issue or make too much (again) of the fact that popular elections have thus far succeeded in empowering terrorists.

My question for the moment is this: Does this democratization ever entail any responsibility? The Palestinian "civilians" were given a choice in 2006, and they chose to elect Hamas -- a choice that was overwhelming in Gaza, where the terror organization -- having ousted the more "moderate" terror-mongers from Fatah -- now rules. If the civilians, eyes wide open, opt to be led by a terrorist organization whose chief calling card is its pledge to destroy Israel (a sentiment shared by a large majority of the "civilian" population), how upset are we supposed to get when the said civilians get caught in the cross-fire that is provoked by the savages they elected?

I have always thought that one of the aims of the Israeli pullout of Gaza was to demonstrate that the Palestinians are incapable of forming a functioning state, and of having someone accountable when Israel is attacked. If that was the goal, it seems to have succeeded. Hamas has declared war (or actually, Hamas has never not been in a state of war with Israel, since the destruction of Israel is one of its primary purposes), and now it will have to accept the consequences.

Hamas is blatantly violating just about every one of the Geneva Conventions, I suspect, but I fearlessly predict that only Israel will be charged with "war crimes." We know that the world will claim that the death of every innocent civilian in Gaza, among whom these war criminals hide, will be Israel's fault. No one, after all, can ever violate the Geneva Conventions except for the US and Israel, even when they don't.

Hmmmm...I wonder what the ICRC has to say about this?

[wandering over and reading]

The most recent release related to the subject is from Thursday, in which it simply tells both sides to "use restraint" against killing civilians. It says nothing about military operations among civilians in Gaza, or indeed anything specific at all, about anyone's behavior. I thought that they were supposed to be the defenders and upholders of the Conventions? Why can they not denounce this?

[Update a little while later]

I just reread the release at the ICRC site, and I just can't get over it. Let's just unpack this one graf:

Numerous rockets have been fired at the Israeli towns of Ashkelon and Sderot, hitting civilian areas and landing inside a hospital compound. At the same time, the Israel Defense Forces have carried out several air strikes inside the Gaza Strip. On both sides, there have been civilian fatalities and injuries.

Really?

"...rockets have been fired, and 'at the same time' the IDF have carried out several air strikes." Surely they don't mean literally "at the same time"? As though both Israel and Hamas decided to bomb babies, just for the hell of it?

All right, no doubt by "the same time," they are simply expressing an equivalence between them, not literally saying that the events were simultaneous. Of course, the reality is that first the rockets were fired, with the deliberate intent of killing Israeli civilians to the maximum degree possible, given the crude aiming capability of the rockets, which was followed, afterward by air strikes from Israel whose purpose was to take out the facilities that were launching the rockets in order to prevent further rocket attacks.

This moral equivalence, with no mention whatsoever of the daily, ongoing war crimes by Hamas, is simply nauseating. The ICRC may have moral standing in the world, but it has none with me.

[Update on Sunday afternoon]

A good point in comments. The release isn't even neutral. "Rockets were fired" (passive voice--who knows who fired them? Maybe they fired themselves?) versus the active and specific "IDF carried out air strikes."

[Update a little later]

Here it comes. The Saudis (who else?) are accusing Israel of war crimes. And not just any war crimes, no. Nazi war crimes.

And a bad word for the state that is actually committing war crimes.

[Via LGF]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:02 PM

February 29, 2008
I Sure Hope So

It would be a waste of money otherwise.

Hezbollah says that the US warship off the Lebanese coast is a theat. I wonder if the fact that it's the USS Cole is sending a subtle message as well?

[Update on Saturday]

The Saudis must think that something is up, too:

Future Television, privately owned by Saad Hariri who heads the majority anti-Syrian bloc in parliament, said Saudi Arabia had advised its nationals to leave Lebanon 'as soon as possible.'

Do they know something we don't?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:40 PM

February 28, 2008
Things Heating Up In The Levant?

Maybe:

The US Navy is sending three warships to the eastern Mediterranean Sea in a show of strength during a period of tensions with Syria and political uncertainty in Lebanon.

It's hard to believe that Syria really wants another war, given how easily Israel penetrated their supposedly impenetrable Russian defenses last fall. I think that the message is that if Hezbollah wants to take on Israel again, they'd better do it alone.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:15 PM

The Obama Solution: A Time Machine

Frank J. has the man himself to explain.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:09 PM

"Slow The Development Of Future Combat Systems"

In what fantasyland does Obama think that this is a winning campaign plank during a war?

I see another 1972 coming up for the Dems.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AM

February 26, 2008
Reforming Islam?

Let's hope so:

Commentators say the very theology of Islam is being reinterpreted in order to effect a radical renewal of the religion.

Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion.

Turkish officials have been reticent about the revision of the Hadith until now, aware of the controversy it is likely to cause among traditionalist Muslims, but they have spoken to the BBC about the project, and their ambitious aims for it.

Well, if anyone can do it, it seems like the Turks should be able to.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:59 PM

Report From Anbar

Another photo essay from Michael Totten:

"Don't get any closer," Corporal Waddle said. "We need to stay out of the blast radius in case it blows."
One Marine, whose name I didn't catch, accompanied the Iraqi man to the location of the explosive. "It's an 82mm mortar round," he said when he returned. "It's not an IED. Most likely a round that didn't go off when it was fired."

Every time I thought something vaguely exciting might happen, it didn't happen. There is no war in Western Iraq any more. This is a mop-up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 AM

February 12, 2008
No Thynge Coold Plese Me Moore

...than a blogge by Sir Iowahawke on that ArchBisheoppe Of Canterbeerry:

25 Sayeth the pilgryms to Bishop Rowan,
26 "Father, we do not like howe thynges are goin'.

27 You know we are as Lefte as thee,

28 But of layte have beyn chaunced to see

29 From Edinburgh to London-towne

30 The Musslemans in burnoose gowne

31 Who beat theyr ownselfs with theyr knyves

32 Than goon home and beat theyr wyves

33 And slaye theyr daughtyrs in honour killlynge

34 Howe do we stoppe the bloode fromme spillynge?"

35 The Bishop sipped upon hys tea

36 And sayed, "an open mind must we

37 Keep, for know thee well the Mussel-man

38 Has hys own laws for hys own clan

39 So question not hys Muslim reason

40 And presaerve ye well social cohesion."

Reade, thee, the reste.

It cood be only the product of an undhimmified English major.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 PM

The War Has Already Started In Europe

They just don't realize it. And they don't realize they're losing, though many, particularly in the UK, are starting to.

Spengler, on Europe in the Dar Al-Harb.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:50 AM

The Final Mission

Michael Totten writes about the last stages of the war in Fallujah, and Anbar:

According to planet-wide conventional wisdom, United States soldiers and Marines are on an abusive rampage in Iraq. Relentless media coverage of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib - which really did occur, but which the United States didn't sanction or tolerate - seriously distorted what actually goes on in Iraq most of the time. The United States military is far from perfect and is hardly guilt-free, but it's the most law-abiding and humane institution in Iraq at this time.
"Human rights are legal tools in the hands of citizens against abuse of power by an oppressive state," Lieutenant Montgomery said. "If human rights are not respected, sooner or later it will lead to violence and instability...Human rights are rights that derive from the inherent dignity and worth of the person, and they are universal, inalienable, and equal. They are the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace. They belong to people simply because they are human." Again, he read from it the white board. All Iraqi Police officers in Al Anbar are exposed to this material.

...I've said before that American soldiers and Marines aren't the bloodthirsty killers of the popular (in certain quarters) imagination, and that they are far less racist against Arabs than average Americans. They are also, famously, less racist against each other, and they have been since they were forcibly integrated after World War II. This is due to sustained everyday contact with each other and with Iraqis. The stereotype of the racist and unhinged American soldier and Marine is itself a bigoted caricature based almost entirely on sensationalist journalism and recklessly irresponsible war movies.

Liberal journalist George Packer has spent a lot of time in Iraq and is a reliable critic of the Bush Administration and the war. He, like me, has his opinions and doesn't conceal them. But he reports what he sees honestly and comprehensively. You can trust him whether you agree with his views or not.

In a current World Affairs article he pans some of Hollywood's recent anti-war box office flops. "[T]he films...present the war as incomprehensible mayhem," he wrote, "and they depict American soldiers as psychopaths who may as well be wearing SS uniforms. The G.I.s rape, burn, and mutilate corpses, torture detainees, accelerate a vehicle to run over a boy playing soccer, wantonly kill civilians and journalists in firefights, humiliate one another, and coolly record their own atrocities for entertainment. Have these things happened in Iraq? Many have. But in the cinematic version of the war, these are the only things that happen in Iraq. At a screening of The Situation, I was asked to discuss the film with its director, Philip Haas. Why had he portrayed the soldiers in cartoon fashion, I wondered. Why had he missed their humor, their fear, their tenderness for one another and even, every now and then, for Iraqis? Because, Haas said, he wanted to concentrate on humanizing his Iraqi characters instead."

It's not hard to humanize Iraqis and Americans. A competent writer or director can do both at the same time. In fact, it requires deliberate effort or willful ignorance for a writer or director to humanize Iraqis while at the same time dehumanizing Americans. Packer humanizes both because he's a good writer, he's honest, and he actually works in Iraq. He leaves his fortified hotel compound and makes an effort to get it right, unlike so many writers, directors, and journalists in the stereotype-manufacturing industries.

As is often the case, conventional wisdom isn't necessarily wise, or correct. The press, both foreign and American, has not acquitted itself well in Iraq. That is the real failure over there, contrary to what Nancy and Harry continue to ignorantly (and cynically) bleat about.

Read the whole thing, and support real reporters like Michael Totten with his tip jar.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:28 AM

February 11, 2008
Down A Big Cup Of Duuuhhhh

Some intelligence agencies are starting to think that maybe bin Laden hasn't been alive for a long time:

Questions about Bin Laden are being raised by intelligence officials who say that without a specific time mark with a photo of Bin Laden, his presence cannot be confirmed and the most recent statements could have been put together from older audio.

Yes, and that has been true since Tora Bora. Haven't these people ever wondered, or speculated why bin Laden, who was second only to Senator Schumer when it came to being a camera hog, all of a sudden switched from video to audio about six years ago? Even if he said things that seemed to indicate knowledge of recent events, that could have been done by splicing and manipulating an audio tape, or finding someone to imitate his voice. Maybe they've been using voice prints, but I don't know how reliable they really are. I do know that it's a lot harder to fake a video, and when I consider the fact that we've heard only audios, and not seen a new video (at least one that can be shown to be from a post-2002 period) I have long thought that he's been pushing up poppies since then.

Of course, the other reason that I've long thought that he's dead is that our so-called intelligence agencies--the same ones that subverted our pressure on Iran last fall with their "intelligence" estimate that they're not building a bomb--have continued to tell me that he's alive. To me, the question is not whether or not he's alive, but why so many in the so-called intelligence community have been so determined to continue to attempt to convince us that he is for the past six years.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:23 PM

The Cairing Party

The misspelling is deliberate:

Perhaps some members of Congress had been fooled by CAIR's deception. But now they have no excuse. Now Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who saluted CAIR's "important work," and Sen. Paul Sarbanes, who applauded "CAIR's mission," know better.
The criminal briefing should also disabuse Rep. John Conyers, who's trumpeted CAIR's "long and distinguished history." Rep. John Dingell, who said "my office door is always open" to CAIR, now has an obligation to slam it shut.

No red-blooded American lawmaker wants to do anything that would facilitate the support of terrorists, not even Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who's gushed "CAIR has much to be proud of."

And shame on the (much fewer) Republicans on the list as well.

Moderate American Muslims need to form and promote an organization that truly speaks for them, and not for radicals and terrorism. But if they do, will the Democrats pay any attention, or will they remain enthralled with CAIR?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AM

February 10, 2008
Boo Hoo

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is very demoralized:

In the Anbar document, the author describes an al-Qaida in crisis, with citizens growing weary of militants' presence and foreign fighters too eager to participate in suicide missions rather than continuing to fight, said Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a U.S. military spokesman.
"We lost cities and afterward, villages ... We find ourselves in a wasteland desert," Smith quoted the document as saying.

The memo cites militants' increasing difficulty in moving around and transporting weapons and suicide belts because of better equipped Iraqi police and more watchful citizens, Smith said.

The author of the diary seized near Balad wrote that he was once in charge of 600 fighters, but only 20 were left "after the tribes changed course"_ a reference to how many Sunni tribesmen have switched sides to fight alongside the Americans, Smith said.

No thanks to Harry or Nancy. This is a real problem for the press. There may not be enough foreign fighters left to create the new Tet that they're dying to report.

[Update early afternoon]

The WaPo has more detailed account. Apparently the diary was from the October time period.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 AM

February 07, 2008
"A Feature, Not A Bug"

T. M. Lutas has some observations on the concern among the military for the modern political class in the west"

...we've always had the best military toys. But that technological line ended with the invention of the nuclear weapon. Once you can destroy the planet, where else is there to go in terms of outright destructiveness? We're trying to continue to improve by enhancing the precision of our violence but in the face of a force that wants terror, imprecision is a feature, not a bug.

Read the whole thing.

The danger we are confronting now is that mass destruction is coming into the hands of individuals, and it's going to continue to get worse. A policy of "non-interventionism" is not just futile, but suicidal, in such a world.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:12 PM

February 06, 2008
One Toke Over The Line

Willie Nelson comes out as a Truther.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:18 PM

Forty Years Later

Remembering the lies of Tet.

As the Washington Post's Saigon bureau chief Peter Braestrup documented in his 1977 book, "The Big Story," the desperate fury of the communist attacks including on Saigon, where most reporters lived and worked, caught the press by surprise. (Not the military: It had been expecting an attack and had been on full alert since Jan. 24.) It also put many reporters in physical danger for the first time. Braestrup, a former Marine, calculated that only 40 of 354 print and TV journalists covering the war at the time had seen any real fighting. Their own panic deeply colored their reportage, suggesting that the communist assault had flung Vietnam into chaos.

Their editors at home, like CBS's Walter Cronkite, seized on the distorted reporting to discredit the military's version of events. The Viet Cong insurgency was in its death throes, just as U.S. military officials assured the American people at the time. Yet the press version painted a different picture.

To quote Braestrup, "the media tended to leave the shock and confusion of early February, as then perceived, fixed as the final impression of Tet" and of Vietnam generally. "Drama was perpetuated at the expense of information," and "the negative trend" of media reporting "added to the distortion of the real situation on the ground in Vietnam."

The North Vietnamese were delighted. On the heels of their devastating defeat, Hanoi increasingly shifted its propaganda efforts toward the media and the antiwar movement. Causing American (not South Vietnamese) casualties, even at heavy cost, became a battlefield objective in order to reinforce the American media's narrative of a failing policy in Vietnam.

Sound familiar?

I fear that Al Qaeda may attempt one more spasm of violence, and the media, ever dutiful to the enemy, wittingly or not, will report it as the war futile and lost in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 AM

February 01, 2008
Myopia

Armed Liberal writes about the anti-American left (if that's not redundant), and its inability to see anything through other an anti-western fun-house prism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:18 AM

January 30, 2008
Waking Up

Europeans are coming to the conclusion that Islam is dangerous:

"An overwhelming majority of the surveyed populations in Europe believe greater interaction between Islam and the West is a threat." Backbench Tory MP David Davies told the Sunday Express: "I am not surprised by these findings. People are fed up with multiculturalism and being told they have to give up their way of life."

"Most people in Britain expect anyone who comes here to be willing to learn our language and fit in with us."

Mr Davies, who serves on the Commons Home Affairs Committee, added: "People do get annoyed when they see millions spent on translating documents and legal aid being given to people fighting for the right to wear a head-to-toe covering at school."

...But leading Muslim academic Haleh Afshar, of York University, blamed media "hysteria" for the findings. She said: "There is an absence of trust towards Muslims, but to my mind that is very much driven by an uninformed media."

An "uninformed media."

Yes. That must be it.

It couldn't have anything to do with riots over cartoons, or bombings in the tube.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:23 AM

January 29, 2008
Radar Breakthrough

This looks like a pretty slick technology:

Lockheed for the first time has been testing a digital beam array to locate and track live targets--in this case, commercial and military aircraft coming in and out of the Philadelphia area. "The hard part was how we combined all the data ... to form the individual beams," Scott Smith, program manager for the radar system at Lockheed, tells PM. Commercially available high-speed digital electronics and advanced signal processors have become advanced enough to allow this data processing to occur, and that in turn has enabled digital beamforming to become practical for use outside a lab.

It will be helpful for ATC, but it has obvious military applications:

Digital beamforming radars will likely find their first homes on ships that track missile threats to U.S. fleets. Those threats will come from ballistic launches hundreds of miles away or from high-speed missiles launched from submarines or warplanes. The Russian government has been busy selling sea-skimming, antiship missiles to China that are designed to overwhelm the U.S. fleet's radars, so the ability to track multiple, fast-moving threats could become vital in the Taiwan Straits. But a digitized phased array radar can handle many incoming signals at once, and should be able to discern real threats from bits of metal or shaped decoy balloons.So somewhere a Chinese admiral is frowning at Lockheed's news, and a Taiwanese general is smirking.

Expect the usual suspects, any minute, to claim that it is "destabilizing" (a phrase they use any time the US comes up with a better way to defend itself).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:02 PM

January 28, 2008
Another Five-Year Anniversary

Such is the state of my disgust with the Bush administration that, it being my birthday, I probably won't bother to listen to his State of the Union speech tonight. But I recall another SOTU speech, exactly five years ago (on a previous birthday), that contained the sixteen words that the media continues to tell the Big Lie about, in their continuing attempt to maintain the conventional wisdom that it was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:47 PM

The Latest Bit Of Dhimmitude In The UK

Mark Steyn:

Here's another news item out of Britain this week: A new version of The Three Little Pigs was turned down for some "excellence in education" award on the grounds that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues" and, as a result, the judges "had concerns for the Asian community" â€” ie, Muslims. Non-Muslim Asians â€” Hindus and Buddhists â€” have no "concerns" about anthropomorphized pigs.
This is now a recurring theme in British life. A while back, it was a local government council telling workers not to have knick-knacks on their desks representing Winnie-the-Pooh's porcine sidekick, Piglet. As Martin NiemÃ¶ller famously said, first they came for Piglet and I did not speak out because I was not a Disney character and, if I was, I'm more of an Eeyore. So then they came for the Three Little Pigs, and Babe, and by the time I realized my country had turned into a 24/7 Looney Tunes it was too late, because there was no Porky Pig to stammer "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" and bring the nightmare to an end.

Just for the record, it's true that Muslims, like Jews, are not partial to bacon and sausages. But the Koran has nothing to say about cartoon pigs. Likewise, it is silent on the matter of whether one can name a teddy bear after Mohammed. What all these stories have in common is the excessive deference to Islam. If the Three Little Pigs are verboten when Muslims do not yet comprise ten per cent of the British population, what else will be on the blacklist by the time they're, say, 20 per cent?

And some related thoughts from Roger Kimball.

I am at the point where I think that we should say that no more mosques will be built in this country with Saudi money until there are churches and synagagues in Riyadh.

Charles Martel rolls in his grave.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:29 PM

January 24, 2008
Saddam Lied, People Died

So says Robert Bidinotto. Not to mention Sixty Minutes.

But as he notes, too many people are politically and emotionally invested in the myth that the administration lied for reality to have any impact on them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:30 PM

January 23, 2008
No Virgins For You

A suicide bomber blew himself up by falling down the stairs.

Well, at least we can be pretty sure that alcohol wasn't involved.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:06 PM

January 18, 2008
Prescient

A few months ago, T. M. Lutas made a bold prediction in the comments section of one of my blog posts:

Out of the 18 Iraqi provinces, 3 kurdish ones have their greatest security threats being foreign incursion from Turkey and Iran. Terrorism is successfully kept out. 4 arab provinces are under local management and we rarely, if ever, do anything there. That's 7 down, 11 to go with the rest of the provinces in various stages along the road towards handover. I fully expect that when the balance is 10:8 instead of 7:11 that we're going to see a sea change in coverage because "a majority of Iraq is under local control and relatively quiet" and all the MSM is going to realize that if they don't get on the right side of this quickly, the deluge of broken credibility will very likely worsen and shorten their personal careers significantly.
I expect at least 3 more provinces to get handed over between now and the height of campaign season 2008. I'd like to think that at least 6 more would make the transition by then (obviating the need to explain Kurdistan's special situation in the stats). The defeatists have to change the natural progression of Iraqi government and security institution building and do it soon or they're going to be in deep trouble in 2008.

Well, he called it right.

Iraq's army and police could be ready to take over security in all 18 provinces by the end of this year as the U.S. military moves toward a less prominent role in the country, U.S. officials said on Thursday.
"We look at it every month. We make recommendations. I think that if we continue along the path we're on now, we'll be able to do that by the end of 2008," Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said when asked when Iraqi forces could take the lead in all provinces.

Harry and Nancy are no doubt very disappointed, since we refused to surrender to the enemy as they were demanding all last year.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:17 PM

January 09, 2008
"The Ring On Zarqawi's Finger"

Michael Totten has an interesting discussion with some Iraqis:

According to the conventional narrative, Al Qaeda was rejected by Iraqis because they murdered Iraqis. They were far more vicious and hateful than the Americans they vowed to expel. The narrative is correct, as far as it goes, but Al Qaeda is detested for more than mere thuggery. Other armed groups have been able to maintain at least some popularity even though they also murder Iraqis. None of the others, though, violent though they may be, are so thoroughly totalitarian, so alien to the traditions of Iraqi culture, and so hostile to its centuries-old social fabric. Al Qaeda in Iraq tears at Iraq’s traditional culture as viciously as Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia.
If you want to understand Al Qaeda in Iraq – its methods, its rise, and its fall – you’ll find their story has more in common with the Shining Path’s guerrilla and terrorist war in Peru than with the Islamic religion as practiced in the mosques of Fallujah.

“Nowadays we can analyze what is going on,” Ahmed said. “In the Sunni area, in the Western area, we have people being killed by Al Qaeda. The tribes and locals civilians here are standing up to fight the Al Qaeda organization because of that. We have been moving one step forward and two steps backward. We are now only semi-literate people. We need some more education.”

“Were all the insurgents here Al Qaeda, or were there other organizations also?” I said.

“The Al Qaeda organization is the major one,” said Omar. “They made some smaller sub-organizations for themselves to assist them by another name. But, in fact, they are all Al Qaeda.”

According to the conventional wisdom, Al Qaeda makes up only a very small part of Iraq’s insurgency. Maybe that’s true, overall. But I have not been able to find a single person on the ground in Western Iraq – not American, and not Iraqi – who says anyone other than Al Qaeda has played a significant role in the insurgency.

The conventional "wisdom" is often unwise. Particularly when it's tainted by hatred of George Bush.

[Afternoon update]

This strikes me as particularly timely, given that Harry Reid continues to demand that the US surrender to Al Qaeda (even if he's too stupid to realize that's what he's doing), just as we finally have them on the ropes.

...over the past year nearly 900 brave Americans have been killed while trying to provide Iraq’s leaders with the opportunity to unite their country. In that time American taxpayers have spent more than $120 billion to finance another nation’s civil war and back an Iraqi government that shows little interest in progress. And as President Bush continues to cling stubbornly to his flawed strategy, Al Qaeda only grows stronger.

As Michael Totten reports, this was never much of a civil war, and to the degree that it was, it was being instigated by Al Qaeda, and if Al Qaeda is growing stronger, it certainly isn't in Iraq. But the Senate Majority (non)Leader remains stuck in the 2006 narrative, and out of touch with reality.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:12 AM

January 04, 2008
Death Of A Long-Time Blogger

Andrew Olmsted has been killed in Iraq, in a cause that he believed in dearly (not necessarily Iraq per se, as he explains posthumously, but in simply serving his country). My most profound condolences to family and friends.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:05 PM

December 31, 2007
Happy New Year!

...in Baghdad.

Harry and Nancy are (no doubt) very disappointed.

Happy New Year to every one else, who isn't unhappy to see happiness in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:20 PM

December 30, 2007
The Pathology Of Pakistan

In his last column of 2007, Mark Steyn has thoughts on what is perhaps currently the biggest security problem in the world.

...the “Federally Administered Tribal Areas” have always been somewhat loosely governed Federal Administration-wise. In the new issue of The Claremont Review Of Books, Stanley Kurtz’s fascinating round-up of various tomes by Akbar Ahmed (recently Pakistan’s High Commissioner in London and before that Political Agent in Waziristan) mentions en passant a factoid I vaguely remember from my schooldays – that even at the height of imperial power, the laws of British India, by treaty and tradition, only governed 100 yards either side of Waziristan’s main roads. Once you were off the shoulder, you were subject to the rule of various “maliks” (tribal bigshots). The British prided themselves on an ability to run the joint at arm’s length through discreet subsidy of favored locals. As a young lieutenant with the Malakand Field Force, Winston Churchill found the wiles of Sir Harold Deane, chief commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province, a tad frustrating. “We had with us a very brilliant political officer, a Major Deane, who was most disliked because he always stopped military operations,” recalled Churchill. “Apparently all these savage chiefs were his old friends and almost his blood relations. Nothing disturbed their friendship. In between fights, they talked as man to man and as pal to pal.”
The benign interpretation of Musharraf’s recent moves is that he’s doing a Major Deane. The reality is somewhat bleaker: Today, even that 200-yard corridor of nominal sovereignty has gone and Islamabad’s Political Agent is a much shrunken figure compared to his predecessors from the Raj. That doesn’t mean “foreign” influence is impossible in Waziristan. Osama bin Laden is, after all, a foreigner, and so are many of the other al-Qaeda A-listers holed up in the tribal lands. Jihadists arrested recently in Britain, Germany and Scandinavia all spent time training in Waziristan, as do Chechen rebels. If another big hit on the US mainland is currently in the works, it’s safe to say it’s being plotted somewhere in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 AM

December 29, 2007
Lessons From "The Surge"

From Michael Barone.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:28 PM

December 27, 2007
It Was Only A Matter Of Time

This isn't good news. Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated by a suicide bomber. I'm a little surprised that Musharraf himself has lasted this long, but I imagine he's pretty fanatical about security. I also hope that he has the bombs under control.

Pakistan is probably the most intractable problem we have right now, and in many ways is at the heart of the war. And the notion that "non-interventionalism" will make it go away is hopeless naive.

[Update a few minutes later]

Some thoughts from Michael Ledeen:

The freedom of women in the world—with the frightening prospect of the domination of men by women in any form, from the classroom to the ballot box—drives them around the bend. As she knew.
She was one of many women in the front lines of the war against the terror masters, and I often think that, after the American armed forces, brave women are indeed the greatest threat to our fanatical enemies. And they know it, which is why they killed her.

We can only hope that some good will come out of this. We need a "Peshawar awakening."

[Update at 10 AM CST]

Mark Steyn:

Since her last spell in power, Pakistan has changed, profoundly. Its sovereignty is meaningless in increasingly significant chunks of its territory, and, within the portions Musharraf is just about holding together, to an ever more radicalized generation of young Muslim men Miss Bhutto was entirely unacceptable as the leader of their nation. "Everyone’s an expert on Pakistan, a faraway country of which we know everything," I wrote last month. "It seems to me a certain humility is appropriate." The State Department geniuses thought they had it all figured out. They'd arranged a shotgun marriage between the Bhutto and Sharif factions as a "united" "democratic" "movement" and were pushing Musharraf to reach a deal with them. That's what diplomats do: They find guys in suits and get 'em round a table. But none of those representatives represents the rapidly evolving reality of Pakistan. Miss Bhutto could never have been a viable leader of a post-Musharraf settlement, and the delusion that she could have been sent her to her death. Earlier this year, I had an argument with an old (infidel) boyfriend of Benazir's, who swatted my concerns aside with the sweeping claim that "the whole of the western world" was behind her. On the streets of Islamabad, that and a dime'll get you a cup of coffee.

I've been dismayed since September 11th that the federal leviathan saw it as an opportunity to aggrandize itself and perpetuate its foreign-policy fantasies. My biggest disappointment with the Bush administration is that it didn't see this as an opportunity to clean house in both Foggy Bottom and the intelligence community, instead leaving the incompetent Tenet in charge (who should have been removed before the attacks), and letting the milquetoast Powell and the usual pin-stripers at State continue to run the transnationalist show. And if a Dem, any Dem, is elected next year, it will just go on.

And unfortunately, civil service rules are such that even the most fervent attempts at reform generally lose the battle with the bureaucrats.

[Update at 11 AM CST]

John Podhoretz writes about the American voters delusions about "holidays from history." The campaign so far has been amazingly unsubstantive and pathetic. Particular in the moderating of the clown-show "debates" by the media. I hope that this assassination will create an "Ottumwa" or "Manchester" awakening.

[Early afternoon update]

The idiotic reaction of Bill Richardson:

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called on President Bush to force Musharraf to step down. Until then, Richardson said the U.S. must suspend military aid to the Pakistani government.
"A leader has died, but democracy must live. The United States government cannot stand by and allow Pakistan's return to democracy to be derailed or delayed by violence," Richardson said.

And this is the Democrat with the best foreign policy credentials? As Captain Ed warns:

Richardson fortunately doesn't have a prayer of victory in the primaries. It's worth considering, however, that he will likely be a candidate for Secretary of State in any Democratic administration that wins in November 2008, if not a running mate on the ticket. Keep that in mind when thinking about whether to get involved in the next election.

Indeed.

[Update in the afternoon]

Blame America first. Mike Huckabee is apologizing. Not in my name.

And of course, he doesn't explain just what it is for which we should be asking forgiveness. But isn't it obvious that anything that goes wrong in the world is always our fault?

He really is the Republican Jimmy Carter.

[Update a few minutes later]

Unsurprisingly, Fred Thompson isn't apologizing. Unlike Huckabee, he seems to recognize that we're at war, and not against smokers and overweight people.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:59 AM

December 26, 2007
The Insanity Of The Left

The IDF is being criticized because it doesn't rape enough women:

The next sentence delineates the particular goals that are realized in this manner: "In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it can be seen that the lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences - just as organized military rape would have done."
The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers' eyes.

No, it couldn't possibly be that that the Israeli government (like Jews everywhere) abhors rape, and that Israeli soldiers are discouraged from raping women, and punished when they do.

Either way, in the minds of the anti-semites in academia, they can't win.

[Update before bed]

I continue to be boggled by this. Refusing to rape women? Just how evil can you get?

[Thursday morning update]

Jeez... What is it about the self-hating Israeli left and its rape fantasies?

Contacted by the Jewish Week, Laundau confirmed the statements, but said his views had been delivered “with much more sophistication.” He admitted: “I did say that in general, Israel wants to be raped — I did use that word — by the U.S., and I myself have long felt Israel needed more vigorous U.S. intervention in the affairs of the Middle East.”

I think these people need to be on a couch. Not so they can be raped, though.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:06 PM

December 23, 2007
Coming Home To Baghdad

For Christmas:

...al-Qaeda has been rooted out of Doura and the hundreds of Christian families who left the area are returning.
On Christmas Day they will congregate in the battle-scarred St Mary's Church, where part of the crucifix on its tower is still missing after being shot at.

"We closed the church two years ago because of all the trouble," said the priest, Father Younadim Shamoon, 45, who has decorated its bullet-cratered walls with modest fairy lights.

"But many people are coming back after word got around that the local Muslim people were welcoming us again. We thank God and hope that we can live together again as brothers."

No thanks to Harry Reid.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:14 PM

December 20, 2007
Coming To Their Senses?

This seems like good news:

In his memoirs, Sharif recalls serving time with Zawahiri in 1981 after the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Sharif specifically accuses Zawahiri of informing on his associates to get out of prison. He also calls Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden cowards, accusing them of running out of Afghanistan and leaving wives and children behind to die in the American invasion. He wants them tried before a shari'a court, which would be at least poetic justice for the radical Islamists.
Zawahiri could give a press conference at CENTCOM and still not live down those kind of accusations. The entire mythos of AQ relies on the personal courage of its leaders, who claim to have bested a global superpower in personally liberating Afghanistan. Leaving behind women and children while fleeing a battle doesn't quite match that mythology. If it gains resonance in the ummah, Zawahiri and Osama will discover that interviews with Western journalists won't make up the lost ground.

Critics of Sharif claim that he has been tortured into his recantation. Undoubtedly, the Egyptian authorities have applied their usual techniques to Sharif, but Rohan Gunaranta says it matches a trend in Egypt over the last few years. The author of Inside al-Qaeda believes that Muslims have begun to see the disaster that 9/11 has brought to their standing in the world, and even the radicals want a new direction. The personal revelations of Zawahiri as a snitch may make it easier for them to make that transition, and for us to then destroy what remains of AQ.

I think that Ed is a little overoptimistic on that last, but it would sure be nice if he's right.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here's some more good news that would seem to be related:

We have failed to offer a robust response to the brutal wave of human sacrifice. This failure has allowed extremists to garner headlines and define the agenda without meeting an equally passionate response from the moderate center. It is long past time to mount a vigorous campaign against the cult of death and reaffirm a culture of life.
An essential first step is admitting we have a problem. The terrible attacks of recent days occurred during the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, Islam's most solemn act of atonement. The introspection and self-criticism of this sacred time offer an ideal moment to acknowledge the sacrilege of terrorism and the sin of being a passive bystander.

We must also avoid the temptation to rationalize murder. "The attack is wrong," goes a common refrain, "but we must understand the root causes." There can be no "buts" - no qualifications or justifications that indulge the political grievances and religious sanction claimed by extremists.

More of this, please.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AM

Iraqis Taking Back Their Country

When even the Grauniad can't avoid reporting it, you know things have to be getting pretty good:

Not so long ago Sunni and Shia gunmen were fighting for control of the suburb, near the road to Baghdad's airport. As a result, the once religiously mixed housing projects that lie either side of al-Amil's main street soon separated into Shia or Sunni enclaves.
But Muhammad, a Sunni Arab, and his Shia colleagues in the neighbourhood watch group are determined to reverse the ethnic cleansing. Last month, the group agreed to protect a Sunni mosque in his street from local Shia militias. They have also been mediating between the divided communities either side of the highway.

The result was an understanding: Sunni families would return to their former homes in the heavily Shia areas, while Shia families crossed back into the mainly Sunni streets. The two communities agreed to guarantee the safety of the returnees. Such was the popular backing for the deal that even the local Mahdi army commander had to acquiesce.

"We've been neighbours for 25 years and we feel like brothers," said Muhammad. "We will help them to guard and respect their mosques, and they won't harm me or my family."

Nobody tell Harry Reid. Or if you do, make sure that he doesn't have any sharp objects around, in his despondency.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 AM

December 17, 2007
Not A "Rational Process"

Some thoughts on fear of religion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 PM

A Contrast

I'm not a big Giuliani fan, and a lot of people have been talking up McCain as tough on the war, but I found this an interesting contrast. I'd have trouble pulling the lever for McCain. He's not Jimmy Carter, or Huckabee, but I don't think that he'd have any problem with the current State Department, which is one of the many federal agencies that needs to be azed and rebuilt.

[Update]

A good (and related) point about Giuliani:

Frum argues, in response to a post of mine, that Giuliani is the anti-terrorists' candidate because he has a proven track record of riding herd on the bureaucracies beneath him to accomplish his objectives. This line of argument would be a lot more persuasive if, in the years preceding Sept. 11, Giuliani had managed to get his fire and police departments to be able to communicate with each other in emergencies.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:05 PM

December 16, 2007
Why The Terrorists Hate Us

Because we put birds inside other birds.

Just an extreme example of the lunacy and denial on the part of the left about the Islamists.

And here are some related thoughts on denial in Canada about the Religion of Peace™:

It's cultural, it's because of colonialism, it's because of Palestine, because of Iraq, because of misunderstanding. Because of anything other than Islam.
Only a bigot would argue that every Muslim was violent or opposed to Western freedom. But only a coward or a liar would argue that there was not a profound and deeply worrying link between conservative Islam and myriad acts of terror, intolerance and hysterical anger.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:32 PM

December 15, 2007
Not Just Afghanistan

Here's another example of the insanity of the War on (Some) Drugs, and its incompatibility with waging a real war:

It's a bad idea to keep so many people in prison, and it's a worse idea to do so and then have them exposed to radical "clerics."

Yes. A really bad idea.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 AM

December 05, 2007
Some Thoughts On Iran And The NIE

Not from me, but from Victor Davis Hanson. Here are a couple:

Why would a country that produces 4 million barrels of oil per day at $90 per barrel not use its windfall profits to expand and refurbish an ailing oil industry to get in further on the obscene profit-making, rather than divert resources in the billions for the acquisition of a reactor that is not needed for power production (natural gas is still burned off at the wellhead)?
We suffer collective amnesia in suggesting that the chill in Iranian relations was a phenomenon of the last few years alone. Not restoring formal diplomatic relations was a bipartisan policy, presumably based on the notion that neither the Carter nor the Clinton administration ever got genuine positive feedback from their efforts to expand diplomatic channels with the Iranians. After all, what President wanted to be responsible for opening-and losing-another embassy in Teheran? In this regard, the recent hostage-taking of British soldiers abroad reaffirms that Iranian ways have not changed much since 1979.

They are food for thought.

[Thursday morning update]

Some more thoughts, from John Bolton:

...the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not exactly a diplomatic pas de deux. As undersecretary of state for arms control in 2003, I know we were nowhere near exerting any significant diplomatic pressure on Iran. Nowhere does the NIE explain its logic on this critical point. Moreover, the risks and returns of pursuing a diplomatic strategy are policy calculations, not intelligence judgments. The very public rollout in the NIE of a diplomatic strategy exposes the biases at work behind the Potemkin village of "intelligence."

It is amazing how many people who have been quick to criticize the NIE in the past have been so eager to embrace it now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:47 PM

December 03, 2007
The Return Of WW III?

Ron Rosenbaum is worried about Pakistan. With good reason, I think.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 AM

November 27, 2007
Report From Fallujah

From Michael Totten.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:05 AM

November 24, 2007
Blindly To The Slaughterhouse

Mark Steyn writes about the silence of the artistic lambs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 PM

Not A Reactor?

Did Israel destroy a Syrian nuclear bomb factory a few weeks ago?

I wouldn't be surprised. And I still wonder how much of Saddam's WMD material was moved there before the war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:59 AM

November 21, 2007
Coming Home

Iraqis are returning to Iraq from their exile.

What do they know that Harry Reid doesn't? He must be very disappointed.

[Update a little later]

This isn't exactly hot off the press (it was posted at the end of August) but David Kilcullen, one of General Petraeus' advisors, provides a good (but long) description of what was going on in Iraq at that time, that explains much of what we're seeing today.

[Update later morning]

Ralph Peters: What went right in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:04 AM

November 20, 2007
"I Told You So"

That's what John McCain is saying about his stance on Iraq, and the consistency with which he's been calling for more troops from the beginning. And he's right, he has.

The problem is, I remain unconvinced that more troops were the answer, then, or now. I always thought that the surge was misnamed. I think that there are two other factors that are as important, and perhaps much more important, than troop levels per se.

First was the change of tactics, in which rather than hunkering down in bases and training Iraqis to go out and fight the insurgency, Petraeus put the troops out in the field and worked with the locals.

But I think that the most important factor was simply that the Iraqis tired of the insurgency and Al Qaeda. I think that Petraeus was the right man at the right time, but I don't think that it takes anything away from him to question how well the strategy would have worked two, or three years ago. It probably would have been better than what we were doing at the time, but I think that the time had to be ripe for the awakenings in Anbar and Diyala, and now in Baghdad. It may be that the Iraqis simply had to go through this brutal period to understand the barbarity and viciousness of the fundamentalists that were attempting to colonize them, as they had Afghanistan under the Taliban, and the benefits of working with Americans and each other, rather than trying to fight each other for the spoils of the war.

The Sunnis are probably finally coming to the realization that they are never going to rule over the majority as they had under the Ba'athists, and seem to now be ready to accommodate themselves to the new Iraq, and are trying to cut deals. Again, I don't think that's something that could have happened overnight.

I don't think that it was ever realistic to think that we were going to get a well-functioning democracy quickly in Iraq, even if we managed to get votes much more quickly than most predicted. Anyone who has studied military history knows that wars, and insurrections, are generally long protracted periods of one disaster after another, until one side finally throws in the towel. World War II was a series of bloody blunders, in both theaters, but we had the will and the resources to continue on regardless until the enemy was finally defeated. That's why I was never as critical of Bush and Rumsfeld as many were. Not to say I think the decisions flawless, but sometimes things have to happen at their own pace, regardless of tactics. The only wars that America has lost are those in which it got tired, and gave up.

One fears that the attention-deficit, teevee-remote, video-game generation won't have the patience to win the long war against our new ideological enemy, which is likely to continue for decades, as our war against totalitarian communism did. But give the president credit for standing firm in the face of the surrender demands of the Democrats after the election. I think that history, however else it judges him, will be kind to him in that regard, and less so to the Reids and Pelosis.

We'll never know, of course, if more troops or better tactics would have gotten us to this point sooner, though if we have to do something similar in the future, we may take some lessons from Iraq, and try it. But history doesn't really allow controlled experiments. In any event, while Senator McCain can be praised for consistency, it remains unobvious to me that his prescriptions would have been as effective at the time as he wants to claim now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:43 AM

November 19, 2007
The Good News From Iraq

Christopher Hitchens has some thoughts:

As I began by saying, I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either.

Indeed. I have a feeling that the Dems aren't going to have as good an election next year as they hope. Particularly since they continue to delude themselves that they won last year because the American people want to surrender in Iraq:

All signs indicate that Democrats will continue proposing such measures as long as Mr. Bush remains in office and troops remain in Iraq. “We are going to keep plugging away,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Democratic lawmakers and strategists on Capitol Hill said their hope was that even if Republican support for Mr. Bush’s strategy held firm, voters would reward Democrats for their efforts at the polls next November, and that there was no risk to failing again and again.

They misjudge this risk at their peril. The risk is not of their failing, but of their appearing too eager for defeat, and in increasingly looking like they are living in an alternate reality.

[Update about 2:30 PM EST]

Jack Kelly writes about the quagmire in Iraq.

Al Qaeda's quagmire:

"The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation," Osama bin Laden said in an audiotape posted on Islamic Web sites in December 2004. "It is raging in the land of the Two Rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate."
Jihadis, money and weapons were poured into Iraq. All for naught. Al-Qaida has been driven from every neighborhood in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, the U.S. commander there, said Nov. 7. This follows the expulsion of al-Qaida from two previous "capitals" of its Islamic Republic of Iraq, Ramadi and Baquba.

Al-Qaida is evacuating populated areas and is trying to establish hideouts in the Hamrin mountains in northern Iraq, with U.S. and Iraqi security forces, and former insurgent allies who have turned on them, in hot pursuit. Forty-five al-Qaida leaders were killed or captured in October alone.

Al-Qaida's support in the Muslim world has plummeted, partly because of the terror group's lack of success in Iraq, more because al-Qaida's attacks have mostly killed Muslim civilians.

"Iraq has proved to be the graveyard, not just of many al-Qaida operatives, but of the organization's reputation as a defender of Islam," said StrategyPage.

Canadian columnist David Warren speculated some years ago that enticing al-Qaida to fight there was one of the reasons why President Bush decided to invade Iraq. The administration has made so many egregious mistakes that I doubt the "flypaper" strategy was deliberate. But it has worked out that way. It may have been a mistake for the United States to go to war in Iraq. But it's pretty clear now it was a blunder for al-Qaida to have done so.

[Update about 4 PM EST]

Max Singer writes about the new Copperhead Democrats, and why 2008 may be a lot like 1864.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:35 AM

He Shoots, He Scores!

Norman Podhoretz, 1, Andrew Sullivan and The Economist, nothing, in the latters' attempts to minimize the danger of a nuclear mullahcracy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:08 AM

What Civil War?

Sunni and Shiite are uniting to fight Al Qaeda:

Commanders in the field think they have tapped into a genuine public expression of reconciliation that has outpaced the elected government's progress on mending the sectarian rift.
"What you find is these people have lived together for decades with no problem until the terrorists arrived and tried to instigate the problem," said Lt. Col. Valery Keaveny, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 509th Airborne unit in the Iskandariya area south of Baghdad. "So they are perfectly willing to work together to keep the terrorists out."

Note that this is grass roots, bottom-up cooperation. Over time, let's hope that it filters its way up to the government itself. If Iraq is really becoming a democracy, it should.

[Update a few minutes later]

Speaking of civil wars, it's been a dozen dozen years, seven score and four, since Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address. Here's my post on the subject from three years ago.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:14 AM

November 18, 2007
Who Did Iran Surrender To?

in Iraq?

I'm guessing it's not Harry and Nancy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:26 PM

November 16, 2007
"Tell The Christians To Come Home"

Michael Yon, with more signs that the war is over, and Al Qaeda defeated.

Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.”

Here's a dispatch from Ramadi as well. And Austin Bay sends a message to bin Laden.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 AM

November 14, 2007
Police Work Won the War

In Iraq, databases of DNA, fingerprints and iris scans have been collected from entire city populations. They brought in ballistics and other forensics experts. They train troops in staying alive and police in evidence handling. They conduct IED clearing operations. They analyze the IEDs. They analyze, profile, they catch in the act sometimes via UAV and roll up the cell.

Then they do it again when the cells evolve to foil the latest counters.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 01:27 PM

November 12, 2007
Musharraf's Problem, And Ours

Stanley Kurtz writes about the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Waziristan.

Tragically, this may be the only solution:

No patchwork scheme—and all our present recent schemes…are mere patchwork—will settle the Waziristan problem. Not until the military steam-roller has passed over the country from end to end, will there be peace. But I do not want to be the person to start that machine.

Nor does anyone else, so far, but it may be inevitable, for some future administration, of either party.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:43 AM

November 10, 2007
Famous Last Words

Are we too cheap to stop asteroid strikes? You decide:

Scott Pace, head of program analysis and evaluation at NASA, said the agency could not do more to detect NEOs "given the constrained resources and the strategic objectives NASA already has been tasked with."

If there is a one in 26 million chance that an asteroid strike will kill everyone in the world, that's an expectation of 230 deaths per year. That's within a stone's throw of the average number of deaths from terrorist attacks on US soil in the last ten years. It's interesting to watch the difference between overreacting to terrorism and underreacting to understood harms such as auto accidents.

Not that I think war in Iraq was a bad idea, just that 'War on Terror' is an inapt name. The operation name 'Iraqi Freedom' was more apt.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 04:38 PM

"How We Won"

Greyhawk boldly writes that, though the media hasn't noticed, we've won the war (or at least the battle of Iraq), despite the attempts earlier this year by the Congressional Democrats to seize defeat from the jaws of victory:

...few people are paying attention to what those of us who are here fighting this war might have to say. Everyone is focused on the death metrics, and everyone is wrong. Call it "hearts and minds" or people fighting for their lives and futures who do not fear turning to us for help and helping us in return without fear of retribution from an enemy falling fast - these are the numbers that tell the tale. These are the numbers that indicate something worthwhile. These are the numbers that will drive the death metrics further down and keep them there.

He has a lot of links to support his thesis.

And as I've noted before, it's all about the evolutionary pressures favoring cooperation over chaos.

To use combat (or even civilian) casualties as a metric for progress in a war is puerile, but it serves well the purpose of those opposed to this war, and war in general (and particularly wars waged by the BusHitler). Had we done so in the second World War, one would have thought that we were losing all through late 1944 and early 1945 in Europe, and in the summer of '45 in the Pacific--after all, casualties were soaring as we took territory, and the Japanese were unrelenting in their brutality against the population in the territories they still occupied. Fortunately, the press was smarter then, and knew how to measure progress--by territory increasingly controlled by the victors, island after island, sea after sea.

Similarly, we've been seizing territory from Al Qaeda in Iraq, town by town, district by district, to the point at which they've been completely routed, and the Iraqis now seem ready to forge a new nation. (And for those of limited patience, it's always useful to recall that it took our own nation eight years from Cornwallis' surrender until we had a constitution in place).

This doesn't, of course, indicate that we can immediately pull the troops out, any more than we could have done so in Europe or Japan after the surrenders there. Now, as then, the war is merely transitioning from the major battle that we just won in Iraq, to the larger upcoming ones on its borders, and until its neighbors (all of them, really, other than Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait) stop fomenting sectarianism and hatred, Iraq will remain at risk of slipping back into the abyss, despite the hard-fought victory of Americans and Iraqis. The question for the administration at this point must be, what next?

Tomorrow is the 89th anniversary of the end of the war that was to end all wars. One can hope that there will, in time, be the last war, but that one wasn't it, nor was the one against the Axis, or the one against the Soviets. Each of these wars, in fact, contained the seeds and provided fertile ground for the next, just as the end of the Cold War resulted in a resurgence of violent Islam. We are now deep in the middle of another world war--a fourth one, both cold and hot.

Will it be the last one? Let us hope.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:41 AM

November 08, 2007
"Welcome To The New Political Discourse"

James Kirchick explains what a "neocon" is.

Nice to know, since I've been (moronically) called one many times (as well as a "conservative" and a "right winger" and a "wingnut").

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:18 PM

November 07, 2007
An Iwo Jima Moment?

If things continue to go well, this photo should win a Pulitzer.

But probably not in today's media environment. After all, it goes against the narrative. And of course, we know how today's media would have treated that moment.

[Late evening update]

"Wretchard" (aka Richard Fernandez) has related, and more articulate (as usual) thoughts.

[Update on Thursday afternoon]

Here's some more good news:

A rare visit by a delegation representing Sunni tribes in the Province of Anbar to the predominantly Shiite Province of Qadissiya is yet another signal that Iraqis are keen to put an end to sectarian strife.
The Anbar delegation included major Sunni tribes who have formed a coalition and raised a tribal force to check Qaeda influence in their areas.

Sheikh Mohammed Shaalan said both Sunni and Shiite tribes in the two provinces have vowed to bring national reconciliation to success.

Shaalan, who spoke for the meeting, said a tribal delegation from Qadissiya would also travel to Anbar in the near future.

“We have agreed to support he government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki which is working hard to enable tribes assume a better role in solving conflicts away from sectarianism and factionalism,” he said.

Shaalan said the two sides signed an agreement under which they will coordinate their efforts and raise resources “to combat crime and punish those attacking and killing security and police personnel.”

I'm amused by those in comments who seem to be quite upset that the Iraqis refuse to hate George Bush as much as the commenters do, or as much as the commenters think they should.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:38 PM

November 06, 2007
My Book To Help America

Unlike many of the items that Iowahawk has unearthed, this one is real, and provides a fascinating (and somewhat depressing) contrast of three different decades, and our national attitudes toward war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:35 AM

November 01, 2007
Propaganda

Michael Totten writes about what the Army wanted him to see.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:04 AM

Just A Coincidence, I'm Sure

A good find by Donald Sensing:

"... as foreign aid to the Palestinians increases, so do Palestinian acts of murder. When foreign aid to Palestinians decreases, Palestinian acts of murder correspondingly decrease. In fact, the more money they receive, the more murders the Palestinians commit, the less money they receive, the less murders they commit – it is practically a 100% correlation.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 AM

"Al Qaeda Has Been Defeated In Iraq"

At least that's what the Iraqis are saying, according to Michael Yon:

Sheik Omar, who has gained the respect of American combat leaders for his intelligence and organizational skills, said the tough line against al Qaeda is also enforced at the tribal level. According to Sheik Omar, the Jabouri tribe, too, is actively committed to destroying al Qaeda. So much so, that Jabouri tribal leaders have decided they would “kill their own sons” if any aided al Qaeda. To underscore the point, he went on to say that about 70 Jabouri “sons” had been killed by the Jabouri tribe so far.

Of course, there are many in denial that Al Qaeda was ever in Iraq, so they'll continue to dream, wistfully, of an American defeat.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:28 AM

October 31, 2007
The Awakening Spreads

...to Taji:

"(The Taji Awakening) involves all the sheiks (in Taji), both Sunni and Shi'a. Over the period of four weeks now, it has gathered momentum," Burke said. "The movement here has become dynamic."
He said that the largest gathering of Sunni and Shi'a sheiks in Iraq occurred on Aug. 20 in the Taji area and that the terrorist forces in the area are now "on the run" because of the sectarian reconciliation. As a result, the overall quality of life in rural North Baghdad Province has improved, with marketplaces "flourishing" and critical infrastructure needs being met, according to Burke.

I've commented before about the evolution of cooperation, and its potential role in Iraq. It seems, finally, to be happening. Bad news for those who have been fully invested in an American defeat, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 AM

October 30, 2007
A Modest Proposal

Ron Silver has some suggestions of things we can do to make the world like us more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:56 AM

October 24, 2007
Che Guevara...

Man of God?

I am actually quite optimistic that at least some (more) lefties will wake up, as time goes by, to the absurdity of them being in alliance with radical Islamists. The only rationale for this otherwise ridiculous arrangement is (see above) that the enemy of your enemy (the USA) is your friend, no matter what. If you really do think that the USA is the biggest baddest thing in the world and that curbing its power is the only thing that matters (think Hitler Churchill Stalin), then this alliance makes a kind of primitive sense. Although even if you do think that, encouraging the development of rampant capitalism everywhere except in the USA would make a lot more sense. That really would reduce the USA to the margins of history. But, if you think that lefty-ism is anything at all to do with positive support for civilisation, decency, freedom, female (in particular) emancipation, life being nice even if you do not submit to Islam etc., then you should surely turn your back on all such alliances.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:35 PM

October 22, 2007
The Contrast

Michael Yon:

I was at home in the United States just one day before the magnitude hit me like vertigo: America seems to be under a glass dome which allows few hard facts from the field to filter in unless they are attached to a string of false assumptions. Considering that my trip home coincided with General Petraeus’ testimony before the US Congress, when media interest in the war was (I’m told) unusually concentrated, it’s a wonder my eardrums didn’t burst on the trip back to Iraq. In places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Britain people hardly seemed to notice that success is being achieved in Iraq, while in the United States Britney was competing for airtime with O.J. in one of the saddest sideshows on Earth.
No thinking person would look at last year’s weather reports to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, or are waiting for us to leave so they can crush their neighbors. This view allows our soldiers two possible roles: either “victim caught in the crossfire” or “referee between warring parties.” Neither, rightly, is tolerable to the American or British public.

Key words here being "thinking person."

Read the whole thing, and hit his tip jar so he can keep reporting.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:28 AM

October 18, 2007
Meet The New Nazis

...same as the old Nazis. We might have defeated them (at least temporarily) in Europe, but the same mentality is thriving in the Middle East, and has been for decades. And it makes the notion that Israelis are the new Nazis all the more stupid.

[Update late morning]

Speaking of stuck on stupid, here's Exhibit A: Ward Churchill gives a speech. Theme: Zionists are Nazis.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:21 AM

October 17, 2007
Wishing Away Reality

Many may want to pretend that Al Qaeda and Iran aren't at war with us, but they know better.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:10 PM

Outraged

Dutch Muslim youths rioted and burned cars, apparently in protest over the killing of someone who attacked police officers with a knife, and perceptions that they're seen as violent. As the British foreign service used to say about many cultures, their primary problem was that they lacked a sense of irony.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AM

October 15, 2007
Counterproductive

Michael Yon reports that not only has Al Qaeda lost its war in Iraq, but that its attempts to foment a civil war have backfired on them. It may be that the incipient civil war there (which Yon was the first to note) is over before it really got started, and once again, the war opponents (who remain in denial about the enemy, and fantasize that this never was, and never would be, more than a civil war) are behind the curve. This possibility is buttressed by events like the Shia awakening.

Yon also has a much longer recent dispatch from Iraq.

[Update on Tuesday morning]

More good news from Iraq (and bad news for Al Qaeda, and those who continue to hope that the US loses):

...in order for the advances to be permanent, something else must take the place of U.S. kinetic operations. Solution? Concerned citizens. One reason for al Qaeda’s misadventure in Iraq is armed and concerned citizens. Many Somalians and Syrians have been in Haditha (close to the border) and elsewhere in Iraq, but between Baghdad and Arab Jabour:
“The al Qaeda that’s here is not guys … from Syria or Somalia. They are local people who grew up here,” Adgie said. “They were bad, bad teenagers who stole cars, and (with) the lure of fast money from al Qaeda … they joined al Qaeda, and they carry out al Qaeda’s bidding.”
These home-grown terrorists employed “ultra-violence” against their fellow villagers to “strike fear in their hearts,” the colonel explained. Coalition forces from the final phase of the U.S. troop surge streamed into the region earlier this summer.

“In early August, we started seeing the first of the concerned local citizens come forward,” Adgie said. “And they started providing us with just a lot of information on who the bad guys were.”

The “concerned citizen” movement was greatly bolstered last month, the colonel explained, when a retired brigadier general from Saddam Hussein’s former army encouraged more local people to assist the coalition effort.

“(He) decided, ‘Enough is enough. I’ll be the leader,’” Adgie said. “He stepped up, stepped out into the light of day and helped us recruit this concerned citizen organization.”

That organization has grown from 87 to 538 people in just seven weeks, the colonel explained, and its members provide crucial information.

“Al Qaeda operates under a veil of secrecy. No one knows who al Qaeda is,” Adgie said. “Well that’s no longer possible when the guy you went to high school with is a concerned citizen, and he can look you in the eye and say: ‘You’re al Qaeda.’”

Also, watch out for armed and dangerous grannies.

[Update on Wednesday morning]

As noted in comments by Leland, Orwell would be smiling grimly. "Killed enemy troops" have now been redefined by the press as "victims of war." Those brutal Americans. How dare they murder people who are attempting to kill them?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:49 AM

October 09, 2007
Fallout Shelters?

I don't know if I agree with this post (and haven't given it much thought), but it's worth discussing. I remember shopping for them with my dad in the late fifties, though we never ended up getting one.

That was then, this is now. Do they make sense in the current environment?

[Update a few minutes later]

More thoughts on the subject from Dr. Kurtz.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:06 PM

Under Distant Stars

Michael Yon writes about the state of medical support in the war, which is surely the best in any war, any time in history. But he also writes about some things that never change:

The soldier who had been ambushed by the IED in Iraq was expected to die very soon. I was a few feet away when a call came in from a close family member. The family member did not inquire about his condition or what happened. This family member only wanted to know when the soldier would die, and who would receive his death benefit. In less civilized times, people like that roamed the battlefield with tools to pry gold teeth from the jaws of fallen soldiers, but it was distressing to imagine that a family member would do the same.

Yes, distressing, but sadly, not surprising, for anyone who watches the freak shows on daytime television.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:36 AM

Will History Repeat?

Let's hope so.

The Democrats, meanwhile, held a convention in late August, nominating without serious controversy George B. McClellan, the general whom Lincoln had dismissed as head of the Union forces in Virginia because he would not fight. The Democratic platform denounced "four years of failure" in the war effort and the destruction of "public liberty and private right." It called for the restoration of the rights of the states unimpaired, and a settlement of the issues central to the war—primarily slavery—at a post-war "convention." It was a platform for peace at any price, which Nevins called a document of "submission."
But then the dawn broke. On September 1, the news reached Washington that Atlanta had fallen. Other victories came on as Grant approached closer to Richmond and held on against ferocious counterattacks by Lee. Despite these hints of impending change in the direction of the war, McClellan refused to repudiate the Democratic platform, declaring in his acceptance of the nomination that if "any one State is willing to return to the Union, it should be received at once, with a full guarantee of all its constitutional rights." The results of four years of calamitous war and bloody sacrifice would thus be thrown away.

Nevins writes: "[T]he damage done to the Democratic Party by the platform could not be undone. Its silly and evil stigmatization of the heroic war effort as worthless gave the Northern millions an image of the Democratic Party they could never forget. That phrase upon the failure of the war was to echo down the coming decades...and would cost the party votes for a generation."

It's certainly what the new Copperheads deserve.

[Update a few minutes later]

They may already be starting to figure it out:

...there’s another driving factor under the radar: a latent concern that Iraq may not be as favorable a political issue for Democrats a year from now, as images of brigades of U.S. troops coming home could well be flickering on American television screens.
“They’ve run millions of dollars of ads and had untold rallies and protests, but they’re actually losing approval” on the war, said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “How’s it going to look when troops start coming home next year and, while most people are holding a ‘Welcome Home’ sign, they’re left holding a MoveOn.org ad or Code Pink banner?”

Also, Victor Davis Hanson writes about the untold "colonels' war."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AM

October 08, 2007
Is It Dead, Jim?

What happened to Al Qaeda's Ramadan offensive?

Most people (and all Democrats) fail to appreciate the fact that al Qaeda was directly responsible for the enormous rise in civilian casualties that occurred in 2006 and that continued until recently. As such, they do not really have a way to conceptualize the enormous drop in casualties that occurred last month and that has been maintained through the first week of this month. Once you understand the role played by al Qaeda, then, if al Qaeda really has been quashed (big "if"), I do not see how civilian casualties will ever again climb to their previous levels. The two main sources of civilian casualties in Iraq -- deaths from al Qaeda's suicide bombers and retaliatory execution-style killings by Shiite militias in Baghdad -- are both under control. If al Qaeda can no longer deliberately enrage the Shiite militias by slaughtering hundreds of innocent Shiite civilians at a time, then where are the extra 1000 deaths going to come from this month?

An interesting question. But it does look like Al Qaeda's attempt at a Tet of their own failed, despite the Dems' fervent desire for a repeat.

[Update in the evening]

More thoughts from Omar Fadhil, in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:38 PM

October 07, 2007
What Did Israel Do To Syria On September 6th?

An interesting analysis, and speculation. Whatever it was, the silence from all quarters does indeed indicate that it was very big:

Apart from averting the threat that was developing at Dayr as Zawr, Israel’s strategic position has been strengthened by the raid. Firstly, it has — as Major General Amos Yadlin, the head of Israel’s military intelligence, noted — ‘restored its deterrence’, which was damaged by its inept handling of the war in the Lebanon last year. Secondly, it has reminded Damascus that Israel knows what it is up to and is capable of striking anywhere within its territory.
Equally, Iran has been put on notice that Israel will not tolerate any nuclear threat. Washington, too, has been reminded that Israel’s intelligence is often a better guide than its own in the region, a crucial point given the divisions between the Israeli and American intelligence assessments about the development of the Iranian bomb. Hezbollah, the Iranian/Syrian proxy force, has also been put on notice that the air-defence system it boasted would alter the strategic balance in the region is impotent in the face of Israeli technology.

I suspect that this is good news for the good guys. Another benefit not mentioned, but that I've noted previously, is that it no doubt significantly depreciated the value of Russian armament on the terrorist market.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 PM

An American Hero

Christopher Hitchens writes about a remarkable young man:

I became a trifle choked up after that, but everybody else also managed to speak, often reading poems of their own composition, and as the day ebbed in a blaze of glory over the ocean, I thought, Well, here we are to perform the last honors for a warrior and hero, and there are no hysterical ululations, no shrieks for revenge, no insults hurled at the enemy, no firing into the air or bogus hysterics. Instead, an honest, brave, modest family is doing its private best. I hope no fanatical fool could ever mistake this for weakness. It is, instead, a very particular kind of strength. If America can spontaneously produce young men like Mark, and occasions like this one, it has a real homeland security instead of a bureaucratic one. To borrow some words of George Orwell's when he first saw revolutionary Barcelona, "I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 PM

October 05, 2007
The Good Old Days

Remember when Al Gore was castigating George Bush for ignoring Saddam's ties to terrorism? Gee, I wonder what changed?

Calculating and cynical? Democrats? How can you think such a thing?

[Update late morning]

When is Al Gore going to apologize to George Bush and the nation for lying about Saddam's ties to terrorism?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:26 AM

Sounds Like An Insurance Policy

Apparently, the Dutch government was willing to provide security to Ayaan Hirsi Ali only as long as there was no threat to her.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AM

October 03, 2007
The Current State Of Play In Iraq

Here's a long, but interesting analysis. Doom mongers, and the Defeatocrats will hate it:

The great question in deciding whether to keep fighting in Iraq is not about the morality and self-interest of supporting a struggling democracy that is also one of the most important countries in the world. The question is whether the war is winnable and whether we can help the winning of it. The answer is made much easier by the fact that three and a half years after the start of the insurgency, most of the big questions in Iraq have been resolved. Moreover, they have been resolved in ways that are mostly towards the positive end of the range of outcomes imagined at the start of the project. The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide, and anti-Shia apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis. As shown in the great national votes of 2005 and the noisy celebrations of the Iraq football team's success in July, Iraq survived the Saddam Hussein era with a sense of national unity; even the Kurds—whose reluctant commitment to autonomy rather than full independence is in no danger of changing—celebrated. Iraq's condition has not caused a sectarian apocalypse across the region. The country has ceased to be a threat to the world or its region. The only neighbours threatened by its status today are the leaders in Damascus, Riyadh and Tehran.

Just the leaders we want to be threatened. And ultimately, removed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:45 AM

October 02, 2007
Coming Clean

Israel is now admitting that it hit a Syrian target a few weeks ago. Both the Syrians and the Iranians have to be pretty nervous, now that they know the expensive Russian air defenses that they spent so much on are worthless (at least when operated by Syrians).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:38 AM

October 01, 2007
"We Are So Desperate For Your Help"

No one tell Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but Al Qaeda thinks they're losing in Iraq.

Ain't it a shame?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:15 AM

Turning The Other Cheek

We can't necessarily remove every dictatorial regime on the planet, but there were many reasons to remove the one in Iraq. Critics of that decision often claim that it was up to the Iraqi people to stand up to Saddam and remove him if that's what they wanted. Some of them (particularly the pacifists among them) even cite Mahatma Gandhi as an example, and advocate the use of non-violent resistance techniques.

What they ignore in doing so is that Gandhi faced an almost unique situation--imperialists who were not monsters, and were unwilling to put down the rebellion with the brutality necessary to do so. To think that Gandhi's tactics would have been effective against a Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Saddam, is foolish.

And here we have a textbook example, that demonstrates the fatuity of such thinking. Who, after all, is more pacifist, and (according to their theory, should be more successful with such tactics) than Buddhist monks?

Liselotte Agerlid, who is now in Thailand, said that the Burmese people now face possibly decades of repression. "The Burma revolt is over," she added.
"The military regime won and a new generation has been violently repressed and violently denied democracy. The people in the street were young people, monks and civilians who were not participating during the 1988 revolt.

"Now the military has cracked down the revolt, and the result may very well be that the regime will enjoy another 20 years of silence, ruling by fear."

Mrs Agerlid said Rangoon is heavily guarded by soldiers.

"There are extremely high numbers of soldiers in Rangoon's streets," she added. "Anyone can see it is absolutely impossible for any demonstration to gather, or for anyone to do anything.

"People are scared and the general assessment is that the fight is over. We were informed from one of the largest embassies in Burma that 40 monks in the Insein prison were beaten to death today and subsequently burned."

The diplomat also said that three monasteries were raided yesterday afternoon and are now totally abandoned.

At his border hideout last night, 42-year-old Mr Win said he hopes to cross into Thailand and seek asylum at the Norwegian Embassy.

The 42-year-old chief of military intelligence in Rangoon's northern region, added: "I decided to desert when I was ordered to raid two monasteries and force several hundred monks onto trucks.

"They were to be killed and their bodies dumped deep inside the jungle. I refused to participate in this."

But such regimes can always find people who will not refuse (and some who will even take pleasure). If there is a solution to tyranny and dictatorship, it does not lie in passivity and non-violence. Or "dialogue."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AM

News That's Not News

At least at the New York Times. Or if it was "fit to print," they buried it pretty well.

"US Military Deaths In Iraq Lowest In Fourteen Months."

Guess it doesn't fit the template. Or help the Defeatocrats.

[Update in the afternoon]

It's not just the military deaths that are dropping.

I should note, for anti-war loons. I don't actually put that much stock in these kinds of statistics, for reasons I mentioned in comments--they don't actually necessarily presage the future. I simply point them out to those who are so eager to leap on them when they think that they tell the false narrative that they want told.

[Update in mid afternoon]

For those who are into this kind of numerology, here is a lot more analysis by John Wixted.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 AM

Not "Fear," But Anger

I agree with Ron Rosenbaum:

I just don’t get the desperate need for so many commentators left and right to twist themselves into knots of such clueless sophistry to trivialize a fascist regime, to prove somehow that by failing to speak out against Iran’s Stasi like regime that tortures and murders dissidents and heretics, they are somehow being braver and more sophisticated than the “fearful” who actually did speak out.
I have to admit I’m still shocked by the failure of so many of the commentariat in the MSM and the blogosphere to have the moral clarity to express outrage, shocked by their impulse instead to find ways to deny or trivialize Hitlerism and the need to confront it—especially by those in the moral witness line of work. The self-congratulatory (I’m so fearless!) way they strained to find eight different ways to excuse and diminish what Ahmadinejad said is something they will have to explain to the Iranian student in the Observer story.

[Update late morning]

On a slightly lighter (or lower?) note, Iowahawk has another dialog with evil.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:50 AM

September 29, 2007
A Split In The Jihad Movement?

Some interesting, and little reported activities in Waziristan and the Pakistan/Afghanistan border:

You may remember a couple of months ago a report that al Qaeda and its affiliates had abandoned their training camps in Pakistan along the Afghan border. The initial report caused quite a blog storm but soon the mystery was forgotten. According to AI, which links to references for all of this, the US got fed up with not being able to reach al Qaeda inside Pakistan. Then a few months back the US government told the Pakistani government that we had the coordinates for twenty-nine terror training bases and in a week we will be destroying them (perhaps on Cheney's visit this summer). The intent was to drive the terrorists from those camps so we could get to them.
It worked. That's why those camps emptied out.

So the US left the terrorists an escape route into Tora Bora. Once they had detected a large group of al Qaeda at the fortress and the likelihood of High Value Targets as determined by large scale security detachments, the US dropped the curtain on the escape routes back into Pakistan. We have been pounding the hell out of them for weeks in near complete secrecy.

But an observer may wonder why, if al Qaeda had to vacate the camps, didn't they just go to other hideouts in Pakistan? According to this article in the Telegraph:

The Uzbeks are a surviving remnant of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, an al-Qa'eda affiliate that fought with the Taliban against the Americans in 2001.
Its surviving members fled into Pakistan's lawless tribal belt where earlier this year their hosts turned against them following a dispute. Afghan leaders say that the Uzbeks were recently given the choice to fight the Americans in Afghanistan or face annihilation by the local tribes.

At least one sizeable group of al-Qa'eda and Taliban fighters is continuing to resist despite heavy bombing raids and attacks from US Special Forces. American military spokesmen declined to corroborate the claim, saying the operation was ongoing.

As a reminder, "Uzbeks" is a synonym for al Qaeda in the Pakistani border region and what the locals call all foreign jihadists. So the reporting from Pakistan earlier this year was spot on. Some powerful Taliban leaders have turned on al Qaeda and when their terror camps were targeted by the US they had nowhere else to go.

I blame George Bush.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:57 AM

September 27, 2007
Iran In Panic?

Let's hope so. At least, that is, as long as they don't actually have nukes...

Why would the Syrian government be so tight-lipped about an act of war perpetrated on their soil? The first half of the answer lies in this story that appeared in the Israeli media last month (8/13): Syria's Antiaircraft System Most Advanced In World. Syria has gone on a profligate buying spree, spending vast sums on Russian systems, 'considered the cutting edge in aircraft interception technology.' Syria now 'possesses the most crowded antiaircraft system in the world,' with 'more than 200 antiaircraft batteries of different types,' some of which are so new that they have been installed in Syria 'before being introduced into Russian operation service.' While you're digesting that, take a look at the map of Syria: Notice how far away Dayr az-Zawr is from Israel. An F15/16 attack there is not a tiptoe across the border, but a deep, deep penetration of Syrian airspace. And guess what happened with the Russian super-hyper-sophisticated cutting edge antiaircraft missile batteries when that penetration took place on September 6th. Nothing.
El blanko. Silence. The systems didn't even light up, gave no indication whatever of any detection of enemy aircraft invading Syrian airspace, zip, zero, nada. The Israelis (with a little techie assistance from us) blinded the Russkie antiaircraft systems so completely the Syrians didn't even know they were blinded. Now you see why the Syrians have been scared speechless. They thought they were protected - at enormous expense - only to discover they are defenseless. As in naked. Thus the Great Iranian Freak-Out - for this means Iran is just as nakedly defenseless as Syria.

Couldn't happen to a nicer government, if true.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:11 PM

Last Bastion In Baghdad

Bill Roggio reports on the efforts to continue to cleanse Iraq's capital of Al Qaeda.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:53 AM

September 24, 2007
And They Were So Close, Too

Syrian officials say that the IAF strike has severely damaged hopes for peace.

[Update at 6 PM Eastern]

Iran seems to be doubling down:

Iran is smuggling advanced weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, into Iraq to be used by extremists against American troops, the US military charged on Sunday.
US military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox told reporters in Baghdad that Iran was shifting sophisticated arms such as "RPG-29s, explosively-formed penetrators (EFPs), 240 mm rockets and Misagh-1 surface-to-air missiles" across its borders into Iraq.

An EFP is a feared roadside bomb which when it explodes emits a white-hot slug of molten copper that can cut through the armoured skins of US military vehicles.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:07 PM

"Al Qaeda Lost"

Michael Totten has the latest report from Anbar:

“What’s the most important thing Americans need to know about Iraq that they don’t currently know?” I said.
“That we’re fighting Al Qaeda,” he said without hesitation. “[Abu Musab al] Zarqawi invented Al Qaeda in Iraq. The top leadership outside Iraq squawked and thought it was a bad idea. Then he blew up the Samarra mosque, triggered a civil war, and got the whole world’s attention. Then the Al Qaeda leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province. They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”

No thanks to the Democrats, who at best were naive about the nature of the enemy, and at worst wanted them to win against the "real" enemy--George Bush.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:14 AM

September 23, 2007
What's Been Going On In Syria?

John Wixted has a round up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:25 AM

September 17, 2007
The Dog That Didn't Bark?

Where was the vaunted "Arab street"? Where were the protests from the other Arab nations to the UN about Israel's "aggression" against Syria?

Some interesting military and diplomatic analysis and discussion over at Tigerhawk's place.

[Monday evening update]

Here's a lot more. Can we officially replace Iraq with Syria as the newest member of the Axis of Evil now? Though hopefully one that may be treading a little more carefully, now that it knows (once again) that its air defenses are worthless.

And speaking of the old A of E, Iran's war against us doesn't seem to be going very well. Unfortunately, this doesn't get covered much, either in the media, or in Congressional hearings.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:35 PM

September 15, 2007
Baghdad Bob Redux

Well, not exactly. Maybe we should just call this guy Damascus Dave:

Nothing in Syria was bombed by the IAF, and nothing was damaged - this according to Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations Bashar Ja'afari.
Reports of such an attack are "ridiculous and not true," Army Radio reported Ja'afari as saying on Saturday. Ja'afari added that "Syria does not have North Korean nuclear facilities."

No, of course not. And the Israelis will be swimming in oceans of their own blood, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:28 AM

September 13, 2007
Another Doctor Evil

What was this guy up to?

Zorkot, a third-year medical student at Wayne State University, was allegedly armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and dressed in black clothing with camouflage paint covering his face when he was arrested Saturday in Hemlock Park.

Emphasis mine. What is it with medical students and doctors, and terrorism? This is just one more nail in the coffin of the absurd notion that terrorism is a result of poverty (assuming, of course, that he is a terrorist).

And instead of "Name That Party!" we get to play "Name His Religion!"

There are Christian Arabs (particularly Lebanese) in Dearborn, but somehow, I'm guessing that this guy is no Methodist.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AM

September 12, 2007
Axis Of Evil Update

Has North Korea been providing Syria with nuclear material?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AM

September 11, 2007
Have We Lost Our Way?

[Note: in honor of the anniversary, I've moved this post to the top, all day]

Lileks, on today's date:

It seemed right away like it would be a big war, three to four years – Afghanistan first, of course, then Iraq, then Iran. The idea that it would have stalled and ended up in diffuse oblique arguments about political timetables would have been immensely depressing. There was a model for this sort of thing, a template. Advance. But that requires cultural confidence, a loose agreement on the goals, the rationale, the nature of the enemy and the endgame. We don’t have those things. Imagine telling someone six years ago Iran would be allowed, by default, to make nuclear weapons. They would wonder what the hell we’d done with half a decade, plus change. What part of 25 years of Death to America didn’t we get, exactly?

Apropos of nothing in particular, this is the first anniversary that was the same day as the day it happened--on a Tuesday. One still wonders how they picked that date and day. But that's the only similarity, apparently. The current weather for Manhattan is cloudy and rainy--nothing at all like that Tuesday six years ago, when death and destruction suddenly appeared from a cloudless blue sky.

[Update a few minutes later]

The fog shrouds the hole in the skyline.

[Mid-morning update]

It's a propitious day to come out with Norman Podhoretz' new book on the war. He also has a piece at the Journal today.

[Late morning update]

Jonah Goldberg writes about the emotional half life of 911. Pretty much everyone comes in for criticism, including the president. But this is an important point, I think:

...it’s important to remember that from the outset, the media took it as their sworn duty to keep Americans from getting too riled up about 9/11. I wrote a column about it back in March of 2002. Back then the news networks especially saw it as imperative that we not let our outrage get out of hand. I can understand the sentiment, but it’s worth noting that such sentiments vanished entirely during hurricane Katrina. After 9/11, the press withheld objectively accurate and factual images from the public, lest the rubes get too riled up. After Katrina, the press endlessly recycled inaccurate and exaggerated information in order to keep everyone upset. The difference speaks volumes.

Indeed. Of course, in the first case, we would have gotten riled up against the Religion of Peace™. Couldn't have that. Much better to get us riled up against the real enemy, Bushco, even if they had to print fake news in order to do so.

[Update at 11 AM]

Some thoughts from Debra Burlingame. It was an act of war, not merely a tragedy to be mourned.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:59 PM

September 10, 2007
A Visit To Ramadi

By Michael Totten. Lots of interesting stories, if you want to find out what's really going on there:

"We found tons of weapons and IEDs. Just as we were finishing up some of the military dogs refused to sit on the flour bags. We opened up the bags and it felt like soap. We tested it. We didn’t think it was an explosive, but an accelerant. We took everything, put it into piles, and blew it up without warning anybody. It was a much bigger explosion than we expected. Urea-nitrate was in the bags. It’s an explosive made from fertilizer. That blast was so big that people at Camp Ramadi, all the way on the other side of the city and outside the city, thought it was a nearby car bomb. People are Camp Corregidor thought they were being mortared. Windows blew out for blocks and blocks in every direction. It destroyed the whole block. Civil affairs officers paid compensation to locals for injuries and property damage. Thank God no one was killed. The media reported it as a car bomb at the soccer stadium. Reporters in the Green Zone have no idea what goes on out here.”

[Update in the afternoon]

Bill Ardolino has a similar report from Fallujah.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AM

September 09, 2007
Six Years Ago

Most people think that September 11th was the opening of the main Al Qaeda campaign, but it was really two days earlier, on September 9th, with the assassination in Afghanistan of Ahmad Shah Massoud, a key figure in the liberation of Afghanistan from the Soviets, who afterward had been fighting to liberate his country from the Taliban for years. No one paid much attention to the event at the time, but in hindsight, as the Wikipedia article notes, there is good reason to think that he was assassinated by bin Laden as a means of consolidating his power in Kabul, as part of the preparation for the attacks scheduled to happen two days later.

As a remembrance, here is an open letter from him to the American people, published in 1998.

[Update in the evening]

Welcome, Instapundit readers! If you've never been here before you might want to check out the general blog.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:57 AM

Where Did The War Go?

Some thoughts from Mark Steyn:

According to a poll in May, 35 percent of Democrats believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Did Rumsfeld also know? Almost certainly. That’s why he went to his office as normal that today, because he knew in advance that the plane would slice through the Pentagon but come to a halt on the far side of the photocopier. That’s how well-planned it was, unlike Iraq.
Apparently, 39 percent of Democrats still believe Bush didn’t know in advance — or, at any rate, so they said in May. But I’m confident half of them will have joined Rosie O’Donnell on the melted steely knoll before the Iowa caucuses. If Iraq is another Vietnam, 9/11 is another Kennedy assassination. Were Bali, Madrid, and London also inside jobs by the Bush Gang? If so, it’s no wonder federal spending’s out of control.

RTWT.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:49 AM

Critical Eye For The Terrorist Guy

Some fashion advice for Osama, from the Manolo.

FWIW, I remain unconvinced that it really is Osama.

[Update late morning]

Michael Ledeen is skeptical, too.

[Another update a few minutes later]

And then there's this outtake from the video.

[Update at 11:30 AM]

Here's another theory about the video:

All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen!

Actually, my strongest reason to think that bin Laden is at room temperature? Because the CIA says he's still alive.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 AM

September 08, 2007
Speaking Truth To An "Ugly Narrative"

Peter Wehner explains the realities of the war to Jonathan Rauch. And obliquely, the Democrats:

Let’s lay out the logic for Mr. Rauch in an easy-to-follow manner: If jihadists have declared Iraq to be the central front in the larger war we are engaged in—as they have—and if we retreat because we have been bloodied in Iraq—as leading Democrats want—then it’s reasonable to assume that a precipitous American withdrawal, led by Democrats, will embolden the jihadists.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:21 AM

September 07, 2007
The Administration's Real Failure

I agree with Andy McCarthy, at least as far as this goes:

My calculation — which is not the standard calculation of surge supporters — has been that, eventually, we will have to confront the fact that Iran must be dealt with — not necessarily invaded, but military operations are going to be necessary. When that happens, it would be much better if we were heavily present in Iraq and capable of quickly using it as a platform than if we have withdrawn, allowed much of Iraq to become a de facto Iranian preserve, and must start marshalling forces from scratch — under far more difficult circumstances (e.g., with Turkey perhaps in Iran's camp and Pakistan maybe under anti-American leadership).
The administration has done a poor job explaining the overall war and setting appropriate expectations for what it will take to win. Indeed, the kit-gloves approach to the mullahs is testimony to the administration's own expectations in that regard. As a result, there is now exactly what your post suggests: a disconnect between where we'd like to be politically next year so far as the 2008 election is concerned and where we need to be to win the war — meaning, the overall war against radical Islam, not just the Battle of Iraq. This is a terrible problem, but it is one of our own making.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:04 AM

Londonistan

I wish that I was surprised about this:

Riyadh ul Haq, who supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus, is in line to become the spiritual leader of the Deobandi sect in Britain. The ultra-conservative movement, which gave birth to the Taleban in Afghanistan, now runs more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques, according to a police report seen by The Times.
The Times investigation casts serious doubts on government statements that foreign preachers are to blame for spreading the creed of radical Islam in Britain’s mosques and its policy of enouraging [sic] the recruitment of more “home-grown” preachers.

...The Times has gained access to numerous talks and sermons delivered in recent years by Mr ul Haq and other graduates of Britain’s most influential Deobandi seminary near Bury, Greater Manchester.

Intended for a Muslim-only audience, they reveal a deep-rooted hatred of Western society, admiration for the Taleban and a passionate zeal for martyrdom “in the way of Allah”.

You don't say. Are we losing Albion?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:54 AM

I Love It When A Plan Doesn't Come Together

The Surrendercrats' attempt to preempt the Petraeus Report backfired on them. We need to get that nanotech going on building the world's smallest violin, so I can play it for them.

I continue to be disgusted by them. Their latest propaganda ploy is to call it "the Bush Report," and imply that General Petraeus is just an administration sock puppet.

Well, how about if I call tactics like that the Democrats' "Al Qaeda talking points"?

To paraphrase Golda Meir, we'll start to win this war when the Democrats learn to love the country more than they hate George Bush and the Republicans.

[Update in the afternoon]

Now that Osama's latest tape has been released, it looks like he's still channelling Moveon.org and Kos:

People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there.

I've never bought into the wishful thinking of the left that the Democrats were elected to end the war, but I find it amusing that Osama shares that fantasy.

Of course, I remain skeptical that it's really Osama.

[Late afternoon update]

See what I mean? Kos wants Obama to be Osama. And he wants Hillary! to be Osama, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AM

September 06, 2007
War Is Too Important

...to be left to the lawyers.

We'd probably have lost World War II if it had been fought under these kinds of constraints. And even if not, it would have taken longer, and cost many more lives.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:45 AM

August 31, 2007
A Petraeus Preview

From Captain Ed:

It's an interesting advance look at the Petraeus testimony due on September 11th. Combined with the announcement of an agreement among Iraq's political factions on political reform, it will make a formidable case for continuing on the mission. Democrats will have a difficult time asking for retreat just when obvious progress can be seen.

Yes, they put all their chips on America's defeat. But they've been playing a losing hand.

[Update in the afternoon]

Anyone who claims that "the surge" was a mistake should read this piece from the Times of London. My only complaint about it this sentence:

Captain Patriquin played a little-known but crucial role in one of the few American success stories of the Iraq war.

No, it's not one of the "few" American success stories of the Iraq war. It's just one of the few that you've actually reported.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:48 AM

August 30, 2007
Rewriting The History Of The Vietnam War

To correspond with the what really happened, rather than the mythology believed on campus and by the media and the Democrats:

A...scathing critic of the VFW speech who held such views in 1975 is Stanley Karnow, author of an outdated but still widely read history of the Vietnam War. "The 'loss' of Cambodia," Karnow said, would be "the salvation of the Cambodians." Senator Christopher Dodd, then a member of the House, claimed in 1975, "The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now."

Well, we know how well that turned out.

In response to the President's comments about abandoning Vietnam, some have argued that abandonment was not that important because Vietnam is now a nice capitalist country. This argument shows a callousness toward the loss of human life (in the late 1970s) and the harsh repression of political dissent (from 1975 to today) that is thoroughly out of keeping with how these people normally view international affairs. Hysterical hatred of the Iraq War and President Bush seems the only possible explanation for such an inconsistency. The present-day capitalist economy of Vietnam, moreover, is not reason to doubt the wisdom of U.S. involvement. Instead, it is reason to doubt the wisdom of North Vietnamese involvement. While America was fighting for capitalism in South Vietnam, North Vietnam was fighting to destroy it.

Can someone explain to me why we should be listening to these people now?

[Update a couple minutes later]

Of course there's no Media Conspiracy™. They're too incompetent to have a conspiracy.

They just guzzle their own bathwater.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:40 PM

WMD Found

And it's apparently Saddam's. At the UN headquarters. I guess it never occurred to the weapons inspectors to look there. Maybe it should have.

Yes, they're the people to leave in charge of controlling WMD.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:55 AM

The Revolt Of The Tribes

A very interesting, sophisticated (and guardedly optimistic) analysis of the current situation in Iraq.

To understand what follows, you need to realize that Iraqi tribes are not somehow separate, out in the desert, or remote: rather, they are powerful interest groups that permeate Iraqi society. More than 85% of Iraqis claim some form of tribal affiliation; tribal identity is a parallel, informal but powerful sphere of influence in the community. Iraqi tribal leaders represent a competing power center, and the tribes themselves are a parallel hierarchy that overlaps with formal government structures and political allegiances. Most Iraqis wear their tribal selves beside other strands of identity (religious, ethnic, regional, socio-economic) that interact in complex ways, rendering meaningless the facile division into Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish groups that distant observers sometimes perceive. The reality of Iraqi national character is much more complex than that, and tribal identity plays an extremely important part in it, even for urbanized Iraqis. Thus the tribal revolt is not some remote riot on a reservation: it’s a major social movement that could significantly influence most Iraqis where they live.

You won't get anything like this from most of the simpletons in the MSM.

[Update at 11:30 AM]

Michael Yon, who endorses the article linked above, has published his third dispatch from Anbar. I haven't had time to read it yet, but if it's anything like his first two, it's well worth the read.

[Update]

I glanced through it:

Over the next several days, I saw how much the Iraqis respected Rakene Lee and the other Marines who were all courageous, tactically competent, measured, and collectively and constantly telling even the Iraqis to go easy on the Iraqis. It’s people like Rakene Lee who are winning the moral high ground in Iraq. It is people like this who are devastating al Qaeda just by being themselves. Over those same several days, I would also see the Iraqi Lieutenant Hamid treat prisoners with respect and going out of his way to treat other Iraqis the way he saw Americans treating them. Lieutenant Hamid, in his young twenties, seemed to watch every move of the Marines and try to emulate them.

Hearts and minds.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AM

August 29, 2007
Casus Belli

Kimberly Kagan has a dossier on the acts of war (mostly by proxie) that Iran has been committing against the US for at least the past five years. We may not be at war with Iran, but they're certainly at war with us, regardless of how much many choose to ignore it.

[Update late morning]

Here's a book that seems timely: Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots Quest For Destruction.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:42 AM

In The Shark Cage

Michael Totten visits Al Qaeda's newest lair in Iraq, because they've been chased out of their preferred locales.

“I am optimistic,” he said. “But only for one single reason. Because I talk to the average Joe in Iraq. I meet the children and parents. Iraqi parents love their children as much as I love mine.”
I knew what he meant. Counterintuitive and contradictory as it may seem, I never felt more optimistic in Iraq than I did when I walked the streets and interacted with average Iraqis. Iraq looks more doomed from inside the base than it does outside on the street, and it looks more doomed from across the Atlantic than it does from inside the base.

Major Mike Garcia said this view of Iraq is typical. “Soldiers who don’t leave the FOB [Forward Operating Base] are more likely to be pessimistic than those who go out on patrol. They’re less aware of what’s actually happening and have fewer reality checks on their gloom.”

And this was an interesting commentary on...something.

“He’s like me,” he said. “He’s a Harvard Law grad who joined the Army after 9/11. I’m an attorney.”
“You’re an attorney?” I said. “What are you doing out here in Iraq?”

“I practiced law for three years,” he said, “then got into investment banking. When 9/11 happened I just had to sign up with the Army. Investment banking is a lot more stressful than this.”

“You’re kidding, right?” I said.

“No,” he said and laughed. “I am totally serious.”

If he was deployed in, say, Kurdistan I could see it. But Mushadah was stressful. Less stressful than investment banking? Investment banking in New York must really be something.

Be sure to hit his tip jar, if you can.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 AM

August 28, 2007
It Couldn't Happen To A Nicer Organization

Robert Spencer says that CAIR is having a bad week. Unfortunately, I doubt if the MSM will notice.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:26 PM

August 27, 2007
At War With Hypocritical Lunatics

Michael Yon has a second installment of his "Ghosts of Anbar" series:

Some of these men will admit they were insurgents who switched sides because they realized that they are more likely to get what they want with a stable government. Al Qaeda promised them everything under the baking sun, yet al Qaeda killed people who smoked—and Iraqis like to smoke. They killed people who had satellite dishes or televisions, but al Qaeda would be drinking and with prostitutes. Iraqis have told me some interesting anecdotes about the religious technicalities of prostitution. They are not supposed to have sex out of wedlock, so they marry the prostitute (and the house of ill-repute has the proper religious authority present to make the marriage), and then they divorce the prostitute after completing their business. Another rumor in the area is that al Qaeda tried to force shepherds to make their female sheep wear underwear. This is one I have heard all over Iraq.

We are winning, and what's more, we're developing a lot of skills for defeating an insurgency, that will stand us in good stead in the future.

But Al Qaeda is also self defeating, in much the way that the Nazis were when they invaded Russia, and particularly the Ukraine. All that Hitler had to do was not be quite as brutal and genocidal as Joe Stalin, and he couldn't manage it.

And support Yon's reporting. You're not going to get many stories and reporting like this from the so-called professionals.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:51 AM

August 26, 2007
A New Metric For Iraq

New glass.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:06 AM

August 25, 2007
On The Verge Of Victory?

Ralph Peters:

Of the two simultaneous missions under way - maturing a responsible government and advancing our own strategic interests - the latter is far more important. In fact, it's vital. And on that track, we're making stunning progress.
Out here in Anbar Province, al Qaeda did what religion-driven extremists always do eventually - they over-reached, setting the bar so high that nonfanatics couldn't measure up (nor did they want to). The terrorists responded with a campaign of slaughter against their fellow Muslims.

Now the Sunni Arabs who were fighting so bitterly against us are fighting beside us to destroy al Qaeda in Iraq. And the terrorists are going down.

Out here in Anbar Province - long the most troubled in Iraq - the change has come so swiftly and thoroughly that it's dazzling. Marines who were under fire routinely just months ago are now directing their former enemies in battle.

Although this trend has been reported, our battlefield leaders here agree that the magnitude of the shift hasn't registered back home: Al Qaeda is on the verge of a humiliating, devastating strategic defeat - rejected by their fellow Sunni Muslims.

If we don't quit, this will not only be a huge practical win - it'll be the information victory we've been aching for.

No matter what the Middle Eastern media might say, everyone in the Arab and greater Sunni Muslim world will know that al Qaeda was driven out of Iraq by a combination of Muslims and Americans.

Think that would help al Qaeda's recruitment efforts? Even now, the terrorists have to resort to lies about their prospective missions to gain recruits.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AM

August 22, 2007
Iraq Is Not Ulster

As the British are learning, on the verge of losing Basra.

Col Anderson said British troops "did the best they could", but added: "I'm not sure they did as good a job as they did traditionally. This isn't Northern Ireland. They thought they had a pretty good model but Iraq is a different culture."
Michael O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, added: "Basra is a mess, and the exit strategy attempted there has failed. It is, for the purposes of future Iraq policymaking, an example of what not to do.

"Basra has gone far towards revising the common American image of British soldiers as perhaps the world's best at counter-insurgency."

I think that Petraeus has rewritten the book.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:56 PM

Choosing Between Wars

In further comments on the insanity of our dual and incompatible wars in Afghanistan, Ilya Somin has a suggestion as to how Congress could actually do something constructive:

Congressional Democrats say that they are serious about fighting the War on Terror, and have repeatedly emphasized (with some justification) that the Bush Administration has dropped the ball in Afghanistan. If you truly are serious about improving the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, why not start by denying the use of US government funds for poppy eradication campaigns in that country? Why not instead devote those funds (at least $600 million for last year alone) to military operations and infrastructure development? You can simultaneously improve the conduct of the war and repudiate a failed Bush Administration policy. What's not to like?

Unfortunately, I don't think they have the political guts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AM

August 21, 2007
The Ultimate Mugging

How a so-called liberal reevaluated his beliefs as a result of 911:

Milne's savaging of American self-absorption was the most conspicuous example of an attitude that could be heard in plenty of sophisticated conversations, or should I say conversations between sophisticated people, and read in a number of left or liberal publications.
What all these reactions had in common, I realised, was not complexity but simplicity. For all of them this was an issue of the powerless striking back at the powerful, the oppressed against the oppressor, the rebels against the imperialists. It was Han Solo and Luke Skywalker taking on the Death Star. There was no serious attempt to examine what kind of power the powerless wanted to assume, or over whom they wanted to exercise it, and no one thought to ask by what authority these suicidal killers had been designated the voice of the oppressed. It was enough that Palestinians had danced in the West Bank. The scale of the suffering, the innocence of the victims and the aims of the perpetrators barely seemed to register in many of the comments. Was this a sign of shock or complacency? Or was it something else, a kind of atrophying of moral faculties, brought on by prolonged use of fixed ideas, that prevented the sufferer from recognising a new paradigm when it arrived, no matter how spectacular its announcement?

In the end I reached the conclusion that 11 September had already brutally confirmed: there were other forces, far more malign than America, that lay in wait in the world. But having faced up to the basic issue of comparative international threats, could I stop the political reassessment there? If I had been wrong about the relative danger of America, could I be wrong about all the other things I previously held to be true? I tried hard to suppress this thought, to ring-fence the global situation, grant it exceptional status and keep it in a separate part of my mind. I had too much vested in my image of myself as a 'liberal'. I had bought into the idea, for instance, that all social ills stemmed from inequality and racism. I knew that crime was solely a function of poverty. That to be British was cause for shame, never pride. And to be white was to bear an unshakable burden of guilt. I held the view, or at least was unprepared to challenge it, that it was wrong to single out any culture for censure, except, of course, Western culture, which should be admonished at every opportunity. I was confident, too, that Israel was the source of most of the troubles in the Middle East. These were non-negotiables for any right-thinking decent person. I couldn't question these received wisdoms without questioning my own identity. And I had grown too comfortable with seeing myself as one of the good guys, the well-meaning people, to want to do anything that upset that image. I viewed myself as understanding, and to maintain that self-perception it was imperative that I didn't try to understand myself.

But it's not just about foreign policy:

The scene outside the off-licence shocked and depressed me. Violence happens in all big cities and it is always shocking and depressing to witness. Or at least it should be. What made me feel particularly low, however, was the effortlessness and extremity of the attack, the apparent absence of compunction, the offenders' lack of fear of censure, their obliviousness to social constraint and the compliance, almost conspiracy, of the silent onlookers. Not only was it a savage assault on a young girl but on civic decency as well. Yet the more I thought about it - and I thought about it a lot - the more I realised that there wasn't an 'appropriate' response to what had happened. There wasn't a liberal vocabulary with which to describe the situation. Indeed, even a phrase like 'civic decency' sounded fuddy-duddy, uptight, somehow right-wing. There was a liberal way of talking about the culprits. It involved referring to their poor education and difficult home lives and the poverty they suffered. To have done so would have meant ignoring the expensive clothes and mobile phones that all of them had, or it would have been necessary to explain that these were signs of superficial wealth, the desperate avarice of the marginalised and underprivileged in a nakedly materialist world. But I had no appetite for that brand of reasoning. It blamed nebulous society and excused not just the individuals but also the community of which they were a part. Thus the problem was not local, communal, immediate, it was national, multifaceted, the result of innumerable political mistakes made by the powers that be. In other words, it was inevitable and effectively incurable. We were all powerless: the girl, the onlookers and the culprits who had been led by great social forces beyond their control to stick a broken bottle in a young girl's face.

I had trouble figuring out what to excerpt. Read the whole thing. It looks to be a good book.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:24 PM

Shhhhh...It's A Secret

We're winning the war. Harry Reid is very disappointed.

And as is noted, Hillary! wants to surrender anyway.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:38 AM

"Spies Are Everywhere"

Michael Totten has a new report from Baghdad.

“When you came and liberated this country,” he continued, “Iraq had 25 million Saddams. America is turning us back into human beings. That soccer field is not for a specific person. It is for everybody. We appreciate that. We believe that if Americans have something that is ours, they will return it to us. If the Iraqi government has something that is ours, we forget it.”
Our host for the evening nodded in agreement.

“We support you,” the man continued. “You support our back, we support your back. But you must understand: If you pull back, we will pull back. I will have no choice but to pull back if I can’t depend on you. It will be much harder for us to stand together. But as long as you stand firmly behind us we will support you against Moqtada al Sadr and the other bastards in the area.”

“Are they Sunnis?” I said to Lieutenant Pitts. Moqtada al Sadr leads the radical Shia Mahdi Army militia.

“No,” he said. “They are Shias. But they don’t like any of the idiot groups, regardless of sect. They want peace.”

And as someone with an Iraqi sister-in-law, I can certainly identify with this:

It was late at night, but the Iraqis said we needed to eat. I had no idea, but in hindsight I should have known. It seems no Arab is happy if I’m in his house and he isn’t feeding me.

Be sure to hit his tip jar--it's the only way he can fund this reporting, which is among the best you'll get from the war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AM

August 20, 2007
Misplaced Priorities

We're going to have to make a choice as to which war in Afghanistan is the more important one, the war against the Taliban, or the war against (some) drugs.

In the past two years, the drug war has become the Taliban's most effective recruiter in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's Muslim extremists have reinvigorated themselves by supporting and taxing the countless peasants who are dependent one way or another on the opium trade, their only reliable source of income. The Taliban is becoming richer and stronger by the day, especially in the east and south of the country. The "War on Drugs" is defeating the "war on terror."

We can't do both, and (as the piece points out) the latter is a hopeless enterprise everywhere, not just in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the drug warriors continue to allow their misbegotten war to take precedence over the real one.

[Late Monday afternoon update]

Let Afghan poppies bloom:

In a bold move some years ago, Britain tried to buy up the poppy crop, spending more than £20 million to acquire the opium and persuade the farmers to grow other crops. It was a failure: warlords snatched and resold the opium and no other crop came near to yielding the same income to the farmers. Legalising the trade for medical needs is the obvious alternative. It has been tried, with remarkable results, in India and Turkey. The need for more and cheaper diamorphine-based drugs is clearly there. The scheme is compatible with Afghan law and international narcotics regulations. It is fiercely opposed by gangsters, smugglers and the Tabeban. But it is the best way of putting them out of business.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:04 AM

August 16, 2007
The Genocide of Muslims

...by Muslims. And as usual, we get the blame.

(Yes, I know that technically speaking, it's not a genocide, but it's still a bloody toll.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:31 AM

August 15, 2007
"The Story The World Doesn't Want To Hear"

This isn't news to the people who've been reading Michaels Yon and Totten, but the source of this story is what's most surprising--Der Spiegel:

Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq -- it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq -- not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers -- are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn't hear: Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious "Sunni Triangle," is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction.

Many of Herr Fitner's journalistic brethren may not be very happy with him. It's the wrong template. Doesn't he know that we're supposed to be losing?

It should also be noted that he's no apologist for the administration. In fact, he repeats the same tired old myths and straw men:

But there is little talk of these developments outside of Iraq. The world continues to debate the Bush administration's lies, which hang over the entire operation like a curse, concealing its successes. The lies are legend, and they continue to color the picture the world paints of Iraq.
No one can forget how the hawks twisted the truth to engineer reasons to go to war -- the made-up stories of Saddam Hussein as a mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks and the trumped-up reports about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. President George W. Bush himself repeatedly told his people and the rest of world horrible fairy tales, painting the most glaring of disaster scenarios, talking ad nauseam about unmanned Iraqi drones that, in his imagination, posed a threat to the US.

Of course, the administration never claimed that Saddam was behind 911, and there is no evidence that anyone in the administration has ever "lied" about the war. If Bush lied, so did many Democrats who believed the same things. But perhaps a German doesn't understand the meaning of the English word "lie." Unfortunately, many on the left don't seem to, either. In fact, it is often their first resort when confronted with facts that they find unpleasant. At least this reporter is willing to report accurately what he finds on the ground in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:29 AM

The Strange Country Of Iraq

Michael Totten has a story from Baghdad:

“What if the US assaults Sadr City?” I said.
“We would all love that,” he said. “Everyone except the Mahdi Army would love that. Every single person I know hates Moqtada al Sadr.”

But some people do like Moqtada al Sadr. Someone in Graya’at put up a billboard with his face on it.

Lieutenant William H. Lord told me earlier that when American soldiers have gone into Sadr City in the past, children flipped them off and threw rocks. Children in our area of Baghdad, by contrast, treat the American soldiers like heroes. General Petraeus has his work cut out for him if and when he decides to surge into Sadr’s domain.

“Even Saddam was better than Jaysh al Mahdi,” he said. “They treat everyone bad. Americans treat us good. Sadr does not. They say Americans rape our women. They lie. It is just propaganda. Americans have plenty of women. Jaysh al Mahdi rapes our women for real. They are animals. But soon enough their day is coming.”

Let's hope so.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 AM

August 13, 2007
No Union Cards

Christopher Hitchens, on the nuttiness of people who cannot bring themselves to believe that we are fighting Al Qaeda. In Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:58 PM

August 07, 2007
Born An American

Natural Americans are born all over the world, but they don't all get to live here. Michael Totten has a fascinating (and gruesome) interview with an Iraqi interpreter:

MJT: Is there a solution to the problem in this country?
Hammer: Nuke Iraq.

MJT: Be serious.

Hammer: I am serious. If you screen all Iraqis, 5 million of them would be good people. Clear them out, then kill everyone else. Syria and Iran would surrender. [Laughs.]

Right now they see 100 corpses every day in the streets. It’s not okay to kill the bad people who do that?

Ok, if you want a serious solution try this:

Charge money to the families of insurgents. Fine them huge amounts of money if anyone in their family is captured or killed and identified as an insurgent. Make them pay. You can put it into law. Within one week they won’t do anything wrong because they want money. Their familes will make them stop.

The militias pay them 100 dollars to set up IEDs. Fine them thousands of dollars if they are caught and their families will make them stop. Give them that law. Go ahead. Try it.

MJT: What will happen if the Americans leave next year?

Hammer: Rivers of blood everywhere. Syria and Iran will take pieces of Iraq. Anti-American governments will laugh. You will be a joke of a country that no one will take seriously.

I will kill myself if it happens. I am completely serious. The militias will hunt down and kill me and my family. I will beat them to it by killing myself.

I worked for the U.S. government for four years. Everyone who works as an interpreter for four years and gets a signature from a General or a Senator gets a Green Card. My hope is to get this somehow. I will do anything for this.

I am doing this for my son. Everything for my son. I don’t want my son living here getting into religion and militias and Al Qaeda. I want my son to be free, to have a girlfriend, to get married, and to be a good citizen.

These are the kinds of people who should get priority for green cards, if they feel they're unable to help fix their native country. And how the British are treating their translators is disgraceful:

Last month Denmark granted asylum to 60 former Iraqi staff and their families before its forces withdrew from the south. The US has said it will take in 7,000 Iraqis this year, including former employees.
But Britain has so far refused to make an exception. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said yesterday that Iraqi employees would receive no special help in applying for asylum.

“Anyone who is seeking to apply for refugee status must do so from within the United Kingdom. There is no exception to that,” said a Home Office spokesman. “Their cases will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis against the criteria of the 1951 Refugee Convention.”

One of the great and ongoing mistakes in our foreign policy is to reward our enemies, and punish or betray our friends.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AM

August 05, 2007
"I Have Seen The Horror"

Michael Yon has a new venue to explain Iraq, both directly to the American people, and to the media and politicians who (either ignorantly or mendaciously, or perhaps both) continue to mislead them about it being simply a civil war:

When it comes to Iraq, being there matters because of the massive disconnect between what most Americans think they know about Iraq, and what is actually going on there.
The current controversy about the extent to which Al Qaeda is a threat to peace in Iraq is a case in point. Questions about which group calling itself an offshoot of Al Qaeda is really an offshoot of Al Qaeda is a distraction masquerading as a debate.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq, intentionally inflaming sectarian hostilities, deliberately pushing for full scale civil war. They do this by launching attacks against Shia, Sunni, Kurds and coalition forces. To ensure the attacks provoke counterattacks, they make them particularly gruesome...

...Clearly, not every terrorist in Iraq is Al Qaeda, but it is Al Qaeda that has been intentionally, openly, brazenly trying to stoke a civil war. As Al Qaeda is now being chased out of regions it once held without serious challenge, their tactics are tinged with desperation.

This may be the greatest miscalculation they've made in their otherwise sophisticated battle for the hearts and minds of locals, and it is one we must exploit.

Whether it was in 2002 is irrelevant. Iraq is the current front line in the war. Yon knows it. The administration knows it. Even Al Qaeda repeatedly admits it.

To abandon it now will be to give the enemy a great victory, and show bin Laden to be right, that when the going gets tough, America (and the West) abandons the field. It would demonstrate that their viciousness works in accomplishing their vile goals.

And it would be all the more tragic if it happened at a time in which we are actually winning on the ground, if not in the media.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:34 PM

Missing Alms

Mark Steyn on censorship by litigation:

...why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?
Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call "libel chill" is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He's one of the richest men on the planet, and they're an academic publisher with very small profit margins. But, even if you've got a bestseller, your pockets are unlikely to be deep enough: "House Of Saud, House Of Bush" did boffo biz with the anti-Bush crowd in America, but there's no British edition – because Sheikh Mahfouz had indicated he was prepared to spend what it takes to challenge it in court, and Random House decided it wasn't worth it.

We've gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can't open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:03 AM

August 04, 2007
Robot Soldiers

...and the laws of war. Some interesting thoughts.

I've often discussed my frustration with those on the left who deludedly (or more likely, disingenuously) claim that we must treat enemy captured according to the Geneva Conventions (i.e., in their minds, as POWs, or even worse, as civil criminals) when in fact to do what they demand would be a clear violation in itself of the conventions, because the conventions require that we not privilege illegal combatants. And in this war, the enemy has no legal combatants, in terms of Geneva.

In an age of asymmetrical warfare, and entering a post-Westphalian era, the conventions seem no longer to work (except as a means for those who hate America, and particularly George Bush's America, more than they fear radical Islam, to tie our hands). They need to be replaced with something else. This kind of technology may be one solution.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:01 PM

August 02, 2007
Quashing Of Dissent

The Saudis are suppressing speech, and getting books burned.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:54 AM

July 30, 2007
No Time To Quit

Optimism about Iraq, from unlikely sources:

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference...

...In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

I think that this is very important:

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

While I do think that the new tactics are being successful, and to take nothing away from General Petraeus and the troops, it remains unobvious to me that this would have been possible, or at least worked as well, earlier. It may well have been that the Iraqis had to go through a crucible of violence and Islamist oppression before they could realize where their true interests lay. And Americans are not known for their patience. Few of them are familiar enough with history to even recall that it took us eight years from the end of the revolution until we had our current constitution.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Michael Totten has a first-hand report on a night raid in Baghdad:

When we arrived outside the mosque, some of the soldiers squatted in driveways across the street and scanned the roof. I joined them as Eddy and the others took the suspect to the gate.
I crouched near the ground.

“There are four men on the roof,” a soldier said. “You can’t see them anymore. They just ducked away as we got here.”

“They have a little bunker up there,” he continued. “You can’t see it from here, but it has sand bags and sniper netting around it.”

“What are you going to do?” I said.

“Nothing,” he said. “It’s a mosque.”

“They’re violating curfew,” I said, “and stalking us in the dark from a militarized mosque. And you aren’t going to do anything?”

“Our rules of engagement say we can’t interfere in any way with a mosque unless they are shooting at us,” he said.

We left our stalker with his “co-workers” and walked away.

We continue to fight with one hand tied behind our back, against an enemy that has no respect for the rules of war, or for human life.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 AM

July 28, 2007
Too Cavalier

That's what Cathy Young writes that civil libertarians are about terrorism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:34 AM

July 26, 2007
Another Loss For The Anti-Bush Propagandists

Not that the moonbats will pay much attention, but the Lancet report from 2004 claiming a hundred thousand civilian casualties in Iraq as a result of removing Saddam has been further discredited.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 AM

"Couldn't Possibly Be Going Better"

The other Michael, Michael Totten, reports from Baghdad:

“Do they ever get pissed off when you search them?” I said.
“Not very often,” he said. “They understand we’re trying to protect them.”

“This is not what I expected in Baghdad,” I said.

“Most of what we’re doing doesn’t get reported in the media,” he said. “We’re not fighting a war here anymore, not in this area. We’ve moved way beyond that stage. We built a soccer field for the kids, bought all kinds of equipment, bought them school books and even chalk. Soon we’re installing 1,500 solar street lamps so they have light at night and can take some of the load off the power grid. The media only covers the gruesome stuff. We go to the sheiks and say hey man, what kind of projects do you want in this area? They give us a list and we submit the paperwork. When the projects get approved, we give them the money and help them buy stuff.”

[Update a couple hours later]

Another dispatch from Baqubah by Michael Yon.

The idea is to get the Iraqis to run their own cities but most of the old leaders are gone, and the new ones are like throwing babies to cow udders. Many just don’t know what to do, and in any case, most of them have no natural instinct for it. So our soldiers are mentoring Iraqi civil leaders, which is a huge education for me because I get to sit in on the meetings. The American leaders tell me what they are up to, which amounts for free Ph.D. level instruction in situ: just have to be willing to be shot at. (The education a writer can get here is unbelievable.) Meeting after meeting—after embeds in Nineveh, Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala—I have seen how American officers tend to have a hidden skill-set. Collectively, American military leaders seem to somehow intuitively know how to run the mechanics of a city. Watch video of LTC Johnson in action at a meeting with Iraqi Army officials to plan for the delivery and distribution of diesel fuel, another commodity formerly under al Qaeda control.
I have wondered now for two years why is it that American military leaders somehow seem to naturally know what it takes to run a city, while many of the local leaders seem clueless. Over time, a possible answer occurred, and that nudge might be due to how the person who runs each American base is referred to as the “Mayor.” A commander’s first job is to take care of his or her forces. Our military is, in a sense its own little country, with city-states spread out all around the world. Each base is like a little city-state. The military commander must understand how the water, electricity, sewerage, food distribution, police, courts, prisons, hospitals, fire, schools, airports, ports, trash control, vector control, communications, fuel, fiscal budgeting, fire, for his “city” all work. They have “embassies” all over the world and must deal diplomatically with local officials in Korea, Germany, Japan and many dozens of other nations. The U.S. military even has its own space program, which few countries have.
In short, our military is a reasonable microcosm of the United States – sans the very important business aspect which actually produces the wealth the military depends on. The requisite skill-set to run a serious war campaign involves a subset of skills that include diplomacy and civil administration.

We live far better on base here in Baqubah than many people who are living downtown (though there are some very nice homes), and it’s not all about money. Not at all and not in the least. When Americans move into Iraqi buildings, the buildings start improving from the first day. And then, the buildings near the buildings start to improve. It’s not about the money, but the mindset. The Greatest Generation called it “the can-do mentality.” It’s a wealth measured not only in dollars, but also in knowledge. The burning curiosity that launched the Hubble, flows from that mentality, and so does the revenue stream of taxpayer dollars that funded it. Iraq is very rich in resources, but philosophically it is impoverished. The truest separation between cultures is in the collective dreams of their people.

If teaching people to become self sufficient is "socialism" (per the first comment below), then bring it on, for now.

And I'm sure that Harry Reid is very disappointed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:45 AM

July 24, 2007
"2006 Was 1943"

The success of the surge. And the continuing efforts of the Dems and the media to make Iraq into another Vietnam.

[Afternoon update]

Max Boot has to educate Henry Kissinger on the fact that Iraq is not Vietnam:

Skilled diplomacy can consolidate the results of military success but can seldom make up for its lack. In Iraq, there is scant chance that any American legerdemain can convince internal factions like the Jaish al Mahdi or Al Qaeda in Iraq, or outside actors such as Iran and Syria, that their interests are congruent with ours. While the U.S. pursues stability and democracy, our enemies are merrily capitalizing on mayhem to carve out spheres of influence and bleed us dry.
The only thing that could conceivably alter their calculations is a change in the balance of power on the ground. That is what Army Gen. David Petraeus is trying to achieve. But he is being undermined by incessant withdrawal demands from home, which are convincing our enemies that they can wait us out. Only if the other side faces the probability of defeat -- or at least stalemate -- can negotiations produce a durable accord.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:35 AM

July 20, 2007
More On Anti-War Libertarians

Randy Barnett has further thoughts. I found this interesting:

I realize that some fraction of radical libertarians, whose opinion I respect, believe that there is no such thing as a just war, but most radical libertarians (including most critics of my WSJ op-ed) allow the legitimacy of a defensive war and oppose only wars of aggression. Some antiwar libertarians who oppose the Iraq war as aggression, for example, supported the war in Afghanistan on "self-defense" grounds. And those who didn't say they would support a war that was truly in self-defense. They simply deny that the war in Iraq fits that description. Yet if they also accept stance (1), as they appear to, then ON THEIR ACCOUNT because a defensive war is waged by an illegitimate government and the rights of innocents were inevitably violated, it too must be opposed.

I've never quite understood the arguments of those who claim that they're not anti-war because they supported the war in Afghanistan, but that they were opposed to removing Saddam Hussein.

Why did they support the war in Afghanistan? Was it, as described above, because it was a "defensive" war? If so, what does that mean? Was it to prevent further attacks? Or was it to avenge 911?

If the latter (and much of the rhetoric seems to indicate that), then it wasn't a defensive war, except possibly in the limited sense that by making an example of the Taliban we could discourage other regimes from similarly harboring our enemies.

If the former, then it was a preemptive war (that is, we were going to remove a regime, to prevent it from supporting any further attacks). But we've been told by this crowd that preemptive wars aren't acceptable. For instances despite many threats made against Israel (and the Great Satan--us) by Iran, and its continuing development of the means with which to carry them out, we are not allowed to go to war with Iran, because that would be "preemptive" and we're supposed to wait for them to strike the first blow, as happened with Afghanistan.

Now it turns out in hindsight that the threat from Iraq was exaggerated (though not as much as many war opponents assume), but at the time, we considered it sufficient to need to be preemptive (not to mention all of the ongoing violations of the UN resolutions and truce agreements that Saddam continued to ignore). In that sense, it was a defensive war. So when war opponents claim that we have a right to defensive wars, but practically only allow it to happen after it's too late to defend ourselves (as occurred with 911), just what do they mean?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:48 AM

July 17, 2007
The Real War In Iraq

The one against corruption.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:55 PM

July 16, 2007
An Interesting New Book

Here's an excerpt from a new book that just came out today, describing the war between the CIA, and the Pentagon and White House. I wonder if it will talk about their ally, the State Department?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:35 PM

You'll Be As Shocked As I Was To Learn

...that Nobel-winning terrorist and murderer Yasser Afafat died of AIDS.

It didn't happen soon enough.

[Update a few minutes later]

Mark Steyn has further thoughts.

[Tuesday update]

I guess I wasn't clear enough (or at all) as to the point of this post. It's not news that Arafat died of AIDS. What's news is that "Palestinians" are admitting it. I suspect that this is all of a piece with the civil war between Hamas and Fatah, it being an attempt by the former to discredit the latter.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:32 AM

He's Dead, Jim

I've long thought that, despite CIA claims to the contrary (I mean, it's not like the CIA is a reliable source), Osama has been dead for years. Here's a Koranic interpretation of the latest "new" (really old) video, that speculates that it's preparatory to an announcement that he's gotten his virgins.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:29 AM

July 12, 2007
Down In The Dumps

Zawahiri doesn't sound very optimistic. But expect continued blather from the media and Congressional "leadership" about how we're the ones losing the war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:17 AM

July 11, 2007
Al Qaeda Is Losing On The Ground

...and winning in the media and in Washington. It's Tet all over again, and we're just letting them do it.

A congressionally-imposed defeat in Iraq may be averted by a swing in the polls, or more precisely, a swing in the GRPs that move the polls. Given the military's long standing Public Affairs policy of media neutrality, the administration and the Generals will have to earn the GRPs in a hostile media environment. This is difficult, but not impossible, given the substantial American center - Citizens who would prefer victory if given reason to hope.
Alternately, Congress could defy the polls. Al Qaeda is running its war on smoke and mirrors - or, more accurately, on bytes of sound and sight. Congress could act on General Petraeus' reports from the ground, rather than broadcasts generated by insurgents. This requires a simple commitment - one foreign to many in the elective branch: Leadership.

Something that seems to be in frighteningly short supply inside the Beltway these days. As Glenn notes:

Targeting our politicians and journalists is clearly going after our weak points...

Yes, they're pretty soft targets.

[Update late morning]

Despite the cheerleading for them from the media and Congressional leadership, Michael Yon says that Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq:

The focus on al Qaeda makes sense here, where local officials have gone on record acknowledging that most of the perhaps one thousand al Qaeda fighters in Baqubah were young men and boys who called the city home. This may clash with the perception in US and other media that only a small percentage of the enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda, which in turn leads to false conclusions that the massive offensive campaign underway across Iraq is a lot of shock and awe aimed at a straw enemy. But as more Sunni tribal leaders renounce former ties with al Qaeda, it’s becoming clearer just how heavily AQ relied on local talent, and how disruptive they have been here in fomenting the civil war.

But that doesn't fit the media's narrative.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:50 AM

July 10, 2007
The Anti-Sheehan

Mark Danziger:

My adult son's independent decision about what he wants to do with his life has no bearing on me or on what I write. My views and words about the issues that have concerned me for five years or more are not one gram more significant nor my arguments one iota stronger or weaker because of the decision which he independently made. Judge me as a parent if you will, but please do not judge my positions as a writer based on this act by someone else.

Also, on the chutzpah of the surrenderistas at New York Times:

One of the main arguments supporting the claim that we should leave now is the obvious and real collapse of public support for the war - a collapse that is shocking, just shocking, given the years of media spin on the war - media spin that bloggers have been pointing out continually. There's something to say about the media and antiwar left beating on public opinion for four years, and then using that collapse of public opinion as an argument for their position.

Jules Crittendon has further thoughts on that subject.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:34 AM

July 09, 2007
The Invasion That No One Noticed

Perhaps because they find it too inconvenient:

If Israel sent the IDF three kilometers into Lebanon and started digging trenches and building bunkers it would make news all over the world. But Syria does it and everyone shrugs. Hardly anyone even knows it happened at all.
Syria can, apparently, get away with just about anything. I could hardly blame Assad at this point if he believes, after such an astonishing non-response, that he can reconquer Beirut. So far he can kill and terrorize and invade and destroy with impunity, at least up to a point. What is that point? Has anyone in the U.S., Israel, the Arab League, the European Union, or the United Nations even considered the question?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:26 AM

July 07, 2007
Two Years Ago

The London subway bombings.

Things seem to have gotten worse, lately, not better, in terms of their ability to preempt these things.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:28 AM

First It Was Doctors

And now it's the police:

Up to eight police officers and civilian staff are suspected of links to extremist groups including Al Qaeda.
Some are even believed to have attended terror training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Their names feature on a secret list of alleged radicals said to be working in the Metropolitan and other forces...

...Astonishingly, many of the alleged jihadists have not been sacked because - it is claimed - police do not have the "legal power" to dismiss them.

We can also reveal that one suspected jihadist officer working in the South East has been allowed to keep his job despite being caught circulating Internet images of beheadings and roadside bombings in Iraq.

He is said to have argued that he was trying to "enhance" debate about the war.

Classified intelligence reports raising concerns about police staff's background cannot be used to justify their dismissal, sources said.

This is almost like something out of Monty Python. It reminds me of the skit with Graham Chapman as the British Navy officer who lectures the audience on how the cannibalism problem in the Royal Navy is completely under control, as a sailor walks behind him munching on a leg. Well, almost like it, except it's not funny. One could do a World War II parody on how MI5 has very few Nazis in it, and most of them are fine chaps, except for their support of gassing Jews, and providing bombing targets to Germany.

One fears that the entire British government bureaucracy is rotted with these termites. When will the British people recognize that they are at war, muster up the will to fight, and reclaim their nation? This is what a people unconfident in their own values looks like.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 AM

Trouble Brewing In Lebanon?

Looks like the axis of evil may be about to stir up the pot:

A series of op-eds in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustabal, by Nusair Al-As'ad, warned of a planned Syrian-Iranian coup in Lebanon. [9] According to these articles, Hizbullah was planning to launch, in the near future, a new stage in the coup being led by Syria and Iran in Lebanon, during which it would use its weapons on the domestic Lebanese front. The threats by the Lebanese opposition to establish a second government in Lebanon were part of this planned coup, and the coup was to be carried out under the banner of establishing a second government.
The articles stated that the threat voiced by Syrian President Bashar Assad during his April 2007 meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, namely, that the situation in Lebanon would "reach the point of civil war," was actually "an official declaration of the coup he is now staging in Lebanon."

That would be the end (at least temporarily) of the Cedar Revolution. The State Department is supposedly gung-ho on democracy in the Middle East. Do they have a plan? I'd like to think so, but only because, like a second marriage, it would be a triumph of hope over experience.

Many have been expecting, and Israel has been prudently preparing for, another war this summer. This may be the precipitating event. Let's hope that they learned from their mistakes from last summer.

[Early afternoon update]

And then there's this:

The London based Al-Hayat reported Saturday that Israel was "concerned" that Syria's decision to remove military checkpoints on the road to Kuneitra on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights could be a preparation for war.
According to the report, the checkpoints in question had been in place for 40 years, ever since the Six Day War.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:12 AM

July 06, 2007
"Overrated" Follow Up

In response to yesterday's post, Greg Scoblete emails:

I read your post "Overrated" following an Instapundit link. I think you're right, re: doctors, but I noticed you derided the notion that the jihad has any basis in U.S. policy. I think you simplify the argument. There is absolutely some causality between the two, just as there is causality between Islamic fundamentalism and violence. There is ample evidence of this in the writings of bin Laden and among analysts who study Islamic terrorism. (I wrote as much at TCS Daily here).
Nor is it a "progressive" myth. George Bush, Wolfowitz, and other administration officials have explicitly linked U.S. policy to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. This isn't in the spirit of blaming the victim but of knowing your enemy. Believing we're being attacked solely out of religious animus is a comforting myth, but not one that will help us win a needed victory over jihadist terrorism.

Of course, I oversimplified. The post was running long as it was.

Of course we have made foreign policy mistakes that have resulted in the current mess, going back for decades.

My point was that they're not the mistakes that the "progressives" and transnationalists think they are, and that it's not because we do things that make the Caliphists and hirabis upset, or explain "why they hate us," which is the prevailing mind set.

Our foreign policy mistakes have been to give in to them, and thereby encourage them. Terrorism is not an ideology of hopelessness, but of hope. Hope that by making us fear them sufficiently, we will give in to their unreasonable, savage, medieval demands.

[sigh]

It will take a long essay to explain this properly.

There are (at least) two categories of error in foreign policy. One is to commit egregious acts against a people such that they rise up against you.

The other is to show weakness, such that they think that if they can hurt you badly enough, you'll give up, and give in to their demands, no matter how outrageous and unreasonable they may be.

While we've done more than we should have of both over the last...well...half century, if not longer, the latter is the major reason that we are currently under siege (at least metaphorically, if not literally).

Yes, bin Laden whined about the "occupation of Arabia" during and after the first Gulf War. And the Arabs continually whine about the oppression of the "Palestinians" by the "Zionists" (see, I can use scare quotes just as well as Reuters, except...well, mine are actually accurate).

But the real reason for the war we're in can be found in the part of bin Laden's speech about the "weak horse" and the "strong horse."

In Tehran in 1979, in Beirut in 1982, in New York in 1993 (when we treated the first Trade Center bombing as a criminal operation), in Mogadishu, in the Khobar towers, in the Cole attack, etc., etc., etc,.) we have shown ourselves to be the "weak horse." And, of course, it all started when we abandoned the south Vietnamese in 1975.

Only when we decided to take out the Taliban did we surprise the Hirabis. And then, when we decided to topple terrorist sympathizer Saddam Hussein, they trembled. Not because he had been providing them with a great deal of support (though it was not zero, as popular myth has it), but because they recognized that a) a major US military presence in the heart of Arabia was a great threat from a military standpoint and b) the notion of democracy there was an even greater threat to their medieval designs, that depended on an Arabia in thrall to fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam.

So, yes, our foreign policy, at least since 1979, has been based on a delusion--that we could ignore Islamic militancy, or treat it as a criminal problem. This is a delusion in which the Democrats have indulged in particular (though many Republicans supped the koolaid as well, down to the present time, as Pete Domenici has).

But the solution is not to change our policy to placate religious fanatics.

Douglas Hofstadter, in one of his books (forget which one) talks about the irrationality of those who seek compromise uber alles.

He describes a mother presiding over two disputing little boys. She has just baked a cake. One of the boys thinks that the two boys should share the cake. The other thinks that he should get the whole cake.

What is a compromise?

Well, if one listens to people at the UN, or even our own State Department, a compromise between the two positions would be that the boy who wants the whole cake would get three quarters, and the one who thinks it should be shared would get one quarter.

That is, as long as he was willing to fight for it, of course (though only diplomatically, and not, heaven forfend, really fight, with actually breaking things, and killing people), and continue to apologize for wanting even a quarter of it. No, war is evil. We must compromise.

That's where we're at with Islamicists.

We want tolerance of all religions. They want tolerance of theirs, and Dhimmitude for the others.

We want freedom of speech and thought. They want freedom of speech to praise Allah, and freedom to behead any who are less than appreciative of the obvious fact that Mohammed is the Prophet Who Must Be Praised.

The foreign policy mistakes that we have made are to be willing to "compromise" with such insanity. To attempt to meet it half way. To ignore it when it takes ambassadors hostage. To ignore it when it plants truck bombs beneath the World Trade Center. To ignore it when it blows up a barrack of Marines in Beirut. To ignore it when the Khobar Towers are blown up, and to rely on an ostensibly friendly regime to investigate it, despite the fact that it also funds the hatred and ideology that drives madmen to do such things. To ignore it when it attacks a US warship in the Middle East and kills US sailors and damages it to the point that it must put into port for repairs.

These are the things that our foreign policy has done to promote terrorism.

There is no half way. There is tolerance, which the West, and the Enlightenment, for centuries, has promoted, and there is tyranny. There is no compromise with tyranny.

How does one "compromise" with that?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:21 PM

Update From Baqubah

Another very interesting dispatch from Michael Yon, with stories (and photos) that we continue to not get from the MSM:

The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”
I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can—more or less and with giant caveats—rely on.

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient but to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

Now that all those realizations and more have settled in, the dynamics here are changing in palpable ways.

Hearts and minds.

And emphasis mine. Leave it up to the current Democrat leadership, and "abandon them again" is exactly what we would do.

And there's this, on "Al Qaeda."

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. 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.

Note: this is not the way to win hearts and minds...

Is it Al Qaeda?

Forrest Gump famously said, "Stupid is as stupid does." It would seem to apply here, as Yon points out. If they act like Al Qaeda, whether in massacring villages, baking and serving young boys, or driving jeeps through airport windows, it's a duck. As Lileks noted, it's nutty to assume that just because someone doesn't have an Al Qaeda medical benefits card in their wallet that they're not aligned with global Jihad.

And if we are, finally, making the progress that Yon reports, I still have to wonder if in fact it even could have been achieved earlier, even with a better strategy. While I would certainly never claim that the war has been waged perfectly (but then, what war ever is?), it's not at all obvious to me that the current strategy would have worked three years ago. And history being what it is, it's not possible to do a controlled experiment.

When we pacified Germany and Japan, the peoples of those two nations had been utterly defeated, and were tired of war. The problem with Iraq was that we didn't defeat the nation--we only defeated the brutal dictator and his minions who had been holding that nation hostage. Once his boot was off the neck of the people, many of them, particularly those who saw it as an opportunity to finally gain power themselves, turned on us as the new "occupiers." They didn't understand who the real enemy was.

Only now, having had to suffer the new brutality of the hirabis, in Anbar, in Diyala, can they appreciate a "tribe" whose goal is liberation, rather than subjugation. It has been said that the only way to convince Muslims of the evil of Islamists is for them to have to live under their rule for a while. It happened in Afghanistan, and more recently it happened in Iraq (and it is probably happening in Gaza now). We'll never know, of course, if bringing Petraeus in earlier would have had the same effect then, but what is clear to me is that the field had certainly been tilled for his tactics over the last couple years, and that the Iraqis are now fully receptive to someone who will save them from those who wish to reenslave them.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Instapundit has a follow-up email from Yon:

Baqubah has so quieted down that it's nothing like I have ever seen it. Practically no fighting. . . . It's Friday so there will likely not be much happening downtown today, so I stayed on base to write about the goings-on. I wrote about the lethargy of the local Iraqi leadership a couple weeks ago, but the energetic leadership of U.S. Army seems to be catching. The Iraqis are much more into the fight than they were back on 19 June with Arrowhead Ripper kicked off. We are now D+17 (17 days since Arrowhead Ripper kicked off), and the changes in Baqubah are remarkable. I am cautiously optimistic. Very cautious, and very optimistic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AM

July 05, 2007
Overrated

Many people have expressed surprise that doctors were involved in Jihad. Beyond that, there seems to be some shock that they did so in such an incompetent manner. They're doctors! They're supposed to be smart, right?

Well, with all due respect to my physician readers and commenters, I've never bought into that myth. Neither does John Derbyshire:

I attended a British university with a large and famous teaching hospital attached. The medical students were pretty widely regarded as the dumbest on campus, and as the heaviest drinkers and stupidest pranksters. Of the five or six student rock groups, the medics' was the loudest and worst. (Its name was "Perry Stalsis and his Abdo Men.") My subsequent experience of doctors has done nothing to erase those early impressions. Sure, medical students have to memorize the names of a lot of little parts. So do auto mechanics.

That's how I've always viewed doctors--as mechanics, except for the human body, rather than inanimate objects.

Not saying, of course, that there aren't smart doctors, or doctors capable of rigging and detonating explosives via cell phone (but as I've noted in the past, fortunately, people competent at doing such things are generally less likely to want to). But there's certainly no reason to automatically infer high intelligence, or even competence, just because someone is a doctor. Or a lawyer, for that matter.

By the way, it would also be nice if this latest development finally puts to bed the ongoing "progressive" myth that terrorism is caused by poverty and alienation, or by our foreign policy (the latest manifestation of this nonsense is the nutty notion that we are "creating terrorists in Iraq").

It's the Jihad, stupid. As a former Islamist notes, we are at war with an ideology:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy...
...And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

We continue to deny moral agency to Muslims, and act as though we really are responsible for all bad things in the world, and they have no responsibility for their own behavior. If we don't understand what we are at war with, and chase after solutions to problems that don't really exist, and continue to foolishly ask questions like "why do they hate us?", we can never win.

[Friday morning update]

Diane West has more:

In the media, the effort [to ignore the Islamist elephant in the corner] is misleading to the point of farce. Joel Mowbray, writing at the Powerline blog, noted that the New York Times has identified Britain's Muslim terrorists as "South Asian people" — which, considering Britain's largest South Asian population is Hindu, is beyond absurd. "Diverse group allegedly in British plot," the Associated Press reported, missing that unifying Islamic thread. "All 8 detainees have ties to health service," wrote the Toronto Star, "but genesis of terror scheme still eludes investigators."
If they read Robert Spencer's jihadwatch.org, the essential daily compendium of jihad and dhimmi news, they might get a clue. But, very ominously, Mr. Spencer's Web site is being blocked by assorted organizations which, according to his readers, continue to provide access to assorted pro-jihad sites. Mr. Spencer reports he's "never received word of so many organizations banning this site all at once." These include the City of Chicago, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, GE IT, JPMorgan Chase, Defense Finance and Accounting Services and now, a federal employee in Dallas informs him, the federal government.

Reason given? Some Internet providers deem the factually based, meticulous analysis on display at jihadwatch.org to be "hate speech." This should send Orwellian shivers up society's spine, but, alarmingly, such reactions to jihad analysis are increasingly the norm.

We are winning the war on the ground, and losing it where it really matters, in the media, and political establishment. The enemy understands the nature and value of their information war, but our side remains clueless.

[Update, late Friday afternoon]

A potential explanation for the Jihadwatch censorship, to the degree that it exists.

We need to get smarter firewall companies. I mean, we are at war.

[Update on Saturday morning]

There's a follow up to this post up above.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:21 AM

July 03, 2007
National Jihad Service

Everyone in involved in the British bombing plots seemed to have the same employer:

Eight people arrested in connection with failed car bombings in Glasgow and London all have links with the National Health Service, the BBC has learned.

Mark Steyn and Stanley Kurtz have thoughts on the implications.

[Early afternoon update]

Iain Murray makes another relevant point about the NHS:

The high proportion of foreign physicians is indeed down to a lack of British Doctors - not just from lack of students, but also because many trained Doctors choose to pursue other careers. Life in the NHS is not a rewarding experience. A family member of mine who is so highly regarded as a Doctor that she has won a prize carrying a substantial annual stipend for the rest of her life has withdrawn from clinical treatment because she was constantly asked to make life-or-death decisions based on the rationing of resources (you won't hear that story in Sicko). The socialization of medicine in the UK is responsible for a lot of problems. The importation of terrorists is just one of them.

[Update at 2 PM EDT]

Dr. Sanity has some thoughts on doctors as terrorists.

[Evening update]

More thoughts on Doctors Evil, from Michael Ledeen:

I think it has something to do with what Mel Brooks once referred to as "that total indifference to pain and suffering" that is necessary to be a good doctor. You have to be "clinical" about all that, because you can't afford to have your judgment swayed by real sympathy with the sufferer.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:04 AM

July 02, 2007
Couldn't Have Been Us

Remember after 911, when some of the apologists for the terrorists were saying that they couldn't have pulled it off, because Arabs are too incompetent and dumb to do anything like that?

Well, here's some evidence for that proposition:

The calls made on the phones allowed police to trace those behind the failed attacks last Friday, the London daily evening newspaper said, without giving sources.
The phones were meant to set off blasts when they were called, but the devices failed to detonate the mixture of gas canisters and nails in the two Mercedes cars parked in London's entertainment district.

In a very real sense, this is no doubt part of the reason that we haven't had more attacks, at least successful ones (remember moron Richard Reid?). The intersection of the sets between people who want to pull something like this off, and people who are capable of it, is fortunately not very large. Unfortunately, though, with advancing technology, it's going to get easier and easier to do more and more damage.

[Update in the late afternoon]

Were they amateurish by design?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:53 AM

July 01, 2007
"No Sign Of The Sacred"

Michael Yon has a gruesome report from Iraq, with graphic photos:

Soldiers from 5th IA said al Qaeda had cut the heads off the children. Had al Qaeda murdered the children in front of their parents? Maybe it had been the other way around: maybe they had murdered the parents in front of the children. Maybe they had forced the father to dig the graves of his children.

This isn't civil war. It's a war on the Iraqi people, and on decency itself, by a mindless, butchering hateful ideology. And in their savagery, they use our own decency against us, booby trapping bodies because they know that we, unlike they, honor the dead.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:01 AM

June 30, 2007
Counterfactual

What if we'd left Saddam in power?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:12 PM

June 28, 2007
Petraeus Explained

By Fred Kagan:

The U.S. has not undertaken a multi-phased operation on such a large scale since 2003, and it is not surprising therefore that many commentators have become confused about how to evaluate what is going on and how to report it. Sectarian deaths in Baghdad dropped significantly as soon as the new strategy was announced in January, and remain at less than half their former levels. Spectacular attacks rose as al Qaeda conducted a counter-surge of its own, but have recently begun falling again. Violence is down tremendously in Anbar province, where the Sunni tribes have turned against al Qaeda and are actively cooperating with U.S. forces for the first time. This process has spread from Anbar into Babil, Salah-ad-Din, and even Diyala provinces, and echoes of it have even spread into one of the worst neighborhoods in Baghdad--Ameriyah, formerly an al Qaeda stronghold. Violence has risen naturally in areas that the enemy had long controlled but in which U.S. forces are now actively fighting for the first time in many years, and the downward spiral in Diyala that began in mid-2006 continued (which is not surprising, since the Baghdad Security Plan does not aim to establish security in Diyala).
All of these trends are positive. The growing skill and determination of the Iraqi Army units fighting alongside Americans is also positive. Some Iraqi Police units have also fought well. Others have displayed sectarian tendencies and participated in sectarian actions. Political progress has been very slow--something that has clearly disappointed many who hoped for an immediate turnaround, but that is not surprising for those who always believed that it would follow, not precede or accompany, the establishment of security at least in Baghdad. And negative sectarian actors within the Iraqi Government continue to resist making necessary compromises with former foes. Overall, the basic trends are rather better than could have been expected of the operation so far, primarily because of the unanticipated stunning success in Anbar and its spread. But it remains far too early to offer any meaningful evaluation of the progress of an operation whose decisive phases are only just beginning.

To say that the current plan has failed is simply incorrect. It might fail, of course, as any military/political plan might fail. Indications on the military side strongly suggest that success--in the form of dramatically reduced violence by the end of this year--is quite likely. Indications on the political side are more mixed, but are also less meaningful at this early stage before security has been established.

I wonder how many of the House members were listening, or care?

[Update mid morning]

J. D. Johannes, just back from Iraq, isn't very impressed with Richard Lugar:

The virtual extinction of the insurgency in the province — a victory that I was privileged to witness first-hand — represented not some momentary quirk of tribal alliances, but a diligent application of the revised tactics that coalition forces have implemented under skilled, battle-proven officers and Gen. Petraeus. These tactics include meticulous census-taking of persons and vehicles; skilled, persistent diplomacy with tribal leaders; incorporation of local intelligence; constant foot patrols in the residential areas from platoon and squad sized outposts; and persistent perimeter control of areas cleared and held.
Even Lugar acknowledges the effectiveness of these tactics. He stated, “I do not doubt the assessments of military commanders that there has been some progress in security…We should attempt to preserve initiatives that have shown promise, such as engaging Sunni groups that are disaffected with the extreme tactics and agenda of al Qaeda in Iraq.”

But it is hard to see how redeployment to Kuwait, or the Kurdish provinces, or hunkering down in large bases in the outlying desert will preserve this progress, let alone extend it...

...The Petraeus surge, authorized by the executive branch, was not “improvised.” Its fundamental planning dates from early in Donald Rumsfeld’s stint as secretary of Defense, where it was developed as a contingency plan should a “light footprint” approach fail. It deserves its day in the sun.

And its recent success should not be held against it.

Of course, I've always marveled that anyone was ever very impressed with Richard Lugar.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 AM

June 27, 2007
Take Heart

Things are not as bad as they seem in the Middle East.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:51 PM

June 26, 2007
Losing The War

That's what Newt Gingrich says that western leaders are doing.

I also notice that he's now calling it by its proper name--World War IV, rather than World War III, which was the Cold War.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 PM

June 25, 2007
"Rage Boy"

...and the cowed. Christopher Hitchens writes about the supine west:

This mental and moral capitulation has a bearing on the argument about Iraq, as well. We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam Hussein despotism has inflamed the world's Muslims against us and made Iraq hospitable to terrorism, for all the world as if Baathism had not been pumping out jihadist rhetoric for the past decade (as it still does from Damascus, allied to Tehran). But how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?

How was the Nazi mentality to be placated?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 PM

False Narrative

John Wixted is tired of listening to misleading and false statements from Dems about the "civil war" in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:36 AM

June 24, 2007
Supine

Mark Steyn writes that we've replaced Salman Rushdie in hiding:

I told my London friends that I had to hand it to Tony Blair's advisers: What easier way for the toothless old British lion, after the humiliations inflicted upon the Royal Navy sailors by their Iranian kidnappers, to show you're still a player than by knighting Salman Rushdie for his "services to literature"? Given that his principal service to literature has been to introduce the word "fatwa" to the English language, one assumed that some characteristically cynical British civil servant had waved the knighthood through as a relatively cheap way of flipping the finger to the mullahs.
But no. It seems Her Majesty's Government was taken entirely by surprise by the scenes of burning Union Jacks on the evening news.

Can that really be true? In a typically incompetent response, Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, issued one of those "obviously we're sorry if there's been a misunderstanding" statements in which she managed to imply that Rushdie had been honored as a representative of the Muslim community. He's not. He's an ex-Muslim. He's a representative of the Muslim community's willingness to kill you for trying to leave the Muslim community. But, locked into obsolescent multicultural identity-groupthink, Mrs. Beckett instinctively saw Rushdie as a member of a quaintly exotic minority rather than as a free-born individual.

This is where we came in two decades ago. We should have learned something by now. In the Muslim world, artistic criticism can be fatal. In 1992, the poet Sadiq Abd al-Karim Milalla also found that his work was "not particularly well-received": he was beheaded by the Saudis for suggesting Muhammad cooked up the Quran by himself. In 1998, the Algerian singer Lounès Matoub described himself as "ni Arabe ni musulman" (neither Arab nor Muslim) and shortly thereafter found himself neither alive nor well. These are not famous men. They don't stand around on Oscar night, congratulating themselves on their "courage" for speaking out against Bush-Rove fascism. But, if we can't do much about freedom of expression in Iran and Saudi Arabia, we could at least do our bit to stop Saudi-Iranian standards embedding themselves in the West.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:26 PM

June 23, 2007
What's Really Going On In Diyala Province

Strategy Page:

Both the terrorists and U.S. troops know that victory has been defined as several weeks with no bombs going off in Baghdad. The media is keeping score, and they use their ears and video cameras. No loud bangs and no bodies equals no news. That's victory.
Not really. The real war is within the Iraqi government. The terrorists lost two years ago, when the relentless slaughter of Moslem civilians turned the Arab world against al Qaeda. Journalists missed that one, but not the historians. The war in Iraq has always been about Arabs demonstrating that they can run a clean government, for the benefit of all the people, not just the tyrants on top. So far, there have lots of victories and defeats in this, and no clear decision overall. Elections have been held several times, but the people elected have proved to be as corrupt and venal as their tyrannical predecessors. Everyone admits that this bad behavior is not a good thing, but attempts to stop it have been only partially successful. Changing thousands of years of custom and tradition is not easy. The clay tablets dug up in the vicinity of Baghdad, reveal similar scandal and despair over four thousand years ago. Most Iraqis realize, however, that if the chain of corruption is not broken, the dreary past will again become a painful present.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:56 PM

June 21, 2007
More From Baqubah

The first day of fighting, from Michael Yon:

...our guys have been systematically trapping them, and have foiled some big traps set for our guys. I don’t want to say much more about that, but our guys are seriously outsmarting them. Big fights are ahead and we will take serious losses probably, but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered. Nobody is dropping leaflets asking them to surrender. Our guys want to kill them, and that’s the plan.
A positive indicator on the 19th and the 20th is that most local people apparently are happy that al Qaeda is being trapped and killed. Civilians are pointing out IEDs and enemy fighters, so that’s not working so well for al Qaeda. Clearly, I cannot do a census, but that says something about the locals.

I guess they don't think so much of Michael Moore's "Minute Men."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PM

June 19, 2007
The Battle Of Baquba

It has begun, and Michael Yon writes about it, and the general state of the war, and the abysmal state of reporting about it:

Northeast of Baghdad, innocent civilians are being asked to leave Baquba. More than 1,000 AQI fighters are there, with perhaps another thousand adjuncts. Baquba alone might be as intense as Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah in late 2004. They are ready for us. Giant bombs are buried in the roads. Snipers—real snipers—have chiseled holes in walls so that they can shoot not from roofs or windows, but from deep inside buildings, where we cannot see the flash or hear the shots. They will shoot for our faces and necks. Car bombs are already assembled. Suicide vests are prepared.
The enemy will try to herd us into their traps, and likely many of us will be killed before it ends. Already, they have been blowing up bridges, apparently to restrict our movements. Entire buildings are rigged with explosives. They have rockets, mortars, and bombs hidden in places they know we are likely to cross, or places we might seek cover. They will use human shields and force people to drive bombs at us. They will use cameras and make it look like we are ravaging the city and that they are defeating us. By the time you read this, we will be inside Baquba, and we will be killing them. No secrets are spilling here.

Our jets will drop bombs and we will use rockets. Helicopters will cover us, and medevac our wounded and killed. By the time you read this, our artillery will be firing, and our tanks moving in. And Humvees. And Strykers. And other vehicles. Our people will capture key terrain and cutoff escape routes. The idea this time is not to chase al Qaeda out, but to trap and kill them head-on, or in ambushes, or while they sleep. When they are wounded, they will be unable to go to hospitals without being captured, and so their wounds will fester and they will die painfully sometimes. It will be horrible for al Qaeda. Horror and terrorism is what they sow, and tonight they will reap their harvest. They will get no rest. They can only fight and die, or run and try to get away. Nobody is asking for surrender, but if they surrender, they will be taken.

It's long, but if you want to understand what is really going on in Iraq, read the whole thing.

[Update late morning]

Bill Roggio has more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:34 AM

June 17, 2007
A Religious War?

Sounds like the Iranian regime is spoiling for one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:49 PM

Is The War Starting?

Probably not, despite the fact that two Katyushas launched from Lebanon fell near Kiryat Shmona. So far, the Israeli government is downplaying it as not being the work of Hezbollah. I think that Hezbollah and Iran are preparing for war, but they're not ready yet. They probably want to consolidate things in Gaza and arm Hamas first, so they can attack on two simultaneous fronts.

[Update after noon]

This report from the Jerusalem Post says that there were four rockets.a

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:06 AM

June 15, 2007
A Tale Of Two Senators

Senator Lieberman just came back from Iraq. He's more encouraged than Harry Reid. He's also more informed (both on the war, and probably on energy, and almost anything else). Not to mention logical:

The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda--and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.
Some of my colleagues in Washington claim we can fight al Qaeda in Iraq while disengaging from the sectarian violence there. Not so, say our commanders in Baghdad, who point out that the crux of al Qaeda's strategy is to spark Iraqi civil war.

Al Qaeda is launching spectacular terrorist bombings in Iraq, such as the despicable attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra this week, to try to provoke sectarian violence. Its obvious aim is to use Sunni-Shia bloodshed to collapse the Iraqi government and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, radicalizing the region and providing a base from which to launch terrorist attacks against the West.

I guess that explains why he was drummed out of the Democrat Party. No moral or intellectual clarity allowed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:59 PM

The Sopranos

...in Gaza? As Glenn notes, the comparison is an insult to mafiosi, but the parallels exist.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 AM

June 14, 2007
Let's Give Them A Country!

Mark Steyn, on the mythical "Palestinians":

Seasoned observers have been making droll cracks about a "two-state solution" - Hamas gets Gaza, Fatah gets the West Bank. But even that cynical jest is wishful thinking. The better bet is that the West Bank will eventually fall Hamas' way, too.
This is the logical consequence of the fraudulence of "Palestinian nationalism". There has never been any such thing. There is no evidence anywhere in the "Palestinian Authority" that anyone there is interested in building a state and running it. In conventional post-colonial scenarios of the Sixties and Seventies, liberation movements used terrorism as a means to advance nationalism. By contrast, Arafat's gang used nationalism as a means to advance terrorism. With him out of the way, it was deluded to assume that the "Palestinian people" would stick with a bunch of corrupt secular socialists with little appeal to anyone other than French intellectuals and Swiss bankers.

Want to see what Iraq will look like if we abandon it to the Islamists? Just look at Gaza.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:53 AM

June 13, 2007
You Want A Rant About Islam In The UK?

Here's a rant about Islam in the UK. He'll no doubt be arrested for "hate speech" (in this case, otherwise known as speaking Truth to Insanity).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:40 AM

June 10, 2007
Only Nixon Could Go To China

...and only Joe Lieberman can talk about bombing Iran:

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman told Bob Schieffer. "And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
The Indepedent former Democrat from Connecticut said that he was not calling for an invasion of Iran, but he did say the U.S. should target specific training camps.

The biggest risk, at least in the short term, is the extortion of the Iranian government against the region

Shamkhani told the US journal Defense News that missiles would be launched not only at US military bases but also at strategic targets such as oil refineries and power stations.
Qatar, Bahrain and Oman all host important US bases and British forces are based in all three countries. Any Iranian attack would be bound to draw in the other Gulf Cooperation Council states: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

The attacks on Arab states would be in addition to airstrikes on Israel, which have been threatened repeatedly. An Iranian foreign ministry official said: “The objective would be to overwhelm US missile defence systems with dozens and maybe hundreds of missiles fired simultaneously at specific targets.”

"Nice little oil refinery you got there, Saudi Arabia. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."

We really need to get, or beef up, medium-range missile defenses as quickly as possible in Iraq, which is in a good location to preempt Iranian strikes against Israel, Jordan, the Iraqi facilities themselves, and the Arabian peninsula. It's strategic location was (or at least should have been) one of the many reasons that it made sense to establish a military presence there. As long as we're paying the price in blood and treasure (and political opposition) to be there, we should be taking advantage of it. That we don't seem to be is one of the reasons that I (and I suspect many others, including the troops who are doing the bleeding and dying) are so frustrated with the administration.

[Update a few minutes later]

Michael Ledeen has related thoughts:

Ambassador Crocker tries to cover up our nakedness, saying we'd only consider another round of talks when the Iraqi Government issues a formal invitation. But they will. How could they not? They watch our tv, they know about the September deadline, they've seen this administration has no stomach for fighting, above all against journalists and Democrats. They expect us to leave. They expect the Iranians to stay. And who can say they are wrong?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:43 PM

June 08, 2007
Iranian Terrorist Cells

...in Iraq. Well, at least we're going after them there.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:30 AM

June 07, 2007
Creating New Killing Fields

An interesting op-ed in the New York Times today:

...despite the defeat in 1975, America’s 10 years in Indochina had positive effects. Lee Kuan Yew, then prime minister of Singapore, has well articulated how the consequences would have been worse if the United States had not made the effort in Indochina. “Had there been no U.S. intervention,” he argues, the will of non-communist countries to resist communist revolution in the 1960s “would have melted and Southeast Asia would most likely have gone communist.” The domino theory would have proved correct.
Today, in Iraq, there should be no illusion that defeat would come at an acceptable price. George Orwell wrote that the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. But anyone who thinks an American defeat in Iraq will bring a merciful end to this conflict is deluded. Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences.

What's particularly interesting about it is that one of the authors is William Shawcross, who in decades past has been one of the great critics of US foreign policy, blaming us for the catastrophe in Cambodia. He has come around, finally, and recognizes the reality--that the US is one of the few forces for good in a very hostile world.

As they note, the opponents of the war live in a dreamland, in which US defeat in Iraq won't lead to a slaughter, and a great resurgence in the appeal of Jihad and a moral victory for the hirabis.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:35 PM

Living In A Fantasy World

We continue to pretend that Iran is not waging war against us, in Iraq, Afghanistan (and against Israel in Syria and Lebanon). How much more of this should we take before punishing the regime?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:32 AM

June 06, 2007
If We Lose The War, Whose Fault Will It Be?

OK, well, the press should take some responsibility, but it will also be the bureaucracy:

Iraq has shown that the DoD bureaucracy is too big, too slow and out of touch with the realities of the modern battlefield.
Up until just recently the military was built for a set-piece battle against like forces. But our enemy does not want to cooperate with the geniuses in the Pentagon who came up with the plans and procured the equipment to execute those plans and developed training platforms to prepare soldiers for those plans.

The bureaucracy--even in combat--is staggering. To get some things done the request has to go through 15! steps of approval.

One Company Commander summed it up like this:

"They trust me with the lives of 100 men, humvees, weapons, ammo, civil affairs negotiations, classified intelligence, radios, everything. But I cannot be trusted with $20k worth of Dinar to hire a crew to build up an IP station?"

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:48 PM

Sauce For The Goose

So, if Turkey is doing hot pursuit into Iraq, why is it we're not going after the safe houses in Syria?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:45 AM

June 03, 2007
A Victory

Michael Yon has a first-hand account of a quick-thinking American officer, and a blow against corruption in Iraq. It's hard to imagine a story like this coming from CNN. Hit his tip jar.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 AM

June 02, 2007
More On Torture (And Geneva)

The comments in the other post were getting out of hand, particularly after it was Instalinked. But there was an earlier comment there that I really shouldn't let stand unchallenged, now that I have a break for the weekend.

The other point, separate from the moral issue raised by Bill, is that torture does not provide useful information. That according to experts.
So when you torture you are doing it not for the information content you wish to derive, but rather the sheer pleasure it gives the torturer. We don't need that pleasure given that we claim we are better than Al-Qaeda.

I don't accept the conclusion, because I don't accept the premise.

First, "the experts" disagree on the value of information gained by torture. Certainly, it's obvious that there is no guarantee that information gained under duress is valid. On the other hand, that doesn't imply that no information gained under duress is valid. And we aren't talking about inquisition, or confessions, here. We are talking about actionable (and often verifiable) information. For instance, if someone in custody knows the location of a kidnap victim, or a planted nuclear weapon, and they are unwilling to reveal it, what are we to do? If we get the information by duress, and we go to the location and find the victim or bomb, then apparently the information was both valid, and useful. Is the commenter really attempting to argue that because it was obtained by unsavory means that it is not?

Now whether or not it's immoral to attain such information by such means is a separate and debatable issue (unfortunately, we live in a complex world in which "it depends"). But to say that one cannot obtain "useful information" by such means is nuts. Even if "the experts" say it (and I don't think they all do, with due respect to Senator McCain, who is admittedly made of tough stuff). As commenter Cecil Trotter points out, George Tenet (is he an "expert"?) claims that Khalid Sheik Mohammed revealed a great deal of useful information under duress.

The notion that, even if we concede that we torture captured illegal combatants (I don't, at least not as a matter of policy), it is only because we are sadists, and that Dick Cheney enjoys a good cigar, and quaffs an infant smoothie, while watching people being tortured, is nuts. We are in a war. If we attempt to get information out of people using duress, it is because we seek the information, not because we like people to suffer. This is Bush (and Cheney) derangement, pure and simple.

However, human nature is human nature. And in recognition of the latter we have the Third Geneva Convention.

There seems to be a single-minded focus on the Geneva Conventions as protectors of prisoners' rights, even for prisoners who behave in utter violation of those Conventions. To do so is to display a profound ignorance of the primary intent of the Conventions, which were an attempt to reduce the impact of war on innocent civilians, a concept that our enemy holds in utter contempt.

This subject has been discussed multiple times in the blogosphere over the last few years, but apparently many of the commenters either haven't read, or have read and forgotten, or lacked the reading comprehension to understand it.

The Conventions require that combatants fight in recognizable uniforms. Why? So that it makes it easier to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, and to reduce the incidents of collateral casualties.

The Conventions require that combatants not wage war from designated sanctuaries such as churches, mosques, hospitals, or ambulances. Why? I'd like to think that the answer is obvious.

The Conventions require that those waging war accept the Conventions. Why? Because if not, then there is no point in having them, since people who violate them would still be granted the benefit of them.

Since 911, in the face of the most ruthless enemy imaginable, who would wipe us off the face of the earth with the flick of a finger had they our power, we have fought the most humane war in the history of humankind. We have spent untold billions of dollars to develop precision weaponry that can destroy a building while leaving another one right next to it intact, that can destroy a tank while leaving a car sitting next to it unscratched. We (and the Israelis) will send in troops and risk their lives to take out specific terrorists, when we could instead simply wipe out a neighborhood, safely from the air. Why? Simply to avoid civilian casualties. We have rules of engagement that put our troops at further risk, so that we don't accidentally hit a civilian.

But we have an enemy that not only hides in mosques and ambulances, and behind women's skirts, but one that rejoices in deliberately murdering civilians, even of their own religion.

When people unthinkingly demand that we grant the rights of standard POWs stipulated by the Conventions to illegal combatants, they are in effect demanding that we violate the Conventions, and they are in fact undermining the purpose of the Conventions. This isn't about having "moral authority" in the eyes of the world (a dubious premise, anyway, given how little moral authority most of the world has). That's like worrying about what gangsters think about our occasional speeding tickets. No, it's about trying to enforce the rules of war that were an (admittedly paradoxical) attempt to civilize it.

But when the focus in the news is on how awful we are, and how it's all our fault that Muslims murder Muslims in Iraq, and the more they murder each other, the more news it makes in the western press, and the more we are blamed for it, it is giving the enemy exactly the kind of propaganda they want, and feed on. Only when the news media start to tell the whole story of what's going on over there will we start to win the real war that we're losing in the media, even as we win it on the ground.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:42 AM

May 29, 2007
Evolving Peace

J. D Johannes says that the pacification is spreading from Anbar. If so, it would confirm my theory about the evolution of cooperation.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:40 AM

May 24, 2007
Yearning For A Tet?

Hey, it worked for them the first time:

Despite their utter, unconditional capitulation, the Democrats insist this fight is not over. They live to surrender another day.
...Tet, the all-out communist offensive of February 1968, is remembered as a military failure for the North Vietnamese that was ironically their greatest political victory. An Iranian-backed campaign this summer could be the same for both Iran and America’s surrender camp. A bloody excuse to pack it in and abandon Iraq to its fate.

Look for Tet’s bloody reprise this summer. American and Iraqi soldiers, as well as the Iraqi people, could pay a terrible price as it plays out. The American people and their leaders will be, indirectly, from the safety of home, tested in their resolve.

You know, if I were in charge of communications at the White House, I'd be planning some speeches this summer (and even sooner, to show prescience) to give the American people a little history lesson about the last time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:22 PM

A Civil War?

Yes, a civil war in the Arab world:

Seventy percent of insurgents fighting in Iraq come from Gulf countries via Syria where they are provided with forged passports, an Iraqi intelligence officer alleged in a published report Wednesday.

I don't understand why we aren't doing anything about this.

I should also repeat, as has been noted before, that 911 and the "War on Terror" is indeed an Arab/Muslim civil war that they've been exporting along with their oil.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:56 PM

Iow Jima On The Euphrates

Except with a lot lower casualty rate. Strategy Page says that the Iraqis are finally getting fed up with the violence:

American military commanders and diplomats continue to remind Iraqi politicians that the biggest problem in the country is corruption. That's hard for many Iraqis to accept, since stealing whatever-you-can-get-your-hands-on has been a tradition for so long. Many Iraqis assume it's the natural order of things, and consider the Americans insane, or disrespectful, with all their talk of honest government. The message, however, is getting through, as it becomes obvious that Iraqs new democracy won't work with the traditional Iraqi attitudes towards dishonesty in politics. This new attitude is being reflected in many ways. There are more corruption investigations, arrests and prosecutions. The corruption is still there, but it's becoming politically incorrect. Meanwhile, everyone is getting more patriotic. It's no longer cool to take orders from Iran. So Muqtada Al Sadr, and his Mahdi army, are becoming less a tool of Iran, and more a mainstream Iraqi political movement. Sadr is even sitting down and cutting deals with Sunni Arab politicians. At the same time, the Mahdi Army is being purged of factions that don't go along with the new peace and reconciliation approach. Those radical factions are still killing Sunni Arabs, while Sunni Arabs and al Qaeda continue to slaughter Shia Arabs. This is not popular with Iraqis in general, and the terrorists are increasingly seen as a public menace that all Iraqis must unite to destroy.

We won Iwo Jima. Some will argue, of course, that the analogy is more apt than it seems, because it was an unnecessary battle. But that was only clear (to the degree that it is true) in retrospect, and there's little point in carrying the analogy too far.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:00 AM

May 23, 2007
Wrong Target

Melanie Phillips writes about liberalism versus Islamism. Sadly though, many who (mistakenly) call themselves liberals seem to think that George Bush is the enemy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AM

May 22, 2007
The Evolution Of Cooperation

Bill Whittle's latest essay reminds me of this post that I wrote a couple years ago on the pacification of Iraq:

One of the interesting things about [Tit for Tat] is that the more similar algorithms it has to deal with, the better it does. Put in an environment of non-cooperators, it has a much harder time, but it can still be more successful than them, and if it has a few others to cooperate with, it can survive even in a sea of non-cooperators.
Non-cooperators, on the other hand, don't do well in a cooperative society. A non-nice strategy (one that always, or occasionally, or randomly defects unprovoked) won't do well in a world of TFTs, because after the first time they get screwed by it, they will not cooperate with it again, at least until it changes its ways. So while it gets a big payoff the first time, it gets a much smaller one in subsequent exchanges, whereas the TFTs interacting with each other always get the medium benefit.

Thus, it's possible for a small group of cooperators to "colonize" a larger group of non-cooperators, and eventually take it over, whereas a group of non-cooperators invading a larger group of cooperators will not thrive, and will eventually die out. This is the basis for Axelrod's (and others') claim that there is evolutionary pressure for cooperation to evolve.

This may hold the key to fixing Iraq, and ultimately the Middle East. While there's a lot of bad news coming from that country right now, the fact remains that much of it is calm and at peace--that part doesn't make the news. It may be that nationwide elections won't be possible in January, but certainly it should be for some regions (particularly the Kurdish region).

In fact, there were national elections in January. But this provides a possible key to a metric of success. Instead of counting suicide bombings and violence levels (which the terrorists can maintain at an almost arbitrary level as long as there are a few of them around, due to entropy), as the media does (because if it bleeds it leads), it would be more useful to measure how small an area they appear in, and how large a one is relatively peaceful, as Anbar now seems to be, based on Michael Yon's reports of boredom there.

[Update a few minutes later]

Hmmmm...just one more thought. Is the Anglosphere a "tit for tat" culture and legal system? I wonder if it's ever been discussed over here?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AM

A Sensible Democrat

It's not just Joe Lieberman any more. Bob Kerrey:

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.
With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

My only dispute with that it that I remain unconvinced that bin Laden is still alive. But his movement certainly lives on, and it would remain a victory for it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 AM

May 21, 2007
Can't Anyone Here Play This Game?

A depressing story about the fecklessness of the State Department and North Korea's (shocking!) perfidy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:05 AM

May 18, 2007
A Photoessay

...from Baghdad:

Still living in Baghdad, this family has not fled the community it lives in. Shia and Sunni live on both sides of the home.
Some people forget that the sectarian violence kicked off in 2005 as part a deliberate strategy by AQIZ. Too many people assume that Sunni and Shia in Iraq have been killing each other for centuries.

The war in Iraq is plagued by a Congress who lacks the information to cast a vote and a public who lacks the basic knowledge to take part in an opinion poll.

...Is there hope for Baghdad? Yes. The additional U.S. forces from the surge are already showing limited signs of success. They are not the signs quantified by London or D.C. think tanks.

Every Battalion Commander I talked with gave me the same metrics to measure success--Commerce, people returning to their homes, essential services, kids playing soccer in fields they haven't played on in 2 years, professionalization of the police and security services.

Those are things that do not fit well in an index and things a person can only see on the ground by going back to the same areas of operation every few months.

Which is why I will be back in Dora and West Rasheed in a few months.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:17 PM

Winning On The Battlefield

...but losing the war in Information Space. And the media is, wittingly or otherwise, not on our side.

As long as al-Qaeda detonated IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, they could increase the perception of a quagmire. By getting the media to focus on the IEDs-of-the-day, al Qaeda was able to bury the good news (like the training of the Iraqi Army and reconstruction efforts), and was able to weather the loss of senior leaders like Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
In the case of keeping Cornet Wales from deploying with his unit, it did not take any IEDs. He was kept home via the use of threats by a terrorist whose claims were repeated by the media. Eventually, senior British Army officers flinched. This is a major victory for the terrorists in Iraq – one that did not require a single IED or even a shot.

And here's some perspective.

[Update a few minutes later]

All is quiet on the Anbar front:

I cannot believe my eyes and ears in Anbar. Very quiet where I am. Did a foot patrol today with Iraqi Army and a couple of Marines. Local population was friendly. Have not heard a shot fired in anger in days. (Whereas before the sounds of war were nearly always in the air.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:59 AM

May 16, 2007
The Case For Bombing Iran

Norman Podhoretz makes it.

And no, before you ask, I don't know whether he does it well or not. I haven't had time to read it yet. I link as a favor to my readers who may wish to. But it's generally worth reading Podhoretz, one of the original and self-admitted "neocons," if just to provoke thought and discussion. And I will say that I agree at least with the first two paragraphs.

[Update in the late afternoon]

Bernard Lewis, who is cited by Podhoretz in his piece, has further thoughts in the WSJ today (Ron Paul should read it):

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"
...From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that...dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.

Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 AM

May 15, 2007
Different Timetables

A comment from Instapundit, with regard to Max Boot's WSJ column (following up on his previous article):

The commanders' timetables are driven by a desire to win. The Washington politicians' timetables are driven by a cowardly desire to have the war off the table before the 2008 elections.

Yes.

The key message from the Boot column:

It's still possible to stave off catastrophic defeat in Iraq. But the only way to do it is to give Gen. Petraeus and his troops more time--at least another year--to try to change the dynamics on the ground. The surge strategy may be a long shot but every alternative is even worse.

Kind of like democracy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PM

A To-Do List For Iraq

Max Boot has one (while also cautioning patience). One of the things that I don't understand why the administration isn't doing:

Another necessity is to go more aggressively after foreign fighters. They comprise a relatively small percentage of the overall insurgency, but they account for a very high percentage of the most grotesque attacks--80 to 90 percent of all suicide bombings, according to General Petraeus's briefing with Pentagon reporters on April 26. These jihadists are of many nationalities, but most infiltrate from Syria. The Bush administration has repeatedly vowed that Syria would suffer unspecified consequences if it did not cut off this terrorist pipeline, but so far this has been an empty threat. The administration has refused to authorize Special Operations forces to hit terrorist safe houses and "rat lines" on the Syrian side of the border, even though international law recognizes the right of "hot pursuit" and holds states liable for letting their territory be used to stage attacks on neighbors. It's high time to unleash our covert operators--Delta Force, the SEALs, and other units in the Joint Special Operations Command--to take the fight to the enemy. They can stage low-profile raids with great precision, and Syrian president Bashar Assad would have scant ability to retaliate. We also need to apply greater pressure to Iran, which continues to support both Shiite and Sunni terrorist groups in Iraq, but that will be harder to do because Tehran is a more formidable adversary than Damascus.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jeff Goldstein is less than impressed with John Edwards' notion of "supporting the troops":

What kind of cynical political beast would profess to all that—noting a direct threat, recognizing a Security Council that was acting out of its own financial interests, claiming that his own reading of the intelligence led him to believe Iraq that was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, and saying categorically that no, he wasn’t misled in his vote to go to war—and then call for us to pull out, leaving the Iraqi people hanging out to dry, and virtually insuring that the middle east becomes further destabilized?
Or, to put it more bluntly, how craven and ego-driven does one have to be to sell out two entire countries for the remote opportunity he might pick off a few primary victories by pandering to the anti-war base and maybe secure himself a vice presidential nod?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 AM

May 14, 2007
A Race With Time

Victor Davis Hanson has a provocative post at The Corner, on the patience of a government in a democracy at war:

...as is true in most long wars (cf. 1864 or 1918), armies seem not to be fully effective until they digest and learn from their horrific mistakes, and so enter a race to apply their wisdom before an exasperated public gives up.
In late summer 1864 the work of Sheridan and Sherman and the 1918 summer offensive uplifted public opinion enough to stick it out; in 1970-3 post-Tet, radical improvement in American tactics, weaponry, and know-how came too little too late to deflate the public sense of defeatism and doom.

And Michael Yon has thoughts on General Petraeus, and a letter from him to the troops, which may be viewed as crucial by historians.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:24 AM

Stuck In The Past

Tarek Heggy bemoans the lack of scholarship among Islamic scholars:

I have been engaged in meetings with a number of scholars from the Vatican. I always bemoan and wonder why the Vatican abounds with men of religion with such splendid educational, intellectual and encyclopedic cognitive backgrounds in their various areas of knowledge, while our scholars know nothing about the great fruits of human creativity in many of the different branches of social and human sciences.
At a conference held seven years ago, I saw a scholar who is considered by some as the greatest Muslim jurist and preacher of his time. He was an Egyptian with Qatari nationality who fled from Egypt during the clashes between the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamāl Abd al-Nāsir in 1954. At the conference, he used more than one interpreter, and never got involved in discussions about modern streams of thought. On the other hand, the Vatican scholars were using four or five languages in their discussions that covered vast fields of knowledge. I will not hide the fact that I felt ashamed of him that day. He seemed so primitive in his thoughts and approaches. It appeared as if he was a primeval human from the forests of ' Borneo Island.'

We need a generation of Muslim religious scholars who have studied other religions, human history, world literature, philosophy, sociology and psychology and can speak a number of languages; the languages of civilization. Until this happens, our Muslim scholars will remain primitive and stay at their level of naivety, shallowness and isolation from the path of civilization and humanity.

But I guess that I shouldn't point out things like this. It makes me (like Tarek) an Islamaphobe (see comments).

[Update at 9:30 AM EDT]

Christina Hoff Sommers has some thoughts on Muslim women, and the failure of western feminism to take up their cause. Makes perfect sense to me, though. They can't blame the treatment of Muslim women on dead white European males. Or at least they haven't come up with a way yet.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:28 AM

May 11, 2007
Dismantle It

I've long been a critic of the Department of Homeland Security as in, I don't believe that it should exist, or should ever have been formed. Well, it seems that Senator Schumer agrees with me. And he's even honest enough to take some of the blame.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:32 AM

A Depressing Report From Londonistan

...from Christopher Hitchens:

Returning to the old place after a long absence, I found that it was the scent of Algeria that now predominated along the main thoroughfare of Blackstock Road. This had had a good effect on the quality of the coffee and the spiciness of the grocery stores. But it felt odd, under the gray skies of London, to see women wearing the veil, and even swathed in the chador or the all-enveloping burka. Many of these Algerians, Bangladeshis, and others are also refugees from conflict in their own country. Indeed, they have often been the losers in battles against Middle Eastern and Asian regimes which they regard as insufficiently Islamic. Quite unlike the Irish and the Cypriots, they bring these far-off quarrels along with them. And they also bring a religion which is not ashamed to speak of conquest and violence.
Until he was jailed last year on charges of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, a man known to the police of several countries as Abu Hamza al-Masri was the imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque. He was a conspicuous figure because, having lost the use of an eye and both hands in an exchange of views in Afghanistan, he sported an opaque eye plus a hook to theatrical effect. Not as nice as he looked, Abu Hamza was nonetheless unfailingly generous with his hospitality. Overnight guests at his mosque's sleeping quarters have included Richard Reid, the man in whose honor we now all have to take off our shoes at the airport, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the missing team member of September 11, 2001. Other visitors included Ahmed Ressam, arrested for trying to blow up LAX for the millennium, and Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian who planned to don an explosive vest and penetrate the American Embassy in Paris. On July 7, 2005 ("7/7," as the British call it), a clutch of bombs exploded in London's transport system. It emerged that one of the suicide murderers had been influenced by the preachings of Abu Hamza, as had two of those attempting to replicate the mission two weeks later.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AM

May 10, 2007
Cognitive Dissonance

Jonah Goldberg, on the insanity of people who think that Bush knew about 911 ahead of time (depressingly, about a third of Democrats):

Ah yes, because Bush's post-9/11 plan has worked out so perfectly on so many levels. All along he'd hoped that by 2007 he'd be a political eunuch on the Hill and below-freezing approval levels. And the mad genius's plan to seize Iraqi oil and topple regimes across the Middle East has gone off without a hitch. Meanwhile, Karl Rove's Mark Hanna-like scheme to permanently lock in a Republican majority couldn't be going smoother.

Don't any of these morons consider why, if he's so evil and conniving, and willing to destroy buildings and murder thousands, he didn't plant WMDs in Iraq?

And disgustingly, rather than using the opportunity as a "Sister Souljah moment," a major Democrat candidate panders to them, instead of properly denouncing them as loons. He can't, though, because they're his base.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:45 AM

It's Not An Organization, It's An Ideology

The people who whine that we haven't caught bin Laden (I'm still not convinced that he didn't die years ago), or that "Al Qaeda in Iraq is not Al Qaeda," don't understand what we're at war with, or who the enemy is. Andrew McCarthy explains.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:30 AM

The Infection Is Spreading

Anbar isn't the only place where Al Qaeda will be on the run.

In fact, what's finally happening reminds me of a post I wrote a couple years ago on how one establishes a beachhead of cooperation, and then expands it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AM

May 09, 2007
The Situation In Baghdad

A very long, but interesting (and encouraging) video interview by Bob Wright with Eli Lake, embedded reporter for the New York Sun, and a major in Iraq.

"The people who think that the insurgents are fighting for a nationalist cause should go to Haifa Street right now."

"In terms of the Vietnam analogy, these are people trying to seek My Lais every day, and our guys are trying to prevent it."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:28 AM

May 08, 2007
The Enemy Who Cannot Be Named

We are at war with Iran (and really, have been for almost thirty years now), but we apparently have to continue to pretend otherwise.

Twice before the military has tried to present to the press overwhelming evidence of Iran’s involvement in the Iraq war, only to be met by hostile skepticism. The skepticism basically takes the form of three questions:

Couldn’t these weapons have been made anywhere?
Isn’t it fishy that these weapons were marked in English with American-style dates?
Isn’t all of this a ploy to justify a neocon war with Iraq [sic]?

As you will see from the video, Maj. Weber can definitively answer the first two questions. As for the Daily Kos-inspired third question, well, who can address questions from planet Paranoid? And who should bother?

As noted in comments, point (3) is almost certainly meant to be "...war with Iran."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:44 PM

May 07, 2007
A Story I Haven't Covered Enough

The military's attempt to clamp down on milbloggers.

This is dumb, not just because of the free speech implications, but because they are shutting down the voices that could be the most important ones in support of the war. But even if not, it's a violation of the values for which these soldiers (and other military personnel) are fighting. Of course no operational information should be blogged, but there's no evidence that this has occurred. It sounds more like stupid bureaucracy to me (which is the story of the Bush administration, and of every administration). Of course, that's the story of big government itself. Unfortunately, it's not something that we can get around when it comes to making war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:40 PM

He Was A Great Guy

...for a terrorist with a totalitarian ideology. Why looks can be deceiving:

One clue to this phenomenon may come from jazz musician Tarek Shah, who recently pled guilty to providing martial arts and hand-to-hand combat with weapons training to Al-Qaeda operatives. In 2004 Shah told a man he thought was a fellow jihadist but who turned out to be an undercover agent, “I could be joking and smiling and then cutting their throats in the next second.”
Or they may be genuinely decent fellows. It was the Nazi genocide mastermind Heinrich Himmler who told a group of SS leaders: “Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred, or a thousand. To have gone through this and yet -- apart from a few exceptions, examples of human weakness -- to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written…”

Were these SS mass murderers really decent fellows? To their friends and family, they probably were. After all, they weren’t interested in undifferentiated mayhem. They were adherents of a totalitarian, genocidal ideology that convinced them that the murders they were committing were for a good purpose. As far as they were concerned, their goals were rational and good, and the murders were a means to that goal. It was not just a noteworthy achievement, but a necessity, for them to remain “decent fellows,” for they were busy trying to build what they saw as a decent society. That their vision of a decent society included genocide and torture did not trouble them, for it was all for – in their view – a goal that remained good.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AM

May 05, 2007
Britain's Coming Terrorist War

The manager of Al Arabiya: "...Pursuing extremist Muslims today is better than pursuing all Muslims tomorrow."

Indeed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:48 PM

May 04, 2007
More Good News From Anbar

And bad news for the Democrats who want to surrender. The Sunnis are finally figuring out which side they should want to be on. I guess they're realizing that Al Qaeda is not, in the words of bin Laden, the "strong horse."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:57 AM

May 03, 2007
End It, Don't Win It

Donald Sensing, on the absurd mental gymnastics that Democrats must perform to want to end a war that doesn't exist. As he says, one side can start a war, but it takes both to end it. And Al Qaeda, either in Afghanistan or Iraq, isn't ready to quit. Particularly when, based on the actions of the Dems, they think they're winning.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 AM

May 02, 2007
The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend

Lee Smith says that the Democrats are waging a proxie war against the Bush administration--in the Middle East, many of whom refuse to believe that we're at war (simultaneously while thinking that we should end the war that we're not in--talk about cognitive dissonance). I think that's exactly what's happening, even if they don't realize it themselves.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:04 PM

It Worked For Reagan

I wrote earlier this morning that whatever I (and a lot of other people) voted for last fall, it wasn't surrender. Here's an interesting approach to the war, that seems beyond the Democrats. We win, they lose. Go sign the petition.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:42 PM

Don't Give Up Too Soon

Why Congress should support the "surge":

It’s hard for a soldier like me to reconcile a political jab like Senator Harry Reid’s “this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything” when it’s made in front of a banner that reads “Support Our Troops.” But the politician’s job is different from the soldier’s. Mr. Reid’s belief — that the best way to support the troops is by acknowledging defeat and pulling them out of Iraq — is likely shared by a large slice of the population, which gives it legitimacy.
It seems oddly detached, however, from what’s happening on the battlefield. The Iraqi battalion I lived with is stationed outside of Habbaniya, a small city in violent Anbar Province. Together with a fledgling police force and a Marine battalion, these Iraqi troops made Habbaniya a relatively secure place: it has a souk where Iraqi soldiers can shop outside their armored Humvees, public generators that don’t mysteriously explode, children who walk to school on their own. The area became so stable, in fact, that it attracted the attention of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. In late February, the Sunni insurgents blew up the mosque, killing 36.

If American politicians pull the marines out of Anbar, the Iraqi soldiers told me, they too will have to pull back, ceding some zones to protect others. The same is true in the Baghdad neighborhoods where the early stages of the surge have made life livable again.

And here's another soldier who is justifiably angry:

What the Democrats are doing is akin to what we did in Vietnam by signing a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese, tantamount to bailing out on our allies’ without their concurrence, then departing with absolutely no intention of ever coming back, no matter what the North Vietnamese did. Congress also cut off financial support for South Vietnam after our departure. And sure as hell, as soon as we left, the North Vietnamese attacked south in full force, and for two more years, the two sides pounded each other until the more determined North, supported by Russia and China, won the war. And we veterans here at home who had fought and seen so many of our buddies die over there, had to keep our mouths shut and just take it.
And we felt the shame of defeat. Not a defeat we’d suffered, but a defeat of our national will. And that enraged me and made me feel ashamed. It took me more than forty years to get over it, and I still simmer when I think about it.

And we’re going to do it again, thanks to the Democrats in Congress.

On the other hand – and I have to say this to keep my sanity — in a democracy, the will of the people must prevail, and if the majority of our population really want us to leave Iraq, then we should. But has there been a national debate about staying or leaving, fighting or folding, winning or losing? No. Has there been a definitive referendum on the war? No. And have the American people been given a chance, other than anecdotally, to make a statement on whether we want to withdraw from Iraq and face the consequences, or whether we want to tough it out, and win the bloody thing? No.

So I ask you, where do the Democrats come up with this national mandate bullshit?

Whole cloth, baby. Whole cloth.

[Update at 9:30 AM EDT]

In response to the first comment, last fall's vote was not a referendum on the war at all, let alone a "definitive" one. There were many issues that weren't the war, and many Democrats ran on them. I was pissed off at the Republicans, and happy to see them lose (but sadder to see the Dems win, because they didn't deserve to). But it wasn't (just) over the war, and to the limited degree that it was about the war, it sure as hell wasn't because I wanted us to surrender.

Have you ever heard of a "controlled experiment" (hint: that wasn't one)?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:22 AM

May 01, 2007
Bad News For The Democrats

Which is to say, good news from Iraq.

In addition to showing real progress (Sunnis killing Al Qaeda), it also undermines the mantra that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, since he had been there pre-removal of Saddam.

[Update a few minutes later]

K-Lo questions the timing:

...how long can it take for Rove-planned-it for a veto-backdrop story theories?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AM

April 30, 2007
George Tenet (Part Deux)

Rich Lowry has read his book. So, with an even more devastating review, has Christopher Hitchens. In a rational and well-read world, he wouldn't be being lionized by the media. But in the real, Bush-deranged world, he probably will continue to be.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:19 PM

April 29, 2007
A Depressing Assessment

...of Israel's war last summer against Hezbollah:

When war erupted in summer 2006, Israel enjoyed overwhelming military superiority and favorable political conditions. However, its strategic follies and operational deficiencies resulted in a faltering, indecisive war. The Israeli military could have administered a serious blow to Hezbollah from the air during the first few days of the war or, alternatively, destroyed most of Hezbollah's military presence in southern Lebanon with a large land invasion. Unfortunately, Israel's political and military leadership had no clear concept of what victory over Hezbollah entailed.
Israel squandered an important opportunity to settle regional scores. It left unchecked Iran's apparent efforts to expand Shi‘i influence in Lebanon and left untouched Syria's potential for mischief in Lebanon. Hezbollah's resilience against the Israeli bombardment emboldened it to withstand future Israeli assaults, and Israel's failure to succeed emboldened regional radicals.

Israel is a strong state, but it can ill-afford such failure. It lives in a dangerous neighborhood in which military might is the guarantee for survival. Halutz has initiated an intensive and comprehensive inquiry process and resigned. In the past, the IDF has proved its capacity to learn from its mistakes and improve. Some deficiencies can be easily corrected. Increases in the defense budget could provide the means to implement some lessons learned, for example, longer training for reserve units and procurement of better weapon systems. Less easy to correct are deficiencies in strategic thinking.

Post-modern notions have blurred the strategic clarity of Israel's political leadership and its defense and foreign affairs establishment. The economic cost of building a strong military force may be high, but it is not an optional expense. Too often, wishful thinking supplants reality.

Let's hope they've taken some lessons, because with the connivance of Syria and Iran (as last time) a repeat performance is unfortunately not far off.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:15 PM

April 28, 2007
If The Democrats Get Their Way

A view of Iraq's future. From Basra:

It seems that ever since Britain and Denmark announced their intention to withdraw, the security situation has deteriorated. Troops from both countries now come under fire from the Shi'ite militias vying for power.
This is what happens when abandoning an area with a weak security apparatus in place. Now that the Brits and Danes have given the people of Basra a drop-dead date for their withdrawal, they have set in motion a fight for power that will only amplify as the withdrawal date approaches. Instead of throwing in with the central government, the flight of the Coalition has convinced Iraqis in that area that they have to find the strongest warlord for protection.

We can expect this across the country if the US withdraws precipitately from Iraq. A pullout will embolden the violent and frighten the law-abiding, and the end result will be a completely failed state.

[Late afternoon update]

A plea from Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:35 AM

April 26, 2007
So Who Won, Harry?

Amir Tehari asks the obvious question of Harry Reid--if we've lost the war, who won?

Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner. This Reid cannot do.
The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, America and its Iraqi allies remain the only objective victors in this war...

...Reid may believe that Iran, either alone or with its Syrian Sancho Panza, is the victor. If that's the case, Reid shares the illusion peddled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Convinced that the Americans will run away, mostly thanks to political maneuvers by Reid and his friends, Ahmadinejad has gone on the offensive in Iraq and throughout the region. By heightening his profile, he wants to make sure that Iran reaps the fruits of what Reid is sowing in Washington.

But even then, it's unlikely that most Iraqis would acknowledge Ahmadinejad as winner and bow to his diktat. The Islamic Republic cannot act as victor solely because Reid says so.

It's possible that Reid imagined that his analytical problems are over simply because he has identified the war's loser. The truth is that his troubles are only beginning. He must tell Americans to whom they wish their army to surrender in Iraq.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:34 PM

"The War Isn't Lost"

Fred Kagan is back from Iraq. He's not very impressed with Harry Reid.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AM

April 25, 2007
"Strategy Of Defeat"

That's how the WSJ accurately characterizes Senator Reid's (and his party's) position.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:03 PM

"If America Pulls Out Of Iraq..."

“...they will fail in Afghanistan,” Mam Rostam said.

“And they will fail with Iran,” he continued. “They will fail everywhere with all Eastern countries. The war between America and the terrorists will move from Iraq and Afghanistan to America itself. Do you think America will do that? The terrorists gather their agents in Afghanistan and Iraq and fight the Americans here. If you pull back, the terrorists will follow you there. They will try, at least. Then Iran will be the power in the Middle East. Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism. They support Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Ansar Al Islam. You know what Iran will do with those elements if America goes away.”

The second installment of Michael Totten's trip to Kirkuk.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:52 AM

Incompatible Viewpoints

Tony Blankley writes about the two radically different points of view on the war:

For those of us who support the great struggle against radical Islam, the world reality could not be plainer. The threat of radical Islam is not merely a few thousand terrorists using small explosives to kill a few dozen people at a time -- usually in the faraway Middle East. Rather, it is an historic recrudescence of a violent, conquering old tradition of Islam that almost overwhelmed the world from the Seventh Century until as recently as the 17th century. It is radicalizing the minds of increasing numbers of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims to be very aggressive culturally, as well as violent -- from Africa to Indonesia, to Cairo to Ankara, to Paris, to Rotterdam to London to Falls Church, Va.

Unfortunately, in addition, the debate is poisoned, almost rendered futile, by the irrational blind hatred that so many harbor for George Bush.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AM

Running Out Of Time

As noted in comments here, T. M. Lutas says that the Democrats' bet is looking pretty shaky:

I expect at least 3 more provinces to get handed over between now and the height of campaign season 2008. I'd like to think that at least 6 more would make the transition by then (obviating the need to explain Kurdistan's special situation in the stats). The defeatists have to change the natural progression of Iraqi government and security institution building and do it soon or they're going to be in deep trouble in 2008.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AM

Reducing The Pull Of The Gravity Well

An interesting essay on insurgency, and counterinsurgency.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:22 AM

April 24, 2007
More Inconvenient Truth

For Harry Reid. From Iraq:

We are winning over here in Al Anbar province. I don't know about Baghdad, but Ramadi was considered THE hotspot in Al Anbar, the worse province, and it has been very quiet. The city is calm, the kids are playing in the streets, the local shops are open, the power is on at night, and daily commerce is the norm rather than the exception. There have been no complex attacks since March. That is HUGE progress. This quiet time is allowing the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish themselves in the eyes of the people. The Iraqi people also want IA's and IP's in their areas. The Sunni Sheiks are behind us and giving us full support. This means that almost all Sunnis in Al Anbar are now committed to supporting the US and Iraqi forces. It also means that almost all insurgents left out here are AQ. FYI, the surge is just beginning. Gen Petraeus' strategy is just getting started and we're seeing huge gains here.
However, you don't see Harry Reid talking about this. When I saw what he said, it really pissed me off. That guy does not know what is going on over here because he hasn't bothered to come and find out. The truth on the ground in Al Anbar is not politically convenient for him, so he completely ignored it.

Yes, that's the same reason that he doesn't want to hear from Petraeus, or have open testimony in front of the cameras.

The truth? Harry Reid can't handle the truth.

[Update a couple minutes later]

That noted neocon reporter from the NYT, John Burns, says that the Democrats are executing Al Qaeda's strategy perfectly:

Well, the number of troops, that's finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that's probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That's to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.

Look, I don't think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi objectively want Al Qaeda to win. I'm sure that they have succeeded in deluding themselves that we are the problem in Iraq. I'm also sure that they believe that this is in the near term a political winner for them, and sadly, they may be right. But they're playing a dangerous game. What if they're wrong, and the people actually reporting success in Iraq are right? They're so heavily invested in defeat now that it could actually be an electoral disaster for them next year. I certainly hope that will be the case. For me, it would be win-win--we'd have won in Iraq, and the Dems would have lost precisely because they did everything they could to prevent it from happening.

Anyway politics aside, like it or not, and deny it or not, they are objectively providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem is that they won't start acting in the national interest until, to paraphrase Golda Meir, they start loving their country more than they hunger for power and hate George Bush.

[Update a few minutes later]

More contempt for Harry Reid from the troops.

[Afternoon update]

OK, that's progress. I guess.

Now Harry will listen to Petraeus. He just won't believe anything he says. Unless, of course, it fits with the leftist narrative.

Well, hey, we already know that the truth is inconvenient.

[Late afternoon update]

OK, one more, since it's still near the top. Dick Cheney is too kind to Harry Reid:

...only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, then full funding but with conditions, and then a cutoff of funding — three positions in five months on the most important foreign policy question facing the nation and our troops.
Yesterday, Senator Reid said the troop surge was against the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. That is plainly false. The Iraq Study Group report was explicitly favorable toward a troop surge to secure Baghdad. Senator Reid said there should be a regional conference on Iraq. Apparently, he doesn't know that there is going to be one next week. Senator Reid said he doesn't have real substantive meetings with the President. Yet immediately following last week's meeting at the White House, he said, "It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq."

What's most troubling about Senator Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism. Indeed, last week, he said the war is already lost. And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat.

Well, if that's what's necessary to elect Democrats, "bring it on."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AM

April 23, 2007
More Progress In Anbar

A long but informative report, from Max Boot.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:41 PM

Who Cares What's Actually Happening?

The Dems have a problem--how to lose a war without being blamed for it. They pulled it off in Vietnam, but I hope that they can't do it again.

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus March 8.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:54 AM

Are We Winning The War?

And not realizing it? An interesting dispatch from Anbar province.

No one tell Harry Reid. Given his heavy investment in defeat, his disappointment would be palpable.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:28 AM

April 21, 2007
Where The WMD Went?

This is pretty dismaying, if true:

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

It also would mean that Madame Speaker's cosying up with Assad was an even bigger disaster than it seemed at the time.

Unfortunately, it seems entirely plausible. I wish we had someone else to vote for.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:01 PM

April 20, 2007
"There Is No Military Solution Here"

I'm getting very tired of hearing this trite phrase, as though it's obvious, or indisputable, or useful. Or even true. Of course there is a military solution, or at least, the military is a key component of whatever solution we come up with. There's certainly no non-military solution to nihilistic madmen bent on murder and mayhem. It's not policy analysis--it's simply a mindless mantra.

[Update a few minutes later]

Some letters to Harry Reid, from the people who "don't have a solution."

And some thoughts on defeatism from Victor Davis Hanson.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 AM

Dispatch From Kirkuk

Michael Totten has a long photoessay. Remember to support him with the tip jar.

Iraq is a big place. It is more or less the size of California. If a car bomb were to go off in San Diego, it wouldn’t disturb people who live in San Francisco. They would watch the aftermath from safety on TV just as I watched scenes of carnage from safety at Mam Rostam’s in Kirkuk. The war was far away…or at least around a couple of corners. Iraq looks scarier from far away than it does up close and in person…even when you’re in the Red Zone. How much danger you’re in depends on where you are in Iraq. The Red Zone is not one shade of crimson. The war, for the most part, is concentrated mostly in very specific areas. On any given day you might see something violent, but you probably won’t. This fact is completely lost in the breathless media coverage of the carnage, the mayhem, and the bang-bang.
But I was lounging around with the chief of police. Any illusion that Kirkuk might have been safe couldn’t last long with him in the room. My feelings of detached security were but a passing moment. The chief’s walkie-talkie urgently squawked and he had to answer. The room was silent as he listened grimly.

“There has been a shooting,” he said. “Two men on a motorcycle rode down the street and fired a gun at people walking on the sidewalk. One of the men was apprehended. They are bringing him here.”

For some reason I assumed when the chief said “here” he meant the police station. He did not. He meant Mam Rostam’s.

“They will be here in two minutes,” he said.

“Here?” I said. “They’re bringing him here? To the house?”

“They will bring him here before taking him down to the station,” the chief said. “I’ll interrogate him here. I’m not going to feel good until I slap him.”

There's a lot more, including the extreme racism of the Arabs, which goes too little commented upon in places like Turtle Bay, and complications from the Turks.

[Update a few minutes later]

Patrick Lasswell, Michael's partner-in-danger, has more of the story, with some background.

It's very easy to forget (since the subject rarely comes up in political discussion) that if we abandon Iraq, we essentially abandon the Kurds as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:25 AM

April 19, 2007
No Danegeld

Christopher Hitchens has a long but fascinating history of the beginning of the war of the US versus Islam. I've always thought that this would make a great movie, particularly since September 11th.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:38 PM

April 15, 2007
Straw Men In Baghdad

In the context of the almost-unheard-of declaration of the Duke lacrosse players' innocence by the state attorney general, I would note that (former federal prosecutor) Andrew McCarthy has some thoughts on the distinctions between "not (yet) guilty" and "innocent," and between 911 and Al Qaeda:

To be clear, I don't understand Jonah to be saying anything other than that no connection has been proved, and assuming that's what he's saying, I agree. But there is a big difference between saying no connection has been proved and saying no connection is likely, or at least conceivable. The debate on this has become so perverted by those hell-bent on discrediting the American invasion of Iraq (aided and abetted by the administration's infuriating failure to defend itself), that it seems people feel compelled to make an opening concession that there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11 in order to be taken seriously in arguing that there is a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. But it would be more accurate to say that the evidence of connection between Iraq and al Qaeda is extensive, and there is enough troubling circumstantial evidence of Iraqi ties to central 9/11 players that Iraq's participation in 9/11 cannot be discounted.

The left and their enablers in the media are now fully invested in the notion that Saddam provided no support for Al Qaeda, and doubling down. As always (the Duke case being a prime example) the appropriate narrative continues trump reality. It is two different things to say that Saddam coordinated with bin Laden, and that Saddam was involved with 911, and they continue to muddy the waters by conflating the two.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:13 AM

What A Surprise

It seems that all members of the Iraqi Parliament, regardless of political party, are opposed to being blown up. Who knew?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:49 AM

April 12, 2007
With The British Squaddies

Michael Yon has a graphic report from Iraq, embedded with the British troops:

As we rumbled through the dry, desert heat, the smells of Iraq—nearly all of them bad—wafted down from the top hatch. Suddenly, the Bulldog was filled with a stench so awful that soldiers nearly gagged, as if everything that could rot in Iraq had gone rotten all at once. Where just moments before there was only dusty air in the compartment, in a flash it was filled with that horrendous, fetid stench and a swarm of flies. When, a few minutes later, the stench was suddenly replaced by smoke from outside, dozens of flies remained in the compartment.
...In an operation that lasted over four hours, British forces killed 26-27 enemy and sustained no casualties. 5 Platoon fired more than 4,000 bullets before their guns began to cool, and about 15 of the enemy kills were accredited to 5 Platoon. Another platoon captured two enemy fighters, including one Iraqi policeman who might have been heeding al Sadr’s call for Iraqi Police and Army forces to turn on their Coalition partners.

Shorter Michael Yon--he's impressed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:13 PM

Detente?

Mark Danzigerisn't very impressed with "foreign policy experts."

I think that we should take the same attitude toward the current regime in Iran that Reagan did to the Soviet Union--"They lose, we win."

[Update a couple minutes later]

Oh, and here's the latest insanity from the UN--Iran and Syria are leading the disarmament commission. And we're supposed to take this institution seriously?

And here's an interesting (albeit glum) report on what Iran is up to in Iraq:

it's not just the Sunni Arab neighborhoods that need attention. Radical Shia outfits, like the Iran backed Mahdi Army, have also become more aggressive. The pro-Iranian groups have been losing strength, mainly because Arabs don't trust the Iranians. Despite sharing religious beliefs (most Iranians, like most Iraqi Arabs, are Shia), Iraqi Arabs know that the Iranians despise them, and are still unhappy with the results of the 1980s war. In that conflict, Iraqi Shia Arabs fought for Saddam against Iranians, and fought the Iranians to a standstill, and a ceasefire. This was a humiliation for the Iranians, who had walked over the local opposition for thousands of years. But the Iranians have money, weapons and technical assistance for Iraqi Shia Arabs willing to cooperate. All the Iranians want is more chaos inside Iraq. This makes Iraq weak, and less of a threat to Iranian ambitions in the region. While some of the pro-Iranian Iraqi Arabs believe they have a chance of turning Iraq into a religious dictatorship (like Iran is), most know they are being played, and paid. You take the money. Jobs are scarce. But Iran is still the enemy. Always has been, always will be.
More evidence is piling up that Iran has, as many intel specialists have long suspected, been supporting some Sunni Arab terrorist groups, as well as Shia Arab ones. There are dozens of Sunni Arab terrorist groups, scattered all over the physical and political map. Apparently Iran helps out Sunni Arab terrorists who are less likely to slaughter Shia. There are parts of the country where the only targets are Kurds and Turkomen (both Sunni) or Christians (a rapidly disappearing, via migration minority). Iran has long had problems with Kurds, Turks and Christians, and does not mind killing them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:51 AM

April 11, 2007
Let's Hope

In the wake of the hangover over their latest national embarrassment on the world stage, John O'Sullivan asks if Britain is finally becoming un-Dianified.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 AM

At WOC Today

An interesting discussion on women in combat, and a discourse on the last microcosm of the Cold War, on the Korean peninsula.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:55 AM

April 06, 2007
Illegal Negotiations

Robert Turner says that Nancy Pelosi could be prosecuted under the Logan Act (subscription required). It seems like an open-shut case to me, but this Justice Department would never do it, of course.

It's an ongoing mystery to me, actually, why the Bush Justice department treats Democrats with kid gloves. Berger gets a slap on the wrist, Jefferson still hasn't even been indicted. Doesn't exactly sound to me like the legal arm of a fascist regime.

[Update]

It seems to me that if the Bush administration was clever, the president would magnanimously issue a preemptive pardon to Madam Speaker (for this one incident, not blanket), but not to any of the Republicans who went. It would make the point without the Justice Department having to do anything at all, and it would be hilarious to watch the donkeys scream about it.

But, of course, the Bush administration isn't noted for cleverness.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:01 AM

Get Them The Memo

Maybe the Democrats believe that Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda (they do, after all, believe lots of nutty things), but they don't seem to have persuaded Al Qaeda.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:41 AM

April 05, 2007
"Chumps On Pilgrimage"

Claudia Rossett isn't very impressed with Nancy's Excellent Adventure, either.

[Update at 4:30 PM EDT]

Austin Bay says that this isn't "shuttle diplomacy"--it's muddle diplomacy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:18 PM

Clueless In Damascus

Regardless of her headgear during her excellent adventure to Syria, the Washington Post agrees with me that Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. The kind that Uncle Joe Stalin used to call a useful one, for the Assad regime.

"What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

As Glenn writes:

If Bush and Cheney were really evil, they'd both resign and stick the Democrats with a Pelosi Presidency for the next two years. The Democratic Party would never recover. Alas, neither would the country.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:55 AM

April 04, 2007
What Would A Martian Think?

Krauthammer, on the nutty notion that the "real" war is in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq:

Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands.
Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:34 PM

April 03, 2007
A Feminist Of Convenience

Nancy seems to have no problem with misogynists, as long as they're not western misogynists.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:18 PM

Wimps?

Ralph Peters (and John Derbyshire) wonders what has happened to the Royal Marines.

[Update in the evening]

Mark Steyn has further thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:52 AM

Optimism

Michael Yon sees hope in Iraq:

One key aspect of General Petraeus’ new operations in Iraq is to put out a large number of “Combat Outposts,” or COPs. The idea of the COPs is not new, but it is proven, and is similar to local law enforcement in the United States opening precinct stations in high crime districts. Though the idea of precinct stations is steady-state (the cops plan to keep precincts open), here in Iraq, part of the idea is to first bring stability – by dampening the vibrant civil war for instance – but ultimately turning Iraq back over to the Iraqis.
If I might insert a personal opinion, I think Petraeus’ plan has a serious chance of working despite heavy odds. In fact, within my first three days with 1-4, talking with Iraqi families and police, there were strong indicators that for this little neighborhood, local people and Iraqi police are definitely encouraged. This doesn’t extend to the terrorists, however, and 1-4 Cav has been under fire. Our soldiers showed amazing fire discipline, not even knowing I was just feet behind them with a video camera. (I’ve seen it many times, but finally have got video proof that our guys will go far not to shoot the wrong people.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AM

April 01, 2007
Soi-Disant Reactionaries

On the left.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AM

March 31, 2007
Where The Rubber Hits The Road

Even if the left in the West remains clueless, letting deranged Bush hatred substitute for thought, the left in the Middle East can't afford that luxury:

“We looked to the left in the West and imitated it,” says Awad Nasir, one of Iraq’s best-known poets and a lifelong Communist. “We heard from the US and Western Europe that being left meant being anti-American. So we were anti-American. And then we saw Americans coming from the other side of the world to save us from Saddam Hussein, something that our leftist friends and the Soviet Union would never contemplate.”
Mustafa Kazemi, spokesman for the new Afghan front expresses similar sentiments. “Our nation is still facing the menace of obscurantism and terror from Taleban and Al-Qaeda,” he says. “Thus, we are surprised when elements of the left in the US and Europe campaign for withdrawal so that our new democracy is left defenseless against its enemies.”

For his part, Jumblatt, the Lebanese leader, says he realized that his lifelong anti-Americanism had been misplaced when he saw “long lines of people, waiting to vote in Iraq, in the first free election in an Arab country.”

...“Anti-Americanism is a luxury we cannot afford in the Middle East,” says Adnan Hussein, a leftist Iraq writer recently picked by the Financial Times as one of the 50 most influential columnists in the world. “Blinded by anti-Americanism, the left in the West ends up on the same side as religious fascists and despots.”

Yeah, but at least they're not George Bush.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:04 AM

March 30, 2007
Islam Means Submission

An Iranian blogger, on why it's a mistake to attempt to appease the mullahs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:51 PM

Dog Bites Man

The Berlin bureau Chief of Der Spiegel, on the ability of Germans to hold all sorts of strange beliefs, including anti-Americanism:

For us Germans, the Americans are either too fat or too obsessed with exercise, too prudish or too pornographic, too religious or too nihilistic. In terms of history and foreign policy, the Americans have either been too isolationist or too imperialistic. They simply go ahead and invade foreign countries (something we Germans, of course, would never do) and then abandon them, the way they did in Vietnam and will soon do in Iraq.
Worst of all, the Americans won the war in 1945. (Well, with German help, of course -- from Einstein and his ilk.) There are some Germans who will never forgive the Americans for VE Day, when they defeated Hitler. After all, Nazism was just an accident, whereas Americans are inherently evil. Just look at President Bush, the man who, as some of SPIEGEL ONLINE's readers steadfastly believe, "is worse than Hitler." Now that gives us a chance to kill two birds with one stone. If Bush is the new Hitler, then we Germans have finally unloaded the Führer on to someone else. In fact, we won't even have to posthumously revoke his German citizenship, as politicians in Lower Saxony recently proposed. No one can hold a candle to our talent for symbolism!

Unfortunately, Germany is not unique in that regard. It's a seemingly (but only seemingly) harmless game that a citizen of any country can (and often does) play. When Europe either is living under Sharia law, or (reverting to form) has deported and/or killed many of its recent immigrants and their offspring, I'm fully confident that they'll blame America. And generations into the future, George W. Bush.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:25 PM

March 29, 2007
Americaphobes

Dean Esmay has some thoughts:

Time after time the naysayers have proven themselves both morally and intellectually incoherent, and yet they never have the introspection to acknowledge this.
Furthermore, anyone calling himself a "liberal" or a "humanist"--Muslim or not--is in my view faced with a stark choice:

You either sit around pretending that a vicious, murderous, fascist "insurgency" that routinely cuts people's heads off and shoots children in the face is the "legitimate voice of the Iraqi people," or you recognize that there is in Iraq a government elected by the Iraqi people working under a Constitution written entirely by Iraqis that recognizes human rights better than any in the Arab world.

No matter how many reservations you have about how it was done or how imperfectly that elected government implements the ideals expressed in that ratified Constitution.

If you take the former position you have no business calling yourself a liberal or a progressive or a humanist. If you take the latter position, then maybe you have to swallow the bitter pill that someone named George Bush, whom you don't like and maybe think is incompetent, was the instigator of something that damn well needs to be supported.

But you can't have it both ways. Indeed, by declaring the whole thing illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage, backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding with the Jihadwatch crowd.

They're not anti-war. They're just on the other side.

Oh, and I'm sure that the usual suspects in the "human rights community" will be speaking up about this violation of the Geneva Conventions any minute now.

Any minute now.

<sound="chirping crickets">

</sound>

Any minute.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:49 AM

March 28, 2007
Iran Is Not A Legitimate State

So argues Mark Steyn:

How many times does the Islamic Republic have to (a) seize sovereign territory (the US embassy in Teheran); (b) order mob hits on foreign nationals (Salman Rushdie and his publishers); (c) perpetrate acts of state terrorism against citizens of countries with which it has no grievance whatsoever (the Buenos Aires community center bombing)? Its behavior has been consistent for three decades, yet, this time round as last time round, the British government calls in the Iranian ambassador and gives him a stern talking to, as if he were the emissary of Poland or India or any other civilized state.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:56 AM

March 25, 2007
Fight Back

That the people who may be sued by CAIR for sincerely attempting to protect their airplane and their lives should be provided with legal defense goes without saying. But I think it should go further.

We need to start a legal fund to have a class-action countersuit against the "flying Imams," for maliciously terrorizing the passengers and delaying the flight. And for this clear attempt to intimidate us all into remaining passive in the face of equally clear threats. We should make this as painful for CAIR as possible, to discourage both such future behavior on what appear to be their operatives, and from filing frivolous lawsuits.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AM

March 23, 2007
Tit For Tat?

This is interesting. I wonder if, as the headline asks, it was just a local decision, or if Ahmadinejad knows something about it. Maybe, while he's in New York, he should be detained for questioning.

Not for long, of course. Just until the British sailors are released unharmed.

[Evening update]

Maybe Ahmadinehad had a similar thought. As noted in comments, he's decided to postpone his trip to the Big Apple. Which perhaps makes one think that he got caught by surprise himself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:29 PM

March 21, 2007
Red On Red

This seems like good news. The "foreign guests" seem to have worn out their welcome among the Taliban in Waziristan. Here's hoping that they kill each other in copious quantities, since the prospect of them becoming peaceful democrats seems dim.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 PM

March 20, 2007
The Continuing Insanity Of The War

The War on (some) Drugs, that is. In the real war. In Afghanistan:

We are winning in Afghanistan - that is the clear view on the ground. In contrast to Iraq, the Taliban are heavily on the back foot. Continued success, however, will be hampered by attempts to eradicate opium poppies...We are winning precisely because we are fighting the Taliban with "hearts and minds", not just militarily might. Success hinges on not driving the locals into supporting the enemy. Yet this is precisely what poppy eradication is starting to do. Farmers grow poppies in Helmand for the same reason farmers decide what to grow the world over - because it is the rational thing to do. It is not part of a cunning scheme to flood the infidel West with cheap heroin. To a Pashtun farmer, poppies mean an instant cash-crop. Advocates of poppy eradication like to argue that narcotics fuel the insurgency. The truth is the precise opposite. Farmers carry a financial risk when they grow poppies having already been paid for their unharvested crop. Destroying their crop will make it impossible to pay their debts. As a direct consequence, they then become much more likely to accept work as hired-guns for the Taliban. Fear of poppy eradication is mobilising local farmers to side with the Taliban. In the poppy growing Sanjin valley, the locals have teamed up with the Taliban and so that is now where our troops face the fiercest fighting. As Americans say, "Go figure".

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:48 PM

Ending The Cycle Of Excuses

Mario Loyola writes about the infantilization and dehumanization of the "Palestinians"--by the left.

A few months ago, I was reading Rashid Khalidi's latest book (The Iron Cage, on the struggle for Palestinian statehood) and I was struck by his evident mission, which was not to relate the history of what happened in Palestine, but rather to explain how everything that happened in Palestine was the fault of the Zionists and their allies. The major premise of this argument is really very odd: namely, that everyone in the story has moral agency except the Palestinians, who (by virtue of their status as victims) cannot commit any crimes for which the Zionists are not ultimately responsible. This struck me as a particularly dehumanizing way to defend the Palestinians.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AM

March 15, 2007
Another Defection In Iran?

Maybe.

The question is, if they're finally getting actionable intelligence, will there be any action?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:47 PM

A Quick Recap

Austin Bay says that we're winning in Iraq (and really have been all along, despite the media's body-count-driven narrative).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:02 AM

March 12, 2007
Mislearning Lessons From History

Jonathan Chait has some words of caution for his fellow Bush haters.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 PM

Is Global Jihad Falling Apart?

Let's hope so:

The end of Saddam was the end of a major financer of the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. His money no longer flows through Rahman into the madrassas and terror training camps. The stress of losing Saddam and his wealth, plus being soundly defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, has caused the terrorist leaders alliance to crack. Add to that the loss of support from the UAE and Libya, and the financial cost to al Qaeda has been enormous. Not only has al Qaeda been defeated on the battlefield, funding has become a challenge for the Global Islamic Jihad Movement.
But the separation of Hekmatyar from the Taliban is not the only indication that the movement has fractured. Asia Times reporter Syed Saleem Shahzad has written this week that the relationship between al Qaeda and the Taliban has faltered. If it is true (his reporting before has been insightful) this is one of the most significant developments in the war on terror. Divide and conquer still applies as a useful maxim.

I never fail to be amazed at people who seriously believe that it would have been a good idea to leave Saddam in power.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:28 AM

March 11, 2007
He Gets It

I've never been a big Ted Koppel or Nightline fan, but unlike many of his fellow Democrats (that's an assumption, but I think a reasonable one), he understands that we are at war (it may help that he's Jewish), and have been for a quarter century, even if many of us didn't figure it out until five years ago. Unfortunately, many remain in denial.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:22 PM

Learning From History

Looks like we're getting some new neighbors here in south Florida. From France:

There are no official U.S. government figures on the number of French Jews here, but officials in U.S. Jewish organizations said it could be anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 in South Florida -- mostly Miami-Dade.
''I would say they're in the thousands now,'' said Mendy Levy, a rabbi at The Shul synagogue in Surfside.

''There is no question of an increase in the number of French Jews in South Florida, and there's an expectation that that rate of increase will accelerate,'' said Jacob Solomon, executive vice president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation. 'French Jews see the handwriting on the wall and say, `We're not going to wait until it's too late.' ''

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:32 AM

Getting Serious About Taliban Hunting

They're sending in the Sioux. I wonder if they'll count coup? I assume that taking scalps is against the Geneva Convention, though.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:20 AM

Do The Dems and the MSM Have A Backup Plan?

In light of growing evidence that "the surge" is working, that even Brian Williams couldn't ignore, Robert Kagan asks an interesting question.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 AM

March 09, 2007
Who's Your Baghdadi Now?

Looks like a major capture in Iraq:

Al-Baghdadi, also known as Abu Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, has been identified in statements posted on Islamic extremist Web sites as the head of the Islamic State, which was proclaimed last year after the death of the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraqi, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Al-Baghdadi was said to have headed the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an alliance of Al Qaeda and other jihadist organizations, which was set up last year to downplay the role of foreigners in the Iraqi insurgency.

Hard to see how this is bad news. For either us or Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:11 PM

The New Euphemism

I see that this is the new Democrat mantra:

"bring our involvement in that civil war to a conclusion."

Is there a civil war in Iraq? Sure.

Is that all that is going on there? Really?

There will be no negative consequences to either the region, or our own security, to allow the "civil" war to get worse, or for the Sunni countries in the region (most of whom are at best indifferent to Al Qaeda and their goals, and often supportive) to continue to reinforce their agents of chaos there, and allow Anbar and other areas to become uninhibited breeding and training grounds for terrorism, as Afghanistan was under the Taliban?

It would be nice if we could have a real debate over this war, instead of disingenuousness from appeasers.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:18 PM

I Guess It Is Like Vietnam

The Navy is deploying Swift Boats to Iraq. They'd better stay out of Cambodia, though.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:51 AM

Then And Now

What Democrats were saying in Iraq before everything became George Bush's fault and he "lied us into war."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:39 AM

Are We Approaching A Tipping Point?

For the desktop OS?

"We are involved in a number of massive deals for Linux desktops, and those are the kinds of things that are indicators of critical mass. So we are really looking at it very hard," said Doug Small, worldwide director of open source and Linux marketing at HP. "We are in a massive deal right now for ... multi-thousands of units of a desktop opportunity for Linux. That's an indicator." He declined to give details about the Linux deals.

This, combined with the fact that Dell is now shipping Linux laptops, is an ominous omen for Redmond.

I think that Vista may have been a bridge too far for Microsoft. Windows has been an entrenched technology for well over a decade now (and MS operating systems in general for well over two). As long as the cost of switching over remains high in terms of user retraining, it's hard for a newcomer to make much headway. But if the cost of continued use grows as well, and the benefits of the new technology start to become overwhelming, even the most entrenched technology can still lose out, when the curves cross over.

I've been fortunate enough not to have had to try Vista yet, but here's an amusing parable.

Of course, it's still an uphill battle until a standard GUI can be established, but I think that the Gnome/KDE wars continue.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AM

The News Just Keeps Getting Better

...on that defecting Iranian general:

According to the report, the missing Iranian general was carrying documents and maps of Iran's military and intelligence infrastructure as well as information regarding the relations between the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hizbullah and the Islamic Jihad.
In addition, the general was reported to possess information regarding the Iranian nuclear program as well as information about Iran's strategic military plans.

Emphasis mine. If true, it will make it a lot easier to take out the key facilities at minimal cost and collateral damage.

This appears to be a major break in our struggle with Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. It would be nice if it also presaged a more general rebellion within the ranks, and the populace itself.

[Mid-morning update]

It's a quagmire! More insurgent attacks. In Iran.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AM

Food For Thought

From Lileks:

I drove home listening to Bob Davis on KSTP; he was revisiting one of his favorite topics, one that mirrors exactly something I’ve felt for some time: the lack of any prominent cultural direction, and the strange incoherent sense of anticipation that lack produces. It’s as if the culture is treading water, with nothing truly new to give it focus and purpose. That’s not exactly a good thing when you’re competing with cultures that have both, in large quantities, and a sense of historical momentum the West has lost. I grapple with this from time to time, usually in the morning; it’s the odd suspicion that the West is exhausted. Not done or over or dead or resigned, but simply exhausted. We live in the end stages of the application of the Enlightenment, at least as applied to our own culture; what now? If you’ve ended debate on the great issues, you’re left with smaller ones, like 720 vs. 1080i; you concern yourself with indistinct dreads and assign to them a moral component; you luxuriate in the hot springs of partisan politics and redefine the issues so the gap between left and right looks like Gog v. Magog territory.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:28 AM

March 08, 2007
"Like Living In A History Piece"

When you sit in front of monitors and maps showing countless trajectories from Lebanon into Israel -- into the very places your friends and family live -- it can be quite agitating. Some of us were becoming very impatient, and in the many dead moments there were debates whether our response should be harsher. Of course, none of us were in any position of real influence. It was somewhat of a relief when the ground offensive was escalated, even though virtually everyone had people who were very close to them in combat units. I had some very tense conversations with people who were about to enter Lebanon, trying to prepare them without letting out really sensitive information. Talking to friends and family back home sometimes proved difficult because they would ask questions I could not answer -- either because I did not know the answer or because it was sensitive. Even today there are some very basic facts about the conflict that I would like the entire world to know, but divulging them would mean that we'll have poorer intelligence in the next round.

An excerpt from a long but fascinating (at least to me) interview with an IDF officer, by Michael Totten.

[Update a few minutes later]

Meanwhile, Europe has a serious Israel problem. I think this is right:

Perhaps the best explanation, then, is one given by Stephan Vopel of the German Bertelsmann Foundation for why many more Americans and Israelis favor a military strike against Iran than Germans: "While Israelis subscribe to the maxim 'never again,' the German dictum is 'never again war.'" Pacifism, in other words, is the driving force behind European animus toward both the US and Israel.

Yes, it's easy to be a pacifist, when you've had someone else subsidizing your defense for decades.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:45 PM

March 07, 2007
Panic In Tehran?

This seems like good news, especially if it's a defection.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:21 AM

March 06, 2007
"A Few Signs Of Progress"

From Iraqpundit:

Are my aunt and her neighbors kidding themselves out of desperation? That's possible; it's hard to live without hope, and people can be creative at manufacturing reasons to be optimistic. (Though the truth is that Iraqis are not, as a rule, an optimistic group, and are inclined by cultural habit to see things darkly. But that's another story.) It's true that the murderers in Iraq are still at work. On the other hand, I'm far more inclined to take seriously a picture of Baghdad that comes from a life-long Baghdadi than one coming from a Westerner who has parachuted into town for a while, and who doesn't speak the language.
Yet Iraqis who desperately want to lead normal lives are not the only ones with an incentive to interpret events in their own interests. If one listens to the usual suspects among certain journalists, academics, and politicians, the ongoing crackdown is futile and doomed to fail. But that's a conclusion that many of these figures reached even before the security sweep began. In other words, some of the crackdown's critics have created incentives, professional and personal, to perceive Iraqi and American failure. People can be creative at manufacturing reasons to be pessimistic, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:09 AM

March 05, 2007
Another Greatest Generation

Jim Bennett has a review of John O'Sullivan's new book on Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope.

Looking at alternative outcomes of the Reagan-Thatcher-John Paul II world, it is hard to see how any other leaders in any of the three seats of power could have done better, and very easy to see how they could have done worse -- all the way to outbreak of nuclear war. Therefore, while leaving any actual theodicy to more venturesome commentators, it is easy to see why some considered the advent of these three leaders (and their not-statistically-likely serial survival of assassination attempts) to be providential. Since I find theodicy to be too problematic to consider (if God does move human events directly, there's far too much moral dark matter assumed in the problem for we poor three-dimensional observers to be able to draw any conclusions from it), I think O'Sullivan spent either too much time or too little discussing that possibility. If we assume we cannot intuit divine knowledge or intention in specific human events, then that is all one can really say about the matter; if we assume one can understand such things, then the events O'Sullivan discusses would be one of the principal theological events of our century, and could easily merit not just the bulk of O'Sullivan's book, but a library full of books.

We need to come up with more leaders like them. Sadly, I don't see any in office currently, or in the current race.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:19 PM

March 04, 2007
Some History

From Victor Davis Hanson:

How did a serious country, one that endured Antietam, sent a million doughboys to Europe in a mere year, survived Pearl Harbor, Monte Cassino, Anzio, the Bulge, Tarawa, Iwo and Okinawa, the Yalu, Choisun, Hue and Tet, come to the conclusion — between the news alerts about Britney Spears’ shaved head and fights over Anna Nicole Smith’s remains — that Iraq, in the words of historically minded Democratic senators, was the “worst” and the “greatest” “blunder,” “disaster,” and “catastrophe” in our “entire” history?
Even with all the tragic suffering, our losses, by the standard of past American wars, have not been unprecedented, especially given the magnitude of the undertaking — namely, traveling 7,000 miles to remove a dictator and foster democracy in the heart of the ancient caliphate. This was not a 1953 overthrow of an Iranian parliamentarian. Nor was it a calculated 1991 decision to let the Shiite and Kurdish revolts be crushed by Saddam. And it was most certainly not a cynical ploy to pit Baathist Iraq against theocratic Iran. Instead, it was an effort to allow an electorate to replace a madman.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 AM

March 02, 2007
What Went Wrong With Iraq?

Glenn Reynolds has some thoughts. There's nothing with which I'd disagree. I, too, thought that this was part of a larger strategy. Sadly, there's been little evidence of it on the ground.

Big government is incompetent. This seems to have played out in the war, as in all else.

If I believed in a god, I'd pray. All I can do, as it is, is hope for better leaders. And think about history, in which when all was darkest, they seemed to appear.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:41 PM

February 27, 2007
But Don't Call Them Unpatriotic

Jeff Goldstein has nine reasons that killing Cheney would be justified. (Hint for the clueless--it's satire).

Here's a point that I didn't make in my earlier post.

Just as Mookie agrees with many(/most?) Dems on "the surge," many of the denizens of Huffpo and Metafilter agree with the Taliban that Dick Cheney should die. Can someone remind me again, whose side they're on?

[Update on the evening of February 27th]

Apparently the powers that be decided to put all the anti-Cheney comments down the memory hole.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:27 PM

A Little Perspective

VDH offers some on the "revolt of the generals." And he didn't even mention MacArthur.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I was tempted to write a "Routers" piece about the Truman-MacArthur embroglio (I've never done one about Korea), but I was afraid that I'd just be actually channeling the media of the time. I don't have quick access to a library to see how it was reported.

Does anyone know how the media did handle it? Was it pro-MacArthur or pro-Truman? Or a healthy mix?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:51 PM

Always Looking Out For Our Security

What would we do without Democrats?

The bill would devote $1 billion to upgrade security along Amtrak and freight rail systems, require screening of all cargo carried aboard passenger airliners and allow airport screeners to form a union.

Because everyone knows that 911 never would have happened if screeners had been unionized. Whenever I think that the administration is incompetent, all I have to do is look at the new majority in Congress to realize that it could be much worse.

And of course, if Bush resists, and threatens a veto, the media will accuse him of being indifferent to security.

[Update at 6 PM Eastern]

A little good news. The administration is actually threatening a veto, and the Senate will sustain it. But I stand by my prediction of the media response.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:54 PM

Beyond Incompetence

You want to see some legitimate criticism of the administration over managing the war? Here it is:

...the decision by the Bush administration to prioritize the drug war ahead of the war against the Taliban is of course, madness. It's time for the Brits to take a stand, and announce that either Bush's drug warriors leave Afghanistan or Britain's troops do. Ninety days would seem to be adequate warning.

I wish they would.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:50 AM

Just Like Teenagers

Well, OK, psychopathic teenagers:

Washington and Brussels cut what is estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars in direct aid to the Palestinian government after Hamas' parliamentary victory.
Both have said they will not resume monetary support of the Palestinian government until Hamas recognizes Israel, renounces violence and fulfills past promises.

Mashaal demanded in tougher terms that Washington resume its aid funding: "The American administration's insistence on the continuation of the blockade will give birth to more hatred toward America not only ... on a Palestinian level but on an Arab, Islamic level."

Right. "Give us money, or we'll hate you."

I don't mind it so much that, in their permanent adolescent angst, they're suicidal. I just wish that they wouldn't take innocents with them when they do it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:03 AM

Misunderestimation

A sad, but probably true essay on the mistake that the enemy makes, and will probably continue to make:

The day the man with the wide-brimmed hat nods over one of our cities, the day our people start to die in numbers comparable to the flu of 1918, the day a dirty bomb goes off in downtown Manhattan, is the day the world gets reminded that this fat, happy country of ours, this cheerfully hedonistic civilization, is also the most terrible engine of slaughter the world has ever seen.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 AM

February 26, 2007
Mookie Agrees With The Democrats

And vice versa. He thinks that "the surge" is a bad idea:

Az-Zaman reports that Muqtada al-Sadr made a statement from “an unknown location,” his first since speculations started regarding his whereabouts. Muqtada’s letter was read by a representative to thousands of Sadrist supporters in Baghdad. From his hideout (which some still think is in Iran) al-Sadr made the first direct attack on the security plan by a high-ranking Sadrist official, he criticized that the plan was executed by American forces, which he termed “the enemy.” The Shi'a leader also called for an “Iraqi strategy,” that is “neither sectarian not authoritarian.” Finally, he called on his supporters to “distance themselves” from the security plan, “which is controlled by our occupying enemies.”

[Update in the afternoon]

Per Bill White's legitimate complaint in comments, I amend this post title to "...Agrees With Many Democrats."

I probably could have used the word "most" based on polling I've seen, but I'm bending over backwards here, just to be fair and balanced. And I've responded in comments to Jim Harris' illegitimate and in fact asinine complaint(s).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:57 AM

"The Choice In Iraq"

Senator Lieberman explains it to his fellow Democrats. One wonder how much longer he'll remain a Democrat, if they continue to ignore him.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:49 AM

February 24, 2007
CYA Home Security

Paul McNamara writes about one of the government's biggest failures since 911. And it was a joint effort between the White House and Congress (including the Dems). Unfortunately, there's no reason to think that it will change, given all the institutional incentives.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:45 AM

February 23, 2007
Empty Gunboats

Amir Tehari writes about American weakness of will:

The perceived political weakness of the United States, and the expectation that the Democrats would seek a strategic retreat, may have persuaded the Khomeinist leadership that Ahmadinejad may be right after all: the Islamic Republic can pursue a hegemonic strategy with no fear of hitting something hard.
Ahmadinejad, reported to watch a lot of CNN, has seen the gunboats sail in. But he has also seen Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Barrack Obama, and other American luminaries such as Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Jane Fonda who would rather see Bush destroyed than the mullahs restrained. The American gunboat ballet does not impress the radicals in the ascendancy in Tehran. And that is bad news for all concerned, above all the people of the region.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:58 AM

February 22, 2007
Don't Want To Make That Mistake

An Iraqi sheikh who doesn't want to make the same mistake the Vietnamese did:

"One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping ... put them back together," MacFarland said. "The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they’re still living in poverty."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:04 PM

February 18, 2007
Hitchens, On Steyn

He thinks Mark Steyn's new book useful, if slightly overstated. He also has some useful extensions to the recommendations:

1. An end to one-way multiculturalism and to the cultural masochism that goes with it. The Koran does not mandate the wearing of veils or genital mutilation, and until recently only those who apostasized from Islam faced the threat of punishment by death. Now, though, all manner of antisocial practices find themselves validated in the name of religion, and mullahs have begun to issue threats even against non-Muslims for criticism of Islam. This creeping Islamism must cease at once, and those responsible must feel the full weight of the law. Meanwhile, we should insist on reciprocity at all times. We should not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the U.S., for example, until Saudi Arabia also permits Jewish and Christian and secular practices. No Wahhabi-printed Korans anywhere in our prison system. No Salafist imams in our armed forces.
2. A strong, open alliance with India on all fronts, from the military to the political and economic, backed by an extensive cultural exchange program, to demonstrate solidarity with the other great multiethnic democracy under attack from Muslim fascism. A hugely enlarged quota for qualified Indian immigrants and a reduction in quotas from Pakistan and other nations where fundamentalism dominates.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:10 PM

February 17, 2007
Weeding The Garden

Dean Barnett takes an idiot "white flag" Republican to task.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:37 AM

February 16, 2007
A Pack, Not A Herd

A Mauritanian pilot and his passengers foiled a hijacking.

Has there been a successful hijacking since 911? I don't think so. I don't think anyone will be able to pull it off again.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:22 PM

Good News, Bad News

...from the war. Jules Crittendon has a round up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:29 AM

February 15, 2007
On Crying Wolf

Mark Steyn:

Isn’t it truer to say that in this instance the wolf has been leaping about repeatedly calling, "Hey, villagers, here I am!" and threatening to wipe the sheep pasture off the face of the map? And the little shepherd boy Bush, far from crying "Wolf! Wolf!" hysterically, behaved very calmly and referred the matter to the European Union Wildlife Management Committee to chew over for three or four years. They’ve now concluded that, in the course of their consultations with the wolf, he somehow managed to build a lamb-kebabing factory on the edge of the sheep field. But it’s no danger because he’s probably vegetarian. And anyway the real threat to stability is the obdurate kosher butcher down the road.
The Iran question sets a deeply disturbing precedent, even if the threat of genocide is just a rhetorical flourish. For it sets a new bar in international discourse, in which heads of government will be able to threaten genocide against neighboring states, and will expect to be extended the same benefit of the doubt as Ahmadinejad. In other words, it’s the wolves who get to go around crying "Wolf!", and the onus is on us to prove on which particular occasion they happen to mean it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:36 AM

February 01, 2007
Mercenaries

The blogosphere is abuzz with this bit of vile nonsense from William Arkin at the WaPo.

Lileks isn't impressed. Neither are the guys at BlackFive.

Neither am I. Disregarding the notion that those fighting for our country should have at least as much freedom of speech as anyone else (those ingrates!), the notion that they are mercenaries isn't just wrong--it's slanderous. As Lileks notes:

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
Oops, indeed. That just slipped out. He temporarily forgot the patriotism that motivates many, and provides a definitional difference between mercs and volunteer soldiers, but thank God he caught himself in time. As for that dirty work, it is best understood in terms of soiled linen, which wives are ALWAYS complaining about. We don’t do the laundry, we don’t do it right, we mix the bloody clothes with the silk shirts, et cetera.

Arguably, there were, and are, some people who joined up to get a job and an education. But I think that ended on September 10th. The men and women in the armed forces now are largely there because they think they have an important job to do, and many of them could be making a lot more money stateside, with a lot less risk to life and limb, given the booming economy and low unemployment rate. If I were in the service, I'd be as furious, and perhaps more furious than Uncle Jimbo. I might even drop the F-bomb, too. In fact, I'm not in the service, and I find Arkin's piece beneath contempt.

[Update at 9:30 AM]

Glenn Wishard, in comments over at Winds of Change:

I think Blackfive delivered only half the kicks that Arkin deserves for this, because the First Amendment of the Constitution doesn't begin to cover the sacred, centuries-old right of the soldier to gripe.
Soldiers are bound by law and duty to obey orders they don't want to obey, and fight wars they may not agree with or understand, and to lay down their lives for ungrateful cretins like William Arkin. In exchange for this they have a right to disapprove of the American people, second lieutenants, bad food, poor supplies, the weather, the atomic weight of cobalt, and the entire metaphysical structure of time and space. There is even ritualized griping in the military, a sort of art form, often featuring a guy named Jody who is back at home screwing your sister, your girlfriend, and your mother.

Arkin ought to recognize Jody. He is Jody, the ungrateful, spoiled rotten civilian who has been protected and cared for his entire life. He sits at home lecturing and pontificating while better men hump heavy loads through the worst places on earth, and he feels entitled to look down on them for this service. He congratulates himself on being smarter than they are, and credits himself with a superior moral character on top of that.

[Mid-afternoon update]

Don Surber writes about free speech ping pong.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AM

January 30, 2007
How Did This Get On The Air?

NBC, in a novel approach, actually interviews troops in Iraq, to see what they think about war criticism at home. They're not very impressed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:18 AM

Finally

Are we about to get an operational missile defense?

O'Reilly said there would be no formal announcement that the system was operational. He predicted the capability to defend against enemy missiles and to continue testing and development work would be achieved within a year.
"It's just a matter of maturation," he told reporters after a speech hosted by the George C. Marshall Institute, a public policy group.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 AM

January 25, 2007
I've Signed The Pledge

Have you?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:53 PM

Dinesh D'Souza

...is taken to school by Jamie Glazov, who by far has the best of the argument.

D'Souza comes off, to me as either extremely naive, or disingenuous, or both.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:53 AM

The Arab-Persian War

That's largely not being covered by the press.

The Saudis are even, secretly, cooperating with the Israelis. Iran has always been seen as a greater danger to Israel than the surrounding Sunni Arab nations. Hizbollah, which is a Lebanese Shia organization, made a name for itself during its disastrous attack on Israel last Summer. Although Hizbollah lost by every measure, they won in the arena of public opinion. Both the Israelis and Saudi Arabs (and Sunni Arabs in general) hated that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:24 AM

January 24, 2007
Bad Losers

The Afghan people seem to be getting tired of the Taliban:

Another annoyance was the large number of the Taliban fighters who were from far away, mainly Pakistan. Al Qaeda also sent in some Arabs and Central Asians, and these guys were not very popular either. By the end of 2006, the Taliban tactics has terrorized many Afghans into compliance. But many others were actively resisting the Taliban, and providing information to NATO and Afghan troops. Over the Winter, the Taliban have continued to take a beating. This means the Taliban appear ready to enter this years Spring Offensive tagged as a bunch of vicious losers. The Taliban tactics have been more successful in generating fear, than recruits. Even across the border in Pakistan, it's getting difficult to get smart young fellows to sign up. Those guys with half a brain noted that most of those who went off to fight last year, either didn't come back, or came back wounded or ill.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AM

January 23, 2007
Hezbollah's War

...may have started. Michael Totten is lucky (or unlucky) enough to be on the scene in burning Beirut. Palestinians are involved as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:37 PM

Shocking

The LA Times is reporting good news in Iraq.

his month, Fatikhan was host of the first Ramadi reconstruction conference, held behind the high walls of his family compound. Contractors, sheiks and others met with U.S. officials to discuss projects to pave roads, rebuild schools and improve electrical, sewer, phone and water systems.
Fatikhan, who wears tailored suits when not in traditional clothing, understands U.S. politics. He told a visiting journalist, "Please take a message to the Democrats: Let the American forces stay until we can hold Iraq together. Then we will have a party when American forces go."

Outside Fatikhan's meeting room, other sheiks, some much older, waited to talk to him. So did Iraqi police officials. The sheik's bodyguards were nearby.

He offered his American and British visitors sweet tea and insisted that they stay for a lunch of goat, rice and sauces.

"The terrorists are not here for the interests of Iraq," Fatikhan said. "We don't need them here to say they're here to defend us. If Iraq was in danger, the real people of Iraq would stand up and defend Iraq."

He referred to the U.S. and Britain as "the two great nations."

What's wrong with them? Don't they know it's a hopeless quagmire? And on the day of the State of the Union speech, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:25 AM

The Coming Middle-East War

Between the Arabs and the Persians.

I do think that the current oil prices reflect the use of Saudi Arabia's "oil weapon," except instead of wielding it by forcing prices up (OPEC no longer has the clout to do that unilaterally) they're forcing them down and starving Iran (not to mention Venezuela) of oil revenues. In fact, I'd be surprised if this wasn't one of the things that Secretary Rice discussed with them a few weeks ago.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:00 AM

January 22, 2007
Sobering

Everyone else has been linking to this piece, so I might as well, too. This holocaust will be different. But we continue to sleepwalk toward it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:11 AM

January 21, 2007
Romancing Araby

Sam Ser has a review of what looks to be a fascinating new book by Michael Oren, on the history of the US involvement with the Middle East and the Arab and Muslim world, going back to the Barbary Pirates.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:49 AM

January 17, 2007
Mislearning From History

Donald Stoker writes that, historically, most insurgencies are failures.

the real question in Iraq is not whether the insurgency can be defeated—it can be. The real question is whether the United States might have already missed its chance to snuff it out. The United States has failed to provide internal security for the Iraqi populace. The result is a climate of fear and insecurity in areas of the country overrun by insurgents, particularly in Baghdad. This undermines confidence in the elected Iraqi government and makes it difficult for it to assert its authority over insurgent-dominated areas. Clearing out the insurgents and reestablishing security will take time and a lot of manpower. Sectarian violence adds a bloody wrinkle. The United States and the Iraqi government have to deal with Sunni and Shia insurgencies, as well as the added complication of al Qaeda guerrillas.
But the strategy of “surging” troops could offer a rare chance for success—if the Pentagon and the White House learn from their past mistakes.

Iraq is not Vietnam, unless we foolishly let the left make it one. Again.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:55 AM

Why Europe Abandoned Israel

A long, but insightful essay.

There are a number of factors that explain European behavior towards Israel. I have identified seven of them:
Europe's dependence on Middle East oil
Europe's rivalry with the US
The growing number of Muslims and their militancy
The small number of Jews, and their passivity
The role of elites in Europe's politics
Europe's long term disease of anti-Semitism, and
The decline of Christianity in Europe.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AM

Turning Up The Heat On Iran

Maybe we're starting to get serious.

And yes, the notion of Iran complaining about violations of diplomatic facilities bent the needle on my irony meter.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AM

Run Away, Run Away!

Somalia isn't the only place that Al Qaeda is in retreat. They're fleeing Baghdad as well.

The apparent evacuation of Baghdad by al Qaeda forces comes from direct orders issued by al-Masri, the former soldier who took control of the Iraqi wing of al Qaeda following the June 2006 bombing death of Zarqawi.
Initially, the intelligence officer informed Pajamas, the Baghdad-based AQ fighters did not want to leave. Al-Masri had to send unequivocal orders for their retreat, adding that one of the lessons from the Fallujah campaign was that Americans have learned how to prevail in house-to-house fighting. Masri said that remaining in Baghdad was a ‘no-win situation’ for the terrorists.

“In more than ten years of reading al Qaeda intercepts, I’ve never seen language like this,” the intelligence officer said. Usually, al Qaeda communications are full of bravado and false confidence, he added.

Here's the bad news, though.

Al-Masri’s evacuation order – assuming that it is authentic – reveals that al Qaeda in Iraq leader has a good grasp of a tactical situation. “He is far more formidable than Zarqawi was,” the intelligence officer said, because of his training at Soviet special warfare schools.

Zarqawi was always sort of an amateur, too brutal for his own good or the good of his cause, alienating people that he should have been trying to swim among, like a good guerrilla. Al-Masri will be tougher, but we have to stay on him. And I never fail to be amazed at the naivety of those who don't think that Iraq is the main front in the war against these people, and who think that we should be the ones in retreat.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AM

January 16, 2007
Let The Poppies Bloom

Anne Applebaum has some good policy advice for the fanatical drug warriors in the administration.

This is yet one more reason to wish that we'd had better choices in the last couple elections.

But the anonymous morons in my comments section will continue to call me a "republican stooge."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:10 PM

"Very Winnable"

That's what that famous chickenhawk Michael Yon says Iraq is.

[Evening update]

Sigh. I hoped that the "chickenhawk" appellation was obvious sarcasm, but for those to whom it wasn't, it was.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 AM

January 15, 2007
Good News, If True

A post-Wahhabi Saudi Arabia?

the Saudi government has partly subscribed to these critical trends and has taken a number of preliminary steps towards – if not yet political – social and religious reform. The organization in June 2003 of the first national dialogue conference, with thirty ulama belonging to all the confessional groups present on the kingdom’s territory – Wahhabi and non-Wahhabi Sunnis, Sufis, Ismaili and Twelver Shiites –, was an obvious move in that direction. This conference led to the adoption of a charter containing a set of “recommendations,” some of which can be considered a severe blow to the Wahhabi doctrine. First, the charter acknowledges the intellectual and confessional diversity of the Saudi nation, which is contrary to traditional Wahhabi exclusivism. Second, it criticizes one of Wahhabism’s juridical pillars, the principle of sadd aldhara’i’ (the blocking of the means), which requires that actions that could lead to committing sins must themselves be prohibited. It is notably in pursuing this principle that women are denied the right to drive in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, none of the figures of the official Wahhabi establishment were invited to attend the conference, which obviously denotes a willingness to marginalize them. In addition, the fact that the government-controlled press has recently opened its columns to the islamo-liberals' religious criticism clearly reflects a degree of official support for it. It is also worth noting that there have been some improvements on two crucial socio-religious issues: the status of women, whose economic role has officially been acknowledged and who have been given a voice in the national dialogue, and that of the Shiites, who have recently witnessed a relative loosening of the restrictions on their religious practice.

Let's hope so.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AM

Searching Deep Within Myself

...trying to find the slightest iota of sympathy for Sunnis in Iraq who complain about bodies being mutilated by decapitation. Especially this particular body.

Looking, looking...

Nope. No luck.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:25 AM

January 14, 2007
Another (Moonbat Presidential Candidate) County Heard From

Yes, heaven forfend we should destabilize a regime whose motto is "Death to the Great Satan, America!"

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 PM

The Dog That Didn't Bark In The Night

Donald Sensing speculates about what Bush didn't say. Like him, I hope that there's a lot of it. But I've been hoping that for years. It was the reason that I supported removing Saddam.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:04 PM

What Took Them So Long?

As with much of what the president announced this past week, why weren't we doing things like this months, or years ago?

U.S. officials tell CBS News that American forces have begun an aggressive and mostly secret ground campaign against networks of Iranians that had been operating with virtual impunity inside Iraq.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress on Friday that Iranians are now on the target list.

Is the administration finally waking up from its apparent delusions that we aren't and haven't been at war with the mullah-run government of Iran for decades?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:30 AM

January 12, 2007
Is Al Qaeda Losing The War?

Strategy Page says yes:

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 would appear to have been a plus for al Qaeda, as Saddam Hussein, and his Baath Party, had long been an enemy of Islamic radicalism. But Saddam got religion after his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. During the 1990s, Saddam became a major supporter of Islam, building many mosques and proclaiming himself a major defender of the faith. Al Qaeda was wary of this, but did enter into negotiations with Saddam. After all, Saddam and al Qaeda shared a hatred for the West, and especially the United States. A major fear was that Saddam would provide a refuge for al Qaeda, and supply them with chemical or nuclear weapons (if not a bomb, then radioactive material.) The fighting in Iraq is basically between the Sunni Arab minority, assisted by al Qaeda, against the majority Kurds and Shia Arabs. While much is made about Iraq becoming a "school for terrorists," few of the "graduates" have shown up anywhere else, pulling off successful attacks. On the other hand, many known Islamic terrorists have gone to Iraq, and gotten themselves killed or captured. So Iraq has to be seen as a net loss for al Qaeda.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:58 AM

January 11, 2007
A Negative Endorsement

I'm feeling a little better about Bush's plan now. Syria and Iran have denounced it. A lot of these statements sound like the current Democrat talking points, in fact. Of course, many of its domestic critics will probably think that this buttresses their own criticisms.

If my opinions about the war were the same as the enemy's (or at least those stated by the enemy), I'd rethink them. But I guess the problem is that they don't think that Tehran or Damascus are the enemy. For them, the enemy lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:09 AM

Huh?

I agree with Derb's take on the speech:

So-o-o-o:
—-We can't leave Iraq without a victory.

—-Unless Maliki & Co. get their act together, we can't achieve victory.

—-If Maliki & Co. don't get their act together, we'll leave.

It's been a while since I studied classical logic, but it seems to me that this syllogism leaks like a sieve.

...The President: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria." We haven't been doing this? We haven't been doing this?

And despite the president's statement (not highlighted in any way last night) that Iran and Syria have been waging war on us by proxie, Andy McCarthy says they apparently don't have anything to worry about.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:34 AM

January 10, 2007
Looking For An Exit Strategy

You know, I'm a lot less concerned with whether or not we have an exit strategy, as I am with making sure that the enemy doesn't:

...the devastation left behind by our gunships is only part of a very big U.S. win:
* Thanks to resolute military action by Ethiopia's government (quietly backed by Washington), the terror regime in Mogadishu crumbled overnight - collapsing the lie that extremist Islam is on the march to an inevitable victory.

* The speed of the Ethiopian advance cornered hundreds of hardcore Islamist fighters in a forlorn backwater, where they can be killed out of sight of their media defenders. And be killed they will.

* Islamist outrages and subversion inspired unprecedented cooperation between moderate Somalis, Ethiopians, Kenyans and Americans.

For its part, the Kenyan government grew sick of Somalia exporting hatred, weapons and terror. Now Kenyan troops have sealed their border so al Qaeda's agents can't escape.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 AM

We Made A Good Terrorist

The guy who masterminded the east Africa embassy bombings was killed in Somalia. Though it would have been better to capture and grill him. Probably Anonymous Moron in my comments section is in mourning.

Hey, it's no worse than the perverse fantasies he harbors about me...

[Update]

And here's some news about some more good terrorists in Afghanistan:

Bungling Taliban fanatics have blown themselves to pieces trying to set a booby-trap near a British base in the Afghan desert.
Little was left of the three-man terror cell after the huge blast near Camp Price. Marines from J Company, 4 2 Commando, are among 250 British troops at the base.

Commanding officer Major Ewen Murchison, from Bearsden, Glasgow, said: "It was what we would describe as an own-goal."

May they continue to bungle.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:39 AM

January 09, 2007
Israel Without Apology

An oldie (from 2003--Edward Said has died since) but a goodie, but one I'd never noticed or linked to before; a long but fascinating read from a former Berkeley leftist, and why he turned his back on his once comrades, over Israel:

On my last day, I was able to drive across the entire Golan Heights, past the partly destroyed Israeli post at Kfar Nafakh and then on to the farthest point of the Israeli counterattack. I passed the charred wrecks of dozens of Syrian and Israeli tanks, and the smell of burning flesh still hung in the air. I only came to a stop at an Israeli military police roadblock at the western edge of the Golan Heights. There was a tourist observation deck nearby, outfitted with telescopes. Peering through one, I could see Damascus clearly on the horizon.
After the initial Syrian successes of the battle’s first two days, the Israelis had mauled their enemy so badly that the plain leading to Damascus was wide open. The Israeli army could have reached the gates of the city in a day. But the Kremlin threatened to intervene to save Hafez al-Assad’s regime. The United States then conveyed to Israel that it must not move its forces past the pre– October 6 cease-fire lines, from which Syria had launched its attack. Once again, the rigged Middle East rules were in full effect: the Arab states could break cease-fires without fear of international censure; Israel could defend itself and repel the Arab attacks, but if it made the war so costly to the aggressors as to deter the next one it would meet with widespread global condemnation.

I didn’t write about these questions at the time, but I couldn’t help but speculate. Suppose the Syrians had actually occupied a piece of northern Israel? Does anyone believe that Syria’s government would then have offered to exchange “land for peace”? And what kind of treatment could the Jews living in “Syria-occupied Galilee” have expected from the occupiers—from the same army units that executed most of the Israeli soldiers they captured during the war?

...I remained haunted by the lesson I had learned in 1973 on the Golan Heights and at the Suez Canal about Israel’s vulnerability. Israel had zero margin of error—literally, it could not survive the loss of one war. The Arab regimes had nothing to lose except the lives of thousands of their own soldiers, which they were cavalier about anyway, and some treasure, which they could always replace with the help of one of the big powers or the Saudis. Thus, they were free to try and try again to destroy the Jewish state.

Double standards abound in the Middle East. Well, and other places.

Things didn’t turn out exactly as the neoconservatives predicted—with, first, the creation of a Palestinian state, which would then become a springboard for another assault on Israel by the Arab states—but they correctly assessed the pathological nature of the Palestinian liberation movement. Like the premature anti-fascists of the 1930s, who understood the radical evil faced by the democracies of those days, the neoconservatives have had the bad taste to show us what we wanted to avoid admitting—that this conflict is not about disputed territories. It is about Israel’s right to survive as a democratic Jewish state. And after September 11, it’s clear that it is also about whether the Islamo-fascist movement that is at war with our civilization will succeed in making the Middle East safe for obscurantism and tyranny.

It retains its resonance today, and points out the broad nature of the war in which we find ourselves. Israel, a vital ally that shares all the values that matter with us, has been on the front lines since its founding. Read the whole thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:24 PM

No Al Qaeda In Somalia?

In response to Karl Hallowell's question in this post, what does he think this means?

Ethiopia's prime minister said on Tuesday that many international terrorists had been killed, injured or captured in the fighting in Somalia.
Meles Zenawi was quoted by the French newspaper Le Monde as saying that suspected terrorists from Britain were among them.

"Many international terrorists are dead in Somalia," Meles was quoted as saying.

"Photographs have been taken and passports from different countries have been collected. The Kenyans are holding Eritrean and Canadian passport holders. We have injured people coming from Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan, the United Kingdom."

Let's keep it coming.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here's an analysis of the situation, with a description of the role of US Special Forces. Those are the kind of boots on the ground we need, with a lot more boots on the ground from regional allies. This was the key to overthrowing the Taliban as well. Unfortunately, it's not clear who our regional allies in overthrowing the mullahs would be.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:10 AM

The Problems With Kagan-Keane

Joe Katzman has some useful thoughts on "the surge." He's skeptical, as am I, for many of the reasons he states.

He makes an interesting point that I hadn't previously considered:

Iran is arming and supporting both Sunni and Shi'ite groups, using a script I explained long ago in "Iran's Great Game." What does your strategy presume to do about this? The Saudis have also been sending people over to help the Sunnis for some time now, and run martyr's profiles in the Saudi press - and now they are publicly threatening to step up their support of Iraq's Sunnis. How does the proposed strategy plan to deal with this ongoing activity, as well as the threat of more open involvement?

So what we really have going on (among other things) is a war by proxie between SA and Iran. From our standpoint, it's similar to the situation that we faced in the eighties, when the war between Arab and Persian was more direct, and we aided Iraq not because we wanted it to win, but because we wanted both sides to lose. That's the case here as well.

But it also points out that Israel is in an interesting situation, in which alliances are shifting in the sands of the Middle East, with clandestine meetings between Jerusalem, and Riyadh, Amman and Cairo, to figure out how to deal with the Shia menace in Iran. I suspect that Omert's government has been given a wink a nod by those governments against what is now recognized to be a common enemy in Tehran. And of course, it also shows that the war we're in is really a larger Middle East cold war that they managed to export to our shores five years ago.

Oh, also over at Winds of Change--are we being probed for an attack?

[Update about 10:30 AM EST]

Here's another interesting thought on probes and "false alarms."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:21 AM

January 08, 2007
Like Rats

People who were saying that Somalia had been lost to Al Qaeda a few months ago were premature. It looks like we've built a trap for them, and they've been caught.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:12 PM

Winning Wars

Well, the comments drifted pretty far off topic in this post. Many of them would have been better directed toward this one, on the administration's seeming unwillingness to recognize that we are in a state of war with Iran.

I'll repeat my comment there, in response to the comment that we need boots on the ground to "win" a war with Iran.

Do we have sufficient infantry (today) to sustain a win over Iran?

We don't need any infantry to "sustain a win over Iran" for certain values of "win." Despite the nutty straw man comments from the trolls, I've never proposed invading, or conquering them, or even necessarily regime change (though that would be nice, and might be a side benefit of a more robust stance against them).

If the goals are to a) prevent them from getting nukes, b) discourage them from continuing to arm people killing us in Iraq and c) prevent them from disrupting Gulf shipping, that can all be done with airpower (and seapower) alone. Certainly Israel has no intention of invading or conquering Iran, or putting boots in Persia, but you can bet they have plenty of war plans, and they don't expect to lose.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:20 PM

January 06, 2007
Recognizing The Enemy

Melanie Phillips, like me, doesn't understand why the administration doesn't see the obvious--that we are at war with Iran, but not fighting back in any discernible way. They continue to go completely unhindered, and unpunished, as they frustrate our ability to stabilize Iraq, and provide the arms and training with which our troops are killed daily. We don't need more troops. We need more clue, and a new strategy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:57 AM

January 05, 2007
So You Want A Chickenhawk?

Here's a chickenhawk:

I also appeal to my Muslim brethren everywhere to respond to the call for jihad in Somalia. I appeal to the lions of Islam in Yemen, the state of faith and wisdom, I appeal to my brothers the lions of Islam in the Arab Peninsula, the cradle of conquests, and I also appeal to my brothers the lions of Islam in Egypt, Sudan, the Arab Maghreb, and everywhere in the Muslim world to rise up to aid their Muslim brethren in Somalia through offering sacrifices, money, opinion, and expertise so as to defeat the slaves of America that it sends to death on its behalf.
I appeal to the Muslims everywhere to rush to support their brother mujahidin who are being encroached upon and are being fought by America and its slaves for they chose the law of Islam instead of the law of looting, plundering, theft, bribery, corruption, and treachery.

Like Howie, I wonder why they had to use a still pic of Zawahiri.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:41 AM

January 04, 2007
On Saddam

Lileks has some thoughts. He also comments on the vapid stupidities of the left in the matter:

This is not the time to lament the dictator, but of course that's what many did. As his appointed hour grew nigh, the humanitarians of the world found a new champion.
"He held the country together!" Well, if President Bush gassed New York and California and outlawed the Democratic Party, he could impose the same sort of remarkable cohesion.

"He was a counterweight to Iran!" Yes. But perhaps it's better to have a struggling democracy with American bases as the counterweight. If the U.S. had occupied Iraq in the 1980s, it's doubtful that millions of Iraqis would have been sent to their death so Ronald Reagan could wear a military uniform and wave a shotgun for the cameras.

"We put him in power!" Hmm. How did that work, exactly? Right: We smuggled him into the country in Donald Rumsfeld's steamer trunk with instructions to buy Russian weapons and a French reactor, then invade countries we really liked.

"He was relentlessly opposed to Islamist terrorists!" Except for those he paid and sheltered, of course. If he was sending money to people who blew up buses in New York instead of Jerusalem, people might have been more exercised.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 AM

The Long War

"Grim" has some thoughts on strategy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:13 AM

January 01, 2007
Ups And Downs

Bill Roggio, who's back from Iraq, has a good roundup of the state of Jihad in the world at the beginning of 2007.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 AM

December 29, 2006
Sic Semper Tyrannis

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said:—Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Saddam Hussein is, at long last, dead, and able no more to torture and sadistically murder anyone, and to continue to rend and rive Mesopotamia, ancient and modern, with his encouragement. It's nice to see unfinished business like this cleaned up before year end. 2007 will see a better world bereft of him.

His end was much gentler than that of most of his victims. He deserved worse. Perhaps he'll get it in another place.

[Midnight Eastern update]

Robert Reid, of the AP (I'm surprised this got past the editors) describes the brutality and psychopathy of Saddam, with no apologetics for him.

[Update on Sunday morning]

Austin Bay has further thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 PM

December 28, 2006
Clueless In The Newsrooms

Josh Trevino has the latest on the newest front on the war against Islamism, in Somalia, and on the media's nonreporting and misreporting of it.

(I expect Anonymous "Chickenhawk" Moron in comments will now demand that I, and Josh, go to Mogadishu, since we're not allowed to inform our readership or express an opinion without being on the scene.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:03 AM

December 22, 2006
Isn't It Obvious?

You shouldn't need a think tank to figure this out, even though many foolish diplomats, at Foggy Bottom and in Europe, don't get it.

"There is no longer a possibility for effective sanctions to stop Iran," retired Brig.-Gen. Zvi Shtauber, of Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies, told The Jerusalem Post.
"Our conclusion is that without military action you won't be able to stop Iran," Shtauber said.

We have a very grim choice before us, and the administration doesn't seem to be doing anything to prepare the American people for it. We will have a war with Iran, or we will have a nuclear-armed Iran (with a nuclear arms race in the rest of the Middle East). That's it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:15 AM

December 21, 2006
Let's Hope So

Is it the beginning of the end for Wahhabism? This is a necessary if not sufficient condition to reform radical Islam.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:38 AM

December 18, 2006
Finally, Some Action?

I'd sure like to think that this is true:

North Korean Leader Kim Jong-Il and his generals inspect a Korean People's Army Unit in this photo released by the Korean Central News Agency on December 6. According to the report, intelligence activities against the Kim regime also are being considered. The Chinese military intelligence service, known as 2 PLA, "is toying with the idea of a palace revolution that would kick out the 'Kim dynasty' and replace it with 'pro-Chinese generals,'" the report said.

Long overdue, if so. That wouldn't be great for the North Koreans, but it has to beat the current situation. I suspect that the Chinese are getting pretty upset now, because they don't want Japan to start to build up a nuclear arsenal.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:32 PM

December 17, 2006
Man Bites Dog

The leftist/Arabist myth that Israel and the plight of the "Palestinians" is the cause of all ills in the Middle East is a lie and a nonsense, and stories and editorials pointing it out aren't new. What is new is that even Time magazine seems to have figured it out:

Yes, it was a great disturbance in the Arab world in the 1940s when a Jewish state was born through a U.N. vote and a war that made refugees of many Palestinians. Then the 1967 war left Israel in control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and thus the Palestinians who lived there. But the pan-Arabism that once made the Palestinian cause the region's cause is long dead, and the Arab countries have their own worries aplenty. In a decade of reporting in the region, I found it rarely took more than the arching of an eyebrow to get the most candid of Arab thinkers to acknowledge that the tears shed for the Palestinians today outside the West Bank and Gaza are of the crocodile variety. Palestinians know this best of all.
To promote the canard that the troubles of the Arab world are rooted in the Palestinians' misfortune does great harm. It encourages the Arabs to continue to avoid addressing their colossal societal and political ills by hiding behind their Great Excuse: it's all Israel's fault. Certainly, Israel has at times been an obnoxious neighbor, but God help the Arab leaders, propagandists and apologists if a day ever comes when the Arab-Israeli mess is unraveled. One wonders how they would then explain why in Egypt 4 of every 10 people are illiterate; Saudi Arabian Shi'ites (not to mention women) are second-class citizens; 11% of Syrians live below subsistence level; and Jordan's King can unilaterally dissolve Parliament, as he did in 2001. Or why no Middle Eastern government but Israel's and to some extent Lebanon's tolerates freedom of assembly or speech, or democratic institutions like a robust press or civic organizations with independence and clout--let alone unfettered competitive elections.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:59 AM

December 16, 2006
Setback

Some history, and advice for the future, from Charles Krauthammer:

So we have this half decade of American assertion. And it was an astonishing demonstration. In the mood of despair and disorientation of today, we forget what happened less than half a decade ago. The astonishingly swift and decisive success in Afghanistan, with a few hundred soldiers, some of them riding horses, directing lasers, organizing a campaign with indigenous Afghans, and defeating a regime in about a month and a half in a place that others had said was impossible to conquer; that the British and the Russians and others had left in defeat and despair in the past. It was an event so remarkable that the aforementioned Paul Kennedy now wrote an article, "The Eagle has Landed" (Financial Times, Feb. 2, 2002) in which he simply expressed his astonishment at the primacy, the power, and the unrivalled strength of the United States as demonstrated in the Afghan campaign.
After that, of course, was the swift initial victory in Iraq, in which the capital fell within three weeks. After that was a ripple effect in the region. Libya, seeing what we had done in Iraq, gave up its nuclear capacity; then the remarkable revolution in Lebanon in which Syria was essentially expelled. And that demarks the date that I spoke of. March 14 is the name of the movement in Lebanon of those who rose up against the Syrians and essentially created a new democracy—fragile, as we will see. You have all of these events happening at once: you have the glimmerings of democracy in the elections in Egypt, some changes even in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and of course what we had in January 2005 was the famous first election in Iraq, which had an electric effect on the region. That winter-spring of 2005, I think, is the apogee of this assertion of unipolarity and American power.

What we have seen, however, in the last almost two years now is what I think historians will write of as the setback. That is the year and a half between the Iraqi election and the Lebanese revolution, on the one hand, and the date that I think is going to live in history as an extremely important one, November 7, 2006, the American election, in which it was absolutely clear that the electorate had expressed its dismay and dissatisfaction with the policies in Iraq, and more generally, a sense of loss, lack of direction, and wish to contemplate retreat. As a result , we are in position now where people are talking about negotiating, for example, with our enemies Syria and Iran, which, given the conditions that Iran and Syria would lay and their objectives, which have been expressed openly and clearly, would mean very little other than American surrender of Iraq to an Iran-Syria condominium.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:56 AM

December 15, 2006
Useless Platitudes

Cliff May comments on the inanity of the notion that the problem in Iraq are caused by resentment of foreign occupation:

So when Iraq day laborers are mass-murdered by a suicide bomber, when teachers are taken from their classrooms, lined up and shot — that’s because the killers “detest foreign occupation”? Isn’t that a rather odd way to express it?
And when a Sunni uses a power drill to torture a Shia to death, or when a Shia death squad drives a Sunni family from their home, that’s “resistance” which “prevails in the end”? I think I recall the French Resistance taking a somewhat different approach.

This is as mindless as the notion that settling the Israeli/"Palestinian" issue is either a necessary or sufficient condition for peace in the rest of the region.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:42 AM

December 13, 2006
It's The Culture, Stupid

A good (and depressing) description of the problem that we face (and have faced since day one) in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:31 PM

A Novel Approach

Rick Brookhiser has an alternative plan to Jim Baker's--kill the enemy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:25 AM

What Does Success Look Like?

"Neo" has some troubling thoughts on the nature of twenty-first-century warfare, defining what winning is, and whether we're capable of doing what must be done to win.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:42 AM

December 12, 2006
If Only...

...more Muslims had this man's attitude:

We are all creatures of passion. This fiasco has stirred the passionate cry of victimization from the Muslim activist community and imam community. But where were the news conferences, the rallies to protest the endless litany of atrocities performed by people who act supposedly in my religion's name? Where are the denunciations, not against terrorism in the abstract, but clear denunciations of al-Qaida or Hamas, of Wahhabism or militant Islamism, of Darfurian genocide or misogyny and honor killings, to name a few? There is no cry, there is no rage. At best, there is the most tepid of disclaimers. In short, there is no passion. But for victimization, always.
Only when Americans see that animating passion will they believe that we Muslims are totally against the fascists that have hijacked our religion. There is only so much bandwidth in the American culture to focus upon Islam and Muslims. If we fill it with our shouts of victimization, then the real problems from within and outside our faith community will never be heard.

Until his voice becomes the dominant one heard from, instead of those of the terrorism sympathizers like CAIR, there's little hope of solving the problem.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:57 PM

December 11, 2006
"A Study In Appeasement"

David Warren's take on the ISG report:

I was rewriting history, while walking along some cold lakeshore the other day. My thought was: if Churchill had only come to power in 1937, Chamberlain would have been installed to replace him in 1940.
Had Churchill been in power, and refused to sign Munich, he would have been blamed for the outbreak of war.

I can just hear the prattle in an English pub, circa 1950. "He pushed Hitler to it! Had it not been for Churchill, Hitler would have been satisfied with the Sudetenland, and England would never have had to surrender. Everything was Churchill's fault!"

Today, everything is Bush's fault.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:41 PM

Don't Settle

In fact, US Air should not only not settle, they should countersue against these people for (probably deliberately, based on most accounts) terrorizing the passengers and disrupting service. I'd be happy to even contribute to a legal fund for it. In fact, it would be a good idea to set up a fund and get all the airlines to contribute to it, because US Air is waging this battle for the whole industry.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:48 AM

Much Better Than That Harman Woman

The incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee doesn't come off as very...intelligent. Or at least informed.

I've been fearful, ever since September 11, that our government, as currently constituted, is not up to the task of fighting this war. Things like this do nothing to assuage that fear.

But then, I guess it could be worse. Senator Patty Murray thinks that Al Qaeda is a day-care provider.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 AM

Consensus?

You know, when the Washington Post tells the Baker Commission they're out to lunch on their policy recommendations, you know they have to be out there:

...to embrace the group's proposed "New Diplomatic Offensive" would be to suppose a Middle East very different from what's on the ground.
Start with the supposition that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is somehow central to ending the chaos in Iraq. In fact, even if the two-state solution sought by the Bush administration were achieved, it's difficult to imagine how or why that would cause Sunnis and Shiites to cease their sectarian war in Baghdad or the Baathist-al Qaeda insurgency to stand down. It's no doubt true, as study group chairmen James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton have said, that every Arab leader they met told them that an Israeli-Arab settlement must be the first priority. But the princes and dictators of Riyadh, Cairo and Amman have been delivering that tired line to American envoys for decades: It is their favorite excuse for failing to support U.S. initiatives and for refusing to reform their own moribund autocracies.

Baker is living in the past, and in an alternate reality.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:23 AM

December 10, 2006
No Jews Allowed

Mark Steyn, on the "Illustrious Seniors Group":

Oh, but lest you think there are no minimum admission criteria to James Baker's "Support Group," relax, it's a very restricted membership: Arabs, Persians, Chinese commies, French obstructionists, Russian assassination squads. But no Jews. Even though Israel is the only country to be required to make specific concessions -- return the Golan Heights, etc. Indeed, insofar as this document has any novelty value, it's in the Frankenstein-meets-the-Wolfman sense of a boffo convergence of hit franchises: a Vietnam bug-out, but with the Jews as the designated fall guys. Wow. That's what Hollywood would call "high concept."
Why would anyone -- even a short-sighted incompetent political fixer whose brilliant advice includes telling the first Bush that no one would care if he abandoned the "Read my lips" pledge -- why would even he think it a smart move to mortgage Iraq's future to anything as intractable as the Palestinian "right of return"? And, incidentally, how did that phrase -- "the right of return" -- get so carelessly inserted into a document signed by two former secretaries of state, two former senators, a former attorney general, Supreme Court judge, defense secretary, congressman, etc. These are by far the most prominent Americans ever to legitimize a concept whose very purpose is to render any Zionist entity impossible. I'm not one of those who assumes that just because much of James Baker's post-government career has been so lavishly endowed by the Saudis that he must necessarily be a wholly owned subsidiary of King Abdullah, but it's striking how this document frames all the issues within the pathologies of the enemy.

I've never been a big fan of most of the people on the ISG (though Alan Simpson had his moments), but my esteem for Baker and Lee Hamilton has hit a new low.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:10 PM

December 08, 2006
Frustrated Dems

I'm not very happy with Bush (and I never actually have been) but I'm glad that, in contrast to the wishes of the Democrats and the "bipartisan" ISG of Jim Baker et al, he refuses to surrender to the enemy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:04 PM

Our Friends The Syrians

Victor Davis Hanson:

Does anyone really believe that Syria and Iran, at least in the short-term, abhor chaos in Iraq? Iran fought a long war with Iraq, and fears deeply American scrutiny of its nuclear program. Only a perceived mess in Iraq keeps the attention of the United States and, indeed, the world community away from Teheran. Ditto Syria that does not want more Cedar Revolutions on its borders, given that democracies or the efforts at such in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Turkey now surround this dictatorship.
There were three wars fought to destroy Israel before the Golan Heights were taken. The withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza did not lead to commensurate moderation on the part of the Islamists or dictators. And if the Study Group believes that Israeli concessions will result in Syria and Iran “helping” us in Iraq, they are wrong on both counts. The most these two terrorist regimes will do is offer a safe “escort” out before the deluge; and, second, we will have reestablished the old principle that the way for radical Islamic and Arab regimes to pressure Israel is through attacking American interests in the Middle East.

He also has some Pearl Harbor thoughts similar to mine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:23 AM

The Myth Of Disengagement

Joel Himelfarb points out that we are talking to Iran and Syria, and have been throughout. We're just not doing it the way they want us to:

The real issue today is that the Bush administration, which has been repeatedly burned in recent years when it tried to engage these governments, prefers discretion and holding lower-level talks. These regimes insist on holding well-publicized summits that yield them P.R. windfalls without forcing them to substantively change their policies.

They've got the speaking softly part down, but I don't know if they have a stick of any size. And I agree with this wholeheartedly:

Based on the historical record, the advocates of U.S. engagement with these regimes are delusional. The record, from Carter to Bush II, strongly suggests that neither regime has any interest in cooperating with us in Iraq, and are more likely than not to view the Carter-Brzezinski-Hagel approach as a demonstration of American weakness.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:52 AM

A Flop

Donald Sensing on the ISG report.

Bottom line: the ISG report offers some good ideas when it sticks to Iraq itself, especially the recommendation that American Military Training Teams serving with Iraqi army units be reinforced and broadened and when it opens the door to a near-term intensification of direct military by US forces against the insurgency. But it flops hard when it wanders afield, especially when it fails to recognize that Syria and Iran are vested in our failure in Iraq, not our success. The two nations are not potential partners, they are enemies.

And I like and agree with "cerebrim"'s comment:

Much like the 9/11 commission report, it's being widely praised only by people who didn't read or understand it.
Much like the 9/11 commission report, it achieved 'bipartisanship' by being self-contradictory, equivocating, and weaselly.

Much like the 9/11 commission report, its primary use seems to be a political bludgeon by various people who have no interest in actually implementing it, just decrying the people who don't.

And much like the 9/11 commission report, its recommendations are unimplementable even if you were inclined to try - and you would be insane to want to.

Also, see Cox and Forkum: Then And Now. Yes, there is no substitute for victory. Of course, it's been decades since we've had one, or allowed ourselves one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:04 AM

December 07, 2006
Infamous Memories And Ideologies

[Note: I'm keeping this post at the top all day, so even if you've read it, there might be new stuff if you scroll down]

OK, perhaps the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Day of Infamy™ deserves more than a snarky hit piece on nutty 911 conspiracy theorists.

Sixty five years after Pearl Harbor, it feels now like ancient history, despite the fact that we still have troops in Japan and Germany. I wonder how many people understand the implications of this date in history, or are even aware that it is a date in history? Many who have personal recollections of the event (my parents' and grandparents generation) are passing, or passed, from the scene.

I was at the Arizona memorial a few weeks ago, my first visit. Before we got on the boats to go out to the sunken tomb, we were given some reminiscences by a man who was there, and helped tend to the wounded. There were children in the audience who may remember hearing his first-hand account. But for how much longer will he be telling his story? How long before the last person for whom the events of that day are a living memory will be gone?

To provide some perspective, Pearl Harbor is, to me, the way that children born in, say, 2015 will view 911. Something that their parents might tell them about, particularly if they fought in the subsequent battles of Afghanistan and Iraq (and the ones sadly to come). Of course, there will be many fewer parents telling children about that experience than did so for the second world war, simply by dint of the magnitude of the scope of the effort. I understand the significance of those events that occurred a decade and a half before my birth, because I've always had an interest in such things, but will they understand what happened on that long-ago September morning, when terror struck from a cloudless sky? Sadly, I fear not, because I fear that only five years later we've forgotten, or never learned. Certainly, there is little in the Baker report that makes me believe that we have.

Five years after Pearl Harbor, when my fictional account of the 127 Conspiracy took place, we'd utterly defeated both imperial Japan and the Nazis, and were dealing with the quagmire in Europe (the Marshall Plan that got western Germany back on its feet was just being conceived--it wouldn't be implemented until the next year).

It's been over five years since that tragically beautiful September day when we suddenly, and finally realized that we were at war with the next brutal totalitarian movement, after fooling ourselves that we were done with them after the Cold War. It turned out on September 11 that it wasn't quite the End of History, after all. It took us less time than that to wipe out the totalitarians that attacked us in Hawaii, and made common cause with the Nazi totalitarians in Europe. Defeating the surviving totalitarian ideology from the conflict, Soviet Communism, took almost another half century. How long will we be fighting this new threat to the values of the Enlightenment?

If the Bakers have their way, probably far too long. There seems a desire to return to the "realist" dreamworld of the nineties, when we imagined that the age of totalitarianism was over, and that we could "manage" brutal dictators with shuttle diplomacy. Unfortunately, one of the big mistakes that the president made after 911 was to fail to properly and consistently mobilize the American people.

After Pearl Harbor, the nation recognized that we were in an existential war. The totalitarian and ideological threat of this new war is less obvious, and has been obscured by talk of war against "terrorists." Franklin Roosevelt didn't declare on the evening of December 7th that we were at war with torpedo bombers. He named the enemy. The president seems to continue to waver on this issue, occasionally talking about Islamofascists and the like, but still inviting people from CAIR to the White House and talking about the "religion of peace." Rather than telling us the nature of the enemy, and calling for sacrifices that would be needed to win this new ideological struggle, he allowed and even encouraged the federal government to bloat, took away our nail clippers and shampoo, and told us to go shopping.

We are not at war with Islam, per se, but the people we are at war with are Islamists, and it does no good to ever pretend otherwise, and it is senseless to think that regimes run by them (e.g., Iran) or who cynically use them as pawns against us and our vital ally Israel (e.g., Syria) can be negotiated with. What is "realistic" about the fantasy that Syria will be satisfied with the Golan? How satisfied was Adolf Hitler with the Sudentenland? Rewarding Syria's warlike behavior is not the way to get less of it.

Here is the real "reality." We are at war with these countries, like it or not. They supply the troops and the weaponry that are killing our troops in Iraq, and who fire rockets (and missiles) into Haifa. In the case of Iran, in kidnaping our embassy personnel, they committed an act of war against us over a quarter of a century ago, for which there have never been any consequences against them. This was the beginning of the string of acts of political pusillanimity and weakness--followed by the Beirut Marine barracks, through the first WTC attack, and Somalia, and Khobar towers, and the Cole, that showed us to be paper tigers, encouraged the Islamists and ultimately resulted in drive-through skyscrapers. We've been at war with them since the Carter administration, and who knows how long the war will go on? Afghanistan was one battle in that war. Iraq is another. Where the next ones will be is not clear, but I suspect that they're on the borders of Mesopotamia.

It's of course much easier, and more convenient to pretend that we're at not at war. Harder to get people to the mall when we're at war, don't you know? But this fantasy will only make greater the final reckoning. Right now, they certainly understand that they're at war with us. What's more, they think they're winning. The only effective "negotiations" with the enemy will happen when the bombs are falling on them. Or at least, when they're hurting in some way, and feel truly threatened. Short of that, it's a repeat of the appeasement of the thirties--in Europe, in Manchuria, in China--that ultimately resulted in the sudden sinking of battleships in a tropical paradise on a quiet Sunday morning.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:59 PM

I Have To Go For "Delusional Fool"

I'm still waiting for someone to make a convincing case that James Baker is a brilliant foreign policy strategist .

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:14 PM

Serious Negotiations

After we try some things like this, we may be able to get Iran to come to heel. Then negotiations might have a useful outcome:

To be sure, preemptive military force would be a highly undesirable option—but it would be less undesirable than the alternative, which could be both nuclear weapons in the hands of ideological hard-liners bent on confrontation and a nuclear arms race across the Middle East.
That said, it would be premature to write off the prospects for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. If the United States and its allies can effectively demonstrate that Iran is paying a high price for its confrontational stance, the cautious instincts of Khamene'i and many Iranian leaders could lead them to freeze the overt conversion and enrichment programs, regardless of Ahmadinejad's attitude. While Iran would almost certainly continue with covert activities, the need to keep those hidden would slow development. In this case, delay could be victory, because the long-term prospects for the Islamic Republic look poor: it has done a miserable job of winning the hearts and minds of young Iranians and, meanwhile, social and regional developments suggest more pressure for democratic governance.

We have to make time our ally, instead of theirs, because now, they think they can wait it out, and the Baker nonsense just encourages them in that belief. Move down the field, and don't give them any time outs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:21 AM

That's Gotta Hurt

Got to love this NY Post cover today. Well, you don't have to, I guess. But I do.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:35 AM

December 05, 2006
Too Much Credibility

IBD has some questions about the fLying imams, and their defenders:

Their actions undermine any good will and trust Muslim leaders have built since 9/11. And they call into question what we really know about these supposedly virtuous men we invite to the White House and other halls of power in gestures of tolerance.
Are they really moderate? Do they really mean it when they renounce terrorism? Do they really have America's best interests at heart?

In many cases, the answer would appear to be, sadly, no.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:46 AM

Outsourcing Anti-Terrorism

Donald Sensing has an interesting post, that describes how many Islamic countries are exporting their terrorists to Iraq in the hopes that we and the Iraqis will kill them, thus solving their domestic problems. As he points out, it's a potentially very dangerous game, particularly given our growing weariness with it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AM

December 04, 2006
Avoiding Genocide

Armed Liberal has some thoughts on the administration's mishandling of the war with which I agree. Read the comments as well. Also, Chester writes about the end of nation states and America as a superpower.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AM

December 02, 2006
The Non-Flying Imams

What were they up to? Richard Miniter seems to have the most comprehensive story so far. It looks to me like they were either attempting a hijack, testing security, or attempting to weaken it by intimidating the airline. I can't imagine an innocent explanation for their behavior.

And not that they should have any credibility at this point, but if CAIR wants to be taken seriously, they need to renounce all their previous denunciations of US Air. But I'm sure they'll continue to whine about discrimination. And of course, the media will continue to treat them as though they're worthy of respect, and not on the other side.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AM

December 01, 2006
"Realism"

Krauthammer, on the "Iraq Study Group":

Everyone now says that the key to stopping the fighting in Iraq is political -- again, as if this were another great discovery. It's been clear for at least a year that a military solution to the insurgency was out of our reach. The military price would have been prohibitive and the victory ephemeral without a political compromise. And that kind of compromise -- vesting the Sunnis with proportionate political and financial (i.e. oil) power -- is something the Shiites, at least those now comprising the Maliki government, seem incapable of doing.
The U.S. should be giving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a clear ultimatum: if he does not come up with a political solution in two months or cede power to a new coalition that will, the U.S. will abandon the Green Zone, retire to its bases, move much of its personnel to Kurdistan where we are welcome and safe, and let the civil war take its course. Let the current Green Zone-protected Iraqi politicians who take their cue from Moqtada al-Sadr face the insurgency alone. That might concentrate their minds on either making a generous offer to the Sunnis or stepping aside for a new coalition that would.

The key to progress is political change within Iraq. The newest fashion, however, is to go "regional,'' engaging Iran and Syria in order to have them pull our chestnuts out of the fire. This idea rests on the notion that both Iran and Syria have an interest in stability in Iraq.

Very hardheaded realist terms: interest, stability, regional powers. But stringing them together to suggest that Iran and Syria share our interests in stability is the height of fantasy. In fact, Iran and Syria have an overriding interest in chaos in Iraq -- which is precisely why they each have been abetting the insurgency and fanning civil war.

A true "realist" would recognize that we are in fact at war with Syria and Iran. Stories like this certainly make it hard to avoid that conclusion:

According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:22 AM

Sounds Good To Me

A coalition to save civilization. Count me in.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 AM

November 30, 2006
"The Jews Didn't Vote For Us"

Speaking of not being impressed, Dean Barnett isn't with James Baker and what is rumored to be his upcoming surrender plan. Me, neither.

There's so much that James Baker doesn’t understand and never has understood; I honestly don’t know where to begin. Perhaps a good place to start would be in 1941 when the Palestinian leader, Mufti al-Husseini, journeyed to Berlin and aligned himself, his people and his movement with the Nazi agenda of annihilating the Jews. Since that time (which was actually seven years before Israel was born), extermination of the Zionist Entity and those inside of it, not any kind of peace agreement, has been the lodestar of the Radical Muslim world. To think that this leopard is suddenly going to change its spots or be satisfied with a Sudetenland-sized chunk of Israel is ludicrous. When Ahmadenijad said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, he meant it.
Aaah, Ahmadenijad. What does this man have to do to convince our country that he means business? Last night, John Kerry was on Larry King (there’s a convergence of some sort). Kerry was fresh from having testified before the Baker Commission. Why the Baker Commission needed the insights of this particular Senator will be yet another mystery of our era for historians to unravel.

...We know who's going to love the Baker Commission recommendations. The Democrats at home who think getting out of Iraq is the only thing that matters will jump aboard the report as an intellectual life raft. Bereft of any ideas of their own for the past five years, Democrats will seize on the report as cover for getting our illiterate children in the armed forces home.

But the Iranian mullahs will be even happier. The Baker Commission report will give them the same feeling that Hitler got in Munich – these men will not fight. They will see a solid chunk of the American body politic eager to sell out an ally while making concessions to our enemies without requiring those enemies to fire a single shot.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:03 PM

November 29, 2006
Barbarians At The Gate

Victor Davis Hanson writes that the West faces a crisis of confidence:

Just imagine in our present year, 2006: plan an opera in today's Germany, and then shut it down. Again, this surrender was not done last month by the Nazis, the Communists, or kings, but by the producers themselves in simple fear of Islamic fanatics who objected to purported bad taste. Or write a novel deemed unflattering to the Prophet Mohammed. That is what did Salman Rushdie did, and for his daring, he faced years of solitude, ostracism, and death threats--and in the heart of Europe no less. Or compose a documentary film, as did the often obnoxious Theo Van Gogh, and you may well have your throat cut in "liberal" Holland. Or better yet, sketch a simple cartoon in postmodern Denmark of legendary easy tolerance, and then go into hiding to save yourself from the gruesome fate of a Van Gogh. Or quote an ancient treatise, as did Pope Benedict, and then learn that all of Christendom may come under assault, and even the magnificent stones of the Vatican may offer no refuge--although their costumed Swiss Guard would prove a better bulwark than the European police. Or write a book critical of Islam, and then go into hiding in fear of your life, as did French philosophy teacher Robert Redeker.
...Note also the constant subtext in this new self-censorship of our supposedly liberal age: the fear of radical Islam and its gruesome methods of beheadings, suicide bombings, improvised explosive de-vices, barbaric fatwas, riotous youth, petrodollar-acquired nuclear weapons, oil boycotts and price hikes, and fist-shaking mobs, as the seventh century is compressed into the twenty-first.

In contrast, almost daily in Europe, "brave" artists caricature Christians and Americans with impunity. And we know what explains the radical difference in attitudes to such freewheeling and "candid" expression--indeed, that hypocrisy of false bravado, of silence before fascists and slander before liberals is both the truth we are silent about, and the lie we promulgate.

There is, in fact, a long list of reasons, among them most surely the assurance that cruel critics of things Western rant without being killed. Such cowards puff out their chests when trashing an ill Oriana Fallaci or a comatose Ariel Sharon or beleaguered George W. Bush in the most demonic of tones, but they prove sunken and sullen when threatened by a thuggish Dr. Zawahiri or a grand mufti of some obscure mosque.

[Evening update]

Eric Raymond had a post last February that's quite relevant.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:18 PM

November 27, 2006
Selective Morality

Victor Davis Hanson:

“Realism”, then, means nothing other than trading off our enemies’ interests in one place for our own assumed advantage elsewhere. (e.g., stop the Iranian IED supply in southern Iraq and we will lay off UN sanctions; close the Syrian border with Iraq, and Assad can creep back into Lebanon, etc.). All that is a fair, not an exaggerated, description of realism as we have known it. Syria was once invited into the first Gulf War coalition by our hands-off promises about its role in Lebanon. Kurds and Shiites were once let go in 1991 on promises to the Gulf monarchies to keep the old regional dictatorial order.
All this is hardly new to readers, but what is novel is the sudden liberal embrace of it. Why does the Democratic leadership seem to welcome in the thinking of a James Baker or Brent Scowcroft, especially since it once demonized realism, most notably the circumstances around the first Gulf War or the supposed Bush I failure to stop the genocide in the Balkans? Is it just petty spite at seeing GWB’s own turn on him?

Or is it a deeper malaise that modern liberal internationalism is neither liberal nor international. Lacking any real belief that the United States, now or in its past, has been a continual force for good, the contemporary Left hardly wants the rest of the world to suffer the American malaise of racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental degradation, and consumerism. That self-doubt is buttressed by the idea as well that confrontation is always bad, that evil does not really exist, but is a construct we create for misunderstanding, that the world’s ills are remedied by reason and dialogue.

In essence, the progressive Leftist is often affluent, insulated from the savagery about him by his material largess, and empathizes with those who are antithetical to the very forces that made him free, secure, and prosperous—as a way to assuage the guilt, at very little cost, of his own blessedness.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AM

"Shun And Scorn"

Boy, I'll be that Iran and Syria are quaking in their collective boots by threats from the "realists."

Democracy in Iraq? Who cares? Not James Baker, or the New York Times, obviously.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 AM

November 26, 2006
Thanks A Lot, Guys

France and Italy have been funding terrorists in Iraq:

Another challenge for the United States, the report says, was to persuade foreign governments to “stop paying ransoms.” It gives no details, but American officials have said previously that France paid a multimillion-dollar ransom for the release in December 2004 of two French reporters held hostage by an insurgent group. Italy, these officials have said, paid ransoms on at least two occasions, in September 2004 for the release of two women, both aid workers, and in March 2005, a reported $5 million for the release of Giuliana Sgrena, a journalist for the Rome newspaper Il Manifesto.

Unfortunately, that's not their only source of funds, or even the major one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:38 AM

November 22, 2006
We Don't Need A "Dialogue"

Victor Davis Hanson says that we're still in the "phony war" stage:

...why would either Damascus or Teheran wish to talk? The answer is plain. The former wants to profess to cool it a bit in destabilizing Iraq in exchange for us turning a blind eye in Lebanon; the latter wants to act like stopping the sending of agents of our destruction into Iraq in exchange for cooling our rhetoric about their bomb. What we would be doing in essence by “dialoguing” is saying to both the democracies in Lebanon and Israel, “Sorry, but we have to find a way out of Iraq, and these fascists will promise to turn away from us if they can turn on you.”
All this is dressed up with realist “maturity” and “concern” but it would be consistent with those who brought us Iran-Contra, aid to both Iran and Iraq in their war, stopping before Baghdad, hugs with the House of Saud that paid money to those who killed Americans, and on and on. If Syria and Iran can be assured of a truce, that we won’t destabilize them at home or stop their adventurism abroad, then they might let us save face in Iraq. That they would ever honor such a deal is absurd, that we would ever believe they would is worse than absurd.

For five long years many of us have praised this administration’s constancy and idealism, in removing the Taliban and Saddam, and then staying on to do the hard, the easily caricatured work of democratization. The liberal hawks have long bailed. The paleos have turned venomous in their criticism. Many of the neo-cons have sought escape by blaming the flawed occupation for ruining their supposedly perfect three-week take-down of Saddam. But there are millions of us still out there who, Jacksonian in spirit, close ranks and will support our troops wherever they are. But we simply cannot ask Americans to die in Anbar province while talking to the Iranians and Syrians who are doing their best through surrogates in killing them.

[Update on Thursday morning]

Sorry, link is fixed now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:41 PM

Free To Speak

In a victory for freedom of expression, Nonie Darwish has been reinvited to speak at Brown:

Any Arab who speaks differently from the status quo is immediately just branded as traitor, and they want to shut us up. We left the Middle East thinking we’re coming to America, our freedom of speech is protected. And then the radicals follow us here and shut us up.”

Thankfully, common sense prevailed, as happens all too rarely in these college censorship scenarios.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:45 AM

Off The Rails

Jonah Goldberg thinks that Battlestar Galactica's writers have fallen into the "why do they hate us" trap, in a completely absurd way (and one that continues to mislead the public about the nature of our real-life enemy):

Adama concludes it's all his fault because he led the mission that proved the human race really were "war mongers" in the eyes of the Cylons.
I don't want to use a lot of philosophical or literary lingo here, but this is really stooooooopid. Let's say I've been feuding with my neighbor a lot. We've called a draw and built a tall fence to avoid each other. But I don't trust him and I think he may be up to something. So, I peek over the fence. Maybe I even climb over it and look around his back yard for a minute. When my neighbor sees this his immediate response is to get a hatchet and slaughters my entire family, including my relatives in other homes far away. Clearly: It's all my fault!

What is so depressing about this is that Ronald Moore and the other creators of BSG seem to think that "instigating" a conflict in any way assigns the moral responsibility to the instigator. If I step on a psychopath's toe, it's my fault when he buries a ballpoint pen in my forehead. Or, to be fair, they think this is a reasonable, morally serious view. And since they believe it's their job to illuminate the issues in the war on terror, it cannot be denied that they think this is a serious position in the debate over that conflict.

Again: This is really stooooooopid. The idea that the human race had it coming from the Cylons is moral flapdoodle (and flatly unbelievable; the creators seem to think decent humans would be deeply conflicted about declaring total war on a bunch of artificial lifeforms who slaughtered 99% of humanity).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:39 AM

November 21, 2006
Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

Judith Weiss has some questions for Brown University, after it rescinded an invitation to a former Muslim speaker that is critical of Islam:

1) Does the Brown Muslim student group have the same compunctions about bringing in a Jewish speaker who criticizes Judaism?
2) If they planned to bring one in and the Jewish students protested, would the Muslim students defer to them?

3) Has a Jew ever been silenced on a college campus for misrepresenting or denigrating Judaism?

4) Is the problem just that Darwish criticizes Islam, or that she compares it unfavorably to Judaism? For example, this appreciation of the self-reflection demanded during the High Holidays, contrasted with the shame/honor imperative of the Islam she grew up with. Is it that Darwish criticizes the Arab Middle East, or that she defends Israel?

5) Is it an acceptable stance at a university supposedly committed to the free flow of ideas for either group to have veto power over the others' invited speakers? Whatever happened to reasoned disagreement? If Darwish is saying things that aren't true or are unfair, let the Muslim students attend her speech and respectfully ask her tough questions.

The double standards and hypocrisy here are astounding, considering the kind of enthusiastic audiences that colleges can get for Palestinians and their sympathizers who criticize Israel and Jews.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:12 PM

November 17, 2006
Standing Up For Their Own Culture

The Dutch have banned the burka. A small step toward the liberation of women, at least in Europe. And yes, it is that, despite their no longer having the "freedom" to hide their faces.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:44 PM

November 15, 2006
Inevitable?

Iranian newspapers continue to beat the war drums against Israel. Will this be the first move in their hoped-for Armageddon?

And the so-called "realists" from the first Bush administration continue to make plans to appease them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:17 AM

No More Mr. Nice Guy?

Ralph Peters says we have to take off the kid gloves in Iraq, if we're to have any hope of pacifying it:

Our "humanity" is cowardice masquerading as morality. We're protecting self-appointed religious executioners with our emphasis on a "universal code of behavior" that only exists in our fantasies. By letting the thugs run the streets, we've abandoned the millions of Iraqis who really would prefer peaceful lives and a modicum of progress.
We're blind to the fundamental moral travesty in Iraq (and elsewhere): Spare the killers in the name of human rights, and you deprive the overwhelming majority of the population of their human rights. Instead of being proud of ourselves for our "moral superiority," we should be ashamed to the depths of our souls.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:45 AM

Renewed War In The Middle East?

Is Hezbollah on the verge of taking over Lebanon? Walid Phares thinks that Tehran and Damascus have decided to take advantage of the current political disarray in the US to make their move. I hope that if this happens, Israel hits Damascus this time.

[Update at 10:40 AM EST]

Michael Totten has a podcast interview with a Lebanese blogger.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:39 AM

November 14, 2006
More Than Clothing

There's apparently more to wearing of the abaya than fashion:

Because of her sympathy for Arabs and Muslims, Donna, an American woman, decided to wear an abaya in an attempt to see how it felt and how it influenced her behavior. She wanted to show sympathy to women wearing abayas, especially after various incidents against Muslims in the post-9/11 world. She wore an abaya and walked along one of the busiest streets in a major American city. She tried to be as normal as possible, talking to people, laughing and behaving as usual. She said that she never felt the abaya was restricting her or limiting her movements or her freedom.
Among those who observed Donna, however, were some Muslims, Arabs, and even some Saudis. The Saudis were upset by what they saw and told Donna so. When she asked why, they explained that she was using the abaya in an invalid way. She then became curious to find out what they considered a valid way to use it. They explained to her that she must walk slowly, must look down when walking and keep her eyes more or less in front of her - no glancing from side to side, in other words. She must not talk to anyone or laugh loudly and certainly must not address any remarks to anyone lest they misunderstand her purpose in doing so.

To say the least, Donna was astounded by their remarks and realized that they were not simply talking about a garment to be worn but about their perceptions of what an abaya symbolized. They seemed determined to deny that a normal human being was under the black material. The truth is that those Saudi men articulated something that the Saudi lifestyle and customs have created. The abaya indeed covers a typically weak and frightened character (a woman of course), who views herself as a sexual entity confined in a well-defined space she can never escape from. This is why the whole culture of the abaya imposes so many restraints upon women. One of the restraints is that she must walk as if her feet were hobbled and she was unable to move easily and normally. Nor is she allowed to look around and observe the surrounding world comfortably, as slowly or quickly as she might like. The abaya has also contributed directly to preventing certain basic movements; for example, she can no longer move her hands normally. Aside from that, ordinary free conversation is forbidden and is replaced with low and often unclear speech that makes little sense."

If this isn't oppression, what is?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:51 AM

November 12, 2006
A Media Victory

For Al Qaeda?

...al Qaeda exploited what was already an inherent opposition to the war. Some mainstream media outlets had opposed the war from the start. The failure to immediately find weapons of mass destruction added to the media's growing doubts. As long as al Qaeda detonated IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, they could increase the perception of a quagmire. By getting the media to focus on the IED-of-the-day, al Qaeda was able to bury the good news (like the training of the Iraqi Army and reconstruction efforts), and was able to weather the loss of senior leaders like Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
The other factor going for them was the fact that members of the mainstream media generally were not sympathetic to the U.S. government. In the last year, media outlets revealed several intelligence programs – often spinning them in a manner that put the intelligence community and the military in a bad light. A reporter for Time magazine, who embedded with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, had his article completely rewritten by editors who felt his portrayal of American troops was too positive. The media did not even admit that documents, recovered during the liberation of Iraq, showing Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons, until it could be spun in a manner that made the Department of Defense look bad. The media even started to refuse to publish letters from Department of Defense officials which challenged misreporting on the war. Heroes like Paul Ray Smith, who was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, were studiously ignored.

Emphases mine. Read the whole thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 PM

"The Avid Losers"

What a wonderful phrase. Josh Trevino writes about the folks who have just taken over the Congress.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 PM

The Danger Of The Dems

They don't understand, or don't believe, posts like this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 PM

November 06, 2006
The Cardboard Submarine

Bill Whittle has a new essay up. It's (as usual) a long one, but worth reading. I've only gotten started, but this bit appealed immediately, given how many moron trolls have repeatedly made the argument over the past few weeks in comments:

CHICKENHAWKS
Let’s shag a few easy fly balls to warm up, shall we?

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you are ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

On the eve of a very important election in our nation's history, enjoy.

[Update, on further reading]

Ooooohhh, another nice bit:

People like Michael Moore and Bill Maher and Keith Olberman would not be able to figure out how to close the canopy on an F-102. These people would be weeping with fear when those afterburners light up and you barrel down that runway hoping that engine doesn’t flame out and roll you inverted into the asphalt, or when you’re rocketing through the soup at 300mph watching two little needles chase each other, praying the next thing you see out the window is a runway and not a mountain goat.
George W. Bush is not stupid. It’s not possible to be a moron and fly a supersonic jet fighter, and everyone knows it.

What George W. Bush is, however, is inarticulate. English is his second language. From what I can see he does not have a first language. Abraham Lincoln spoke in simple frontier language in an age of rhetorical flourish. Like Bush, he was considered a bumpkin and an idiot, and like Bush, he realized that there were times when having people misunderestimate you repeatedly was a real advantage. That’s goal-oriented. That’s playing the deep game. That’s cunning.

I personally have gotten to the point where Bush’s malapropisms cause me to look at the floor and shake my head with an affectionate smile, in much the same way supporters of his predecessor used to do with every new revelation of coerced sex from former employees. He is what he is. But he is a damn sight more intelligent than the graphic designer in the Mini Cooper with the Village Idiot sticker. Me, personally, I look at the man’s entire catalog of flaws in the same way Lincoln looked at Grant and his drinking: I can’t spare this man. He fights.

So to me, anyway, given the above information I feel that anyone calling President Bush a moron and an idiot comes off sounding like…well…a moron and an idiot.

Yes, that's always been my impression. Just like John Kerry calling the troops idiots and underachievers.

[Update about 10 PM EST]

One more bit:

I cannot think of a single example of where appeasement – giving in to an aggressive adversary in the hope that it will convince them to become peaceful themselves – has provided any lasting peace or security. I can say in complete honesty that I look forward to hearing of any historical example that shows it does.
What I do see are barbarian forces closing in and sacking Rome because the Romans no longer had the will to defend themselves. Payments of tribute to the barbarian hordes only funded the creation of larger and better-armed hordes. The depredations of Viking Raiders throughout Northern Europe produced much in the way of ransom payments. The more ransom that was paid, the more aggressive and warlike the Vikings became. Why? Because it was working, that’s why. And why not? Bluster costs nothing. If you can scare a person into giving you his hard-earned wealth, and suffer no loss in return, well then you my friend have hit the Vandal Jackpot. On the other hand, if you are, say, the Barbary Pirates, raiding and looting and having a grand time of it all, and across the world sits a Jefferson – you know, Mr. Liberty and Restraint – who has decided he has had enough and sends out an actual Navy to track these bastards down and sink them all… well, suddenly raiding and piracy is not such a lucrative occupation. So, contrary to doomsayers throughout history, the destruction of the Barbary Pirates did not result in the recruitment of more Pirates. The destruction of the Barbary Pirates resulted in the destruction of the Barbary Pirates.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 PM

There Is No Second Place

Donald Sensing thinks that there's only one issue in this election.

Despite how pathetic the Republicans are on most other issues*, I agree.

On terrorism, novelist Roger L. Simon quoted Leon Trotsky: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” So to all the sleepwalkers out there, or those who simply swim in the Egyptian river about the nature of Islamism and its jihadis, undertand this: You may not be interested in al Qaeda, but al Qaeda is interested in you.
No, not me? you reply. Not me, I’m a peace-loving, non-iedological, live-and-let-live, hyper-tolerant citizen of the world, they don’t hate me or wish me ill!

But are you Muslim? More accurately, are you a radicalized, reactionary Muslim? Because Islamists who bomb and murder don’t care about your gentle, organic-foods lifestyle and your self-congratulatory tolerance culture or your identity politics and they don’t care whether you think Muslims are oppressed or misunderstood or whether you think that Islam itself is the paradigm of religious practice, if religion must be practiced at all. They don’t care whether you oppose the Religious Right, what candidates you vote for or the kind of car you drive.

*and yet, there will always be anonymous moron trolls in comments who claim that I'm a "Republican stooge."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:19 PM

November 05, 2006
"Humiliated, Like Vietnam"

Saddam says that's how we'll leave Iraq. Under which US party's rule is that more likely?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 PM

November 04, 2006
Getting Serious About Iran

Arthur Herman discusses the military option.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:41 AM

Don't Give Up Hope Yet

...or abandon the Iraqis. John Podhoretz says that Ralph Peters is wrong to throw in the towel.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:47 AM

November 03, 2006
Cause, Or Effect?

From a comment in this post:

AQ thrives on war and chaos.

(Implying that we've actually empowered Al Qaeda by removing Saddam, and that all the other problems in the world as well are, as usual, Amerikkka's fault).

This is a fascinating statement. The last time that I recall Al Qaeda "thriving" was in Afghanistan, under the Taliban. Then, they had training camps, were training people by the hundreds, and were able to plan and execute things like 9/11.

I don't think that they're thriving in Iraq today, unless by "thriving," you mean losing hundreds of Hirabis monthly. Much is made of the loss of American troops, and the deaths of civilians, but there's much less reporting of the deaths of the Al Qaeda types, or it's mixed in with the "civilian" deaths. Their current losses aren't sustainable, and I think that they've ramped up the action only in hopes of influencing the US election. The only place they're winning, really, is in the western media (just as was the case for the North Vietnamese in Tet).

The fact that they're capable of causing chaos (unfortunately, it's much easier to cause chaos than otherwise--entropy's a bitch) doesn't mean that they "thrive" on it. Believe me, they'd much prefer a stable government that they controlled. They certainly don't have that now in Iraq. In fact, the majority Shia government is starting to hunt them down and make their lives thoroughly miserable.

Is this a disaster for Iraq? Perhaps.

Is it a disaster for the US? Only if we're unwilling to accept any casualties whatsoever--by any previous standards of war, they remain low.

Is it a victory for Al Qaeda?

Only if we elect the Dems, and pull out.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:23 PM

So Much For No WMD

Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, and was only a year away from a bomb. Less than a week before the election, the New York Times says so.

[Update about noon EST]

I thought that the tongue in cheek was obvious, but I guess not. The point of the post was that the Times was reporting it the way they did, when they did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:28 AM

Not Jihadis

We should be calling them Hirabis. Interesting.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AM

Inevitable, And Soon

John Keegan says that Israel will have to take out Hezbollah's tunnels in a renewal of the war in Lebanon, probably by the end of the year.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:20 AM

What Is A "Moderate" Muslim?

An interesting discussion over at Winds of Change. Meanwhile, Andrew Bolt says that Australian Muslims have failed the test, and he's fed up.

Oh, and the Dems will be happy to know that they have the Jihadi vote wrapped up. They could usefully ask themselves why that might be the case.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:41 AM

November 02, 2006
Throwing In The Towel

Ralph Peters has given up on Iraq. For the sake of the Iraqis, and the larger war effort, I hope he's wrong.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:21 AM

November 01, 2006
The Stakes

Donald Sensing, on Al Qaeda strategy (such as it is) in Iraq.

[Update about 11 AM EST]

Democrat Orson Scott Card doesn't trust his party with power in war time:

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

That seems unlikely to happen if they're rewarded with a return to power now, something that they haven't earned by their behavior or attitudes. Sadly, neither party deserves to win.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 AM

October 30, 2006
Rape Is Fine With Them

Here's a depressing story. The rape-condoning Aussie Imam retains support not only in his country (he's lived in Australia for almost a quarter of a century, but doesn't speak any English), but in Britain as well:

Al-Hilaly, in his sermon, also caused offence by saying women were mostly to blame for adultery. 'When it comes to adultery, it's 90 per cent the woman's responsibility,' he said. 'Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction.'
Waleed Aly, a spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria, condemned al-Hilali and called for his resignation, saying his views sought to normalize immoral sexual behaviour.

'We would have liked to have seen some form of fairly strong censure just given the magnitude and the gravity of the comments,' Aly said.

But other prominent Australian Muslims refused to criticise the mufti. Imam Abdul Jalil Sajid, the chairman of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, who is visiting Australia, sprang to the mufti's defence. 'I know he is one of the greatest Muslim scholars on earth and Australia is blessed with him,' Sajid said.

This is a culture that is simply incompatible with a liberal democracy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:33 AM

October 25, 2006
"In The Midst Of A Civil War"

No, not in Iraq (thought that may be the case). In France. Charles Martel spins in his grave.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PM

October 24, 2006
Indecisive

Rich Lowry nails Bush's biggest problem, and flaw:

For a president who talks so much about being a wartime leader and whose administration so emphasizes the prerogatives of the executive, Bush has been an oddly passive commander in chief. He often seems to be run by his government rather than the other way around. He rarely fires anyone. His deference to his generals is near total. He hasn’t acted at key moments to resolve debilitating bureaucratic battles within his administration. He might be the “decider,” but his deciding hasn’t reached down far enough to see that his strategic decisions are effectively implemented.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:13 AM

October 23, 2006
Changing Strategy

Phil Carter has some recommendations for a new approach in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:13 AM

October 22, 2006
Cooking The Numbers

How Lancet did it this time, according to Strategy Page.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:31 PM

How To Treat A Criminal

Imagine someone in your neighborhood who was, shall we say, less than a model citizen.

He malnourishes his kids and allows them no contact with the outside world. He locks them up in the house, often chaining them in the basement, and if they attempt to escape, when he's lucky enough to have the neighbors return them to him, he beats them, often to death. Sometimes he even kidnaps the neighbors' children, and treats them similarly. Little justification is required for punishment, often brutal. Sometimes nothing more than disrespect toward him (which could merely of insufficient continual praise), or even looking out the window at the neighbors, brings down the blows.

He has no job. He makes a living by selling drugs and by counterfeiting. He also collects guns, and supplements his income by threatening the neighbors with bodily harm if they don't give him money and food, which he then eats himself, and uses the money to buy porn, while continuing to neglect his children, except those who are willing to join in the abuse and help protect him from the neighbors and police. He repeatedly promises to give up the weapons if he gets enough loot, but he never keeps the promises, and simply continues to accumulate them. He is obviously beyond rehabilitation.

What would we do with such a man?

Isn't it obvious? We would never have allowed it to even get this far. We would arrest him, and try and imprison (if not execute) him for his multiple horrible crimes, and take his children away.

But what if he had some of the older children standing at the window, behind armor, with guns and firebombs aimed at the neighbors, with threats to start killing them and burning their houses if such an attempt was made? What would we do then?

In case anyone hasn't guessed by now, I'm describing the government/thugocracy of the so-called "Democratic" so-called "Peoples" so-called "Republic" of Korea.

Why do we tolerate this regime? Why is it a member in good standing in the UN? Why, rather than negotiating with it, are we not coming up with plans to remove it?

Because the extortion works. The South Koreans fear the onslaught of artillery on Seoul that would result from a war, and both they and the Chinese fear the social and economic cost of supporting the regime's starving masses. But if ever there was a case for liberating a people this is it. While they didn't do it universally in Iraq (and of course, only people unfamiliar with the actual history claim that anyone thought they would), liberating the North Koreans would result in flowers being thrown at us. If they hadn't all ready eaten them, that is.

But a sadder reason is that we've elevated the notion of "national sovereignty" to too high a level. China fears that if the puppy eater is removed on the basis of his abuse of his people, they could be next. The UN has become a club to coddle dictators, because our entrance criteria are set so low. They will all protect each other, fearing that if they don't hang together they will hang separately. All of which, of course, points up, once again, the uselessness of the institution, at least in terms of maintaining the peace, or protecting human rights.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:22 AM

October 16, 2006
In The Face Of Islam

"Fjordman" has some recommendations for the West.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:48 AM

October 14, 2006
Wishful Thinking?

I haven't had much to say about the latest Lancet ~~fabrication~~study, but Jane Galt has an interesting post, with a lot of comments.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:05 PM

October 13, 2006
The Passive Voice Of The Press

Michael Rubin makes a good point:

A McClatchy story yesterday read, “Nearly 2,700 Iraqi civilians were killed in the city in September.” Well, who killed them? Baathist insurgents or Iranian-backed militias? If the public read that Iranian-backed militias killed nearly 2700 civilians, we might be less willing to reward their murderers. From today’s New York Times: “Most of the 500 municipal workers who have been killed here since 2005 have been trash collectors.” Again, someone did the killing. Why hide it?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:15 AM

A Scientific Breakthrough

Apparently North Korea has come up with a way of developing a clean nuclear weapon. Radiation-sniffing planes have so far come up with nothing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:29 AM

October 10, 2006
Looking More And More Like...

...a dud. Which gives, some, but not much, comfort. It's nice to know that neither their missiles or their bombs work. So far.

That doesn't, of course, mean that we should ignore it. I've always thought that a sincere attempt at murder, even if incompetent, would merit the same punishment as achieving one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:46 PM

September 29, 2006
Focus On The Real Enemy

The Bull Moose has some words of wisdom for his fellow Democrats, which they will probably continue to ignore. And thereby continue to lose elections.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AM

September 28, 2006
Ramadanadingdong

Why are these riots, in the capital of the EU, not getting any coverage? When it is reported, why only say "of North African descent"? Can't Reuters or AP at least fake a photo? And this should be of great concern:

The authorities are especially nervous since the Belgian municipal elections are being held on Sunday October 8th. It is likely that the elections will be won by anti-immigrant, “islamophobic” parties. Since ramadan will not be over on October 8th and many immigrants might perceive a victory of the indigenous right (as opposed to their own far-right) as an insult, Muslim indignation over the election results in major cities may spark serious disturbances. According to a poll published today the Vlaams Belang party is set to win 38.6% of the vote in Antwerp (compared to 33.0% in the previous municipal elections six years ago).

Sharia is coming, unless the Europeans grow a spine.

LGF has more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 AM

September 27, 2006
Say I'm Peaceful Or I'll Kill You

More on the irony of the Muslim world's reaction to the Pope's speech.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:16 AM

September 26, 2006
Islamophilia

Lileks condenses all of the foolishness of the multi-culti left on our war of cultures into one neat column:

See, the real problem is the West and its bluenose brigade, its Wal-Marts and Hummers and Big Gulp lifestyles. The Christianists, as some clever equivocators call them, are an impediment to Utopia as great as the terrorists. No less a philosopher than Rosie O'Donnell said so on "The View" recently, proclaiming Christian fundamentalists and Islamicists equal threats to America. They're both judgmental — boo, hiss! — and that makes them equal.
O'Donnell had a point, one supposes. Using the legislative process to pass faith-based initiatives, driving jets into skyscrapers: madness, everywhere.

At the risk of making a generalization: The secular right seems more tolerant of Christianity, and skeptical toward large swaths of Islam. The secular left often seems annoyed and contemptuous towards American religion — unless the pastor on the dais insists Jesus would have been a board member of Planned Parenthood — and oddly protective of Islam. Not because they believe in it; heavens, no. Some progressives are simply besotted by any civilization not their own.

Others have no vocabulary to oppose its more radical manifestations, because, well, we cannot judge other cultures. (Unless they're in the American South.) Others are less concerned by Islamicists because they have greater dislike for the people who oppose radical Islam, who are probably bigots. (Boo, hiss!) When those theo-neos get tough on radical Islam, it's just a convenient mask for their dislike of the Scary Non-Christian Dusky Hordes. Besides, what about the Crusades and the Inquisition? Huh? OK, then.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:48 AM

September 21, 2006
Why Are We Afraid?

Hard to disagree, at least for me:

Culturally and religiously we are on the defensive in this War on Terror. And it makes no sense to me. We accept immoral expressions of outrage by Muslims across the world and yet fail to have any of our own justified moral indignation at their actions. Instead we apologize for causing their reactions. Perhaps I should apologize to my four year old for his little temper tantrum this morning and for the time he slugged his sister in the face with a toy.
We hold the high ground - we believe in individual liberty, we believe in religious tolerance, we believe in women’s rights, we believe in a narrow window for the just use of war - and we should not be afraid to stand tall and to express our outrage at the insane reactions we are seeing across the Muslim world. In fact their actions prove the point made previously in Danish cartoons and the quote from Pope Benedict. It is all well and good to be sensitive but it is quite another thing when Muslims actually manifest what we criticize. It is quite another thing when there is lack of reciprocity in Muslim treatment of Jews and Christians. They have yet to practice what they preach - except for the spread of Islam by the sword and the convert or be killed part.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AM

September 18, 2006
"A Stupid War"

Michael Totten has an interesting interview with an Israeli about Lebanon and Israeli politics.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:53 AM

September 17, 2006
An Open Letter To The Pope

From Catholic Ed Morrissey:

If Islam is ever to peacefully co-exist with other faiths in the manner that Christendom finally learned how to do, then it has to start abiding questions and criticisms without resorting to violence. Islam has to learn to persuade and to attract people through reason, not through forced conversions and coexistence through violent supremacy. Muslim leaders around the world still believe that our faith can only exist at their sufferance, and any question of their doctrinal beliefs has to be met with violence or demands for apologies, not with rhetoric, facts, and reason.

I've heard no denunciations from any Muslim of the forced conversions of the Fox News reporters a couple weeks ago. If anyone is aware of any, please let me know.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 PM

A Sad Age

Victor Davis Hanson has thoughts on Oriana Fallaci and the Pope.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 AM

September 16, 2006
Nonviolence

How could the "Religion of Peace™" be against what the Pope said?

Glenn Reynolds explains.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PM

We Must Prevail

Ed Koch is concerned that we're losing our will to win the war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:09 AM

No Apologies

Tigerhawk talks about the infantilization of seething Muslims by condescending western elites:

Neither the pope nor the Muslim clerics are the only actors here. Tens of thousands of Muslims chose to act in violence or condone violence yesterday. Millions more supported them in this, the evidence being that Muslim politicians jumped on the bandwagon. These millions of Muslims are hardly candles in the wind, helplessly manipulated by the imams. They chose their religion. They chose their mosque. They chose not to "listen carefully" to the words of the pope. They chose to take to the streets in rage, and they chose to burn and attack and kill perfectly innocent people, all on the say-so of one or another demagogue in a turbin. They are not children, however much the cultural relativists who absolve the rioters and their sympathizers infantalize them. I condemn these people for making bad choices; liberals, such as the editors of the New York Times, refuse to condemn them because they believe that Muslims are incapable of choices. I may deplore the choices of these rioting Muslims, but the New York Times holds them in contempt, regarding them as nothing more than wild animals. Just as we all blame humans who antagonize an animal into a violent response, the New York Times blames Westerners who "sow pain," as if Muslims have the free will of a cornered wolf.
For my part, I am sick of "Muslim rage." Whether inspired by the pope or Danish cartoonists or the clumsy use of the word "crusade" by a Western politician, there is simply no defense for the behavior of these imams and their followers. It is barbaric, and everybody who is not barbaric or an unreconstructed apologist for barbarians knows it. The Muslims who commit arson and mayhem in response to some Westerner speaking his opinion -- and the pope, as leader of the Roman church, is exactly that -- have chosen to act as enemies of reason, peace, and everything that is good in the world.

...Islam needs jihad, which I understand means "struggle." It needs a jihad against illiteracy. It needs a jihad against ignorance. It needs a jihad against sloth. It needs a jihad against corruption. It needs a jihad in support of women, without whom it cannot succeed in the modern world. It needs a jihad against the clerics who have -- allegedly, according to "moderates" -- perverted the truth of its religion. It needs a jihad against its governments -- secular and Islamic -- who have destroyed the future for more than a billion people. It needs a jihad against despair.

Until I see the arsonists and rioters among Muslims embracing these jihads, I will hold them responsible for the bad choices that they make, including the choice to reject secular education, the choice to destroy rather than construct, the choice to dwell in the past instead of dream about the future, the choice to obsess about Jews rather than wonder how they might emulate the Jews, and the choice to have so little confidence in the power of their own religion that they oppress and condemn and kill those who choose otherwise.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:28 AM

September 14, 2006
Absurdity

I've been listening to this fight between the Senate and the White House over clarifying what Common Article III means.

You know, I'm open to the argument that we should follow the Geneva Conventions because it's the right thing to do and right way to behave, but the argument that we should do it to ensure good treatment of our own troops is simply laughable in the real world (and I suspect that most of those in uniform think so, too). When is the last time we fought an enemy that actually obeyed the Geneva Conventions?

And of course, I think that it's a perverse travesty, and counterproductive of the purpose of the conventions, to reward people who trample on them by treating them under their provisions. All we do thereby is encourage them in their barbarity. That is a Supreme Court decision that needs to be revisited.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:38 PM

Shocking

Amnesty International is actually accusing Hezbollah of war crimes. After all these years of bashing Israel and the US, and ignoring the other side, has it decided to finally do something to try to reestablish its credibility?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:30 AM

"A Volcano Of Terror"

Michael Totten has a fascinating report about life on the Gaza front, where the place seems like a hellish bedlam, run by the inmates:

“I will take you to Karni," he said. "But you cannot see the tunnel. It is inside the Palestinian territory. One kilometer inside. You understand? It is one kilometer inside the Palestinian territory." In other words, the tunnel diggers are determined. They will spend Lord only knows how many hours digging and digging and digging, knowing most tunnels are discovered before they're completed, just on the off chance that they'll make it all the way into Israel and get to maybe kill one or two people.
“One more thing I want to say," he said. "We will not stop the military action until Gilad Shalit comes back to us. But -- and I say this to the press all the time -- if there will be silence on our side for our villages it will be quiet on the Palestinian side.”

"How many soldiers have been killed since Gilad Shalit was kidnapped?" I said.

“All the year, before Gilad Shalit, no one. In the Shalit event, two soldiers died. And after that one more soldier died from friendly shooting. That’s all. So this is the big question for them. The spokesman of the government for Palestinians three days ago said the same thing I say all the time. For what? For what? For three soldiers who were killed in Gaza. In all the year something like 500 terrorists died in Gaza. So for what? The organizations of terror need to understand that it’s not worth it for them. And they can choose. We left the territory in the Gaza Strip, so it’s up to them. We will not stop the Qassam only with military pressure. They need to decide that they want to stop it. And if they will stop the Qassams, if they will stop the terror, free Gilad Shalit, we won’t have anything to fight about. And Karni will be open more. And everything will be better for them, not for us. This is the question. This is the biggest question, I think. And if you have time to read what the spokesman for Hamas government said, I think he can replace me.” He laughed. “Yeah? This is the truth. He is a good man.”

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:37 AM

September 13, 2006
You'll Be Very Relieved To Know

...that people in Iran wear seatbelts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:11 AM

September 11, 2006
The Long War

[Note: This post will remain at the top all day, so if you're on a return trip, you might want to scroll down to see if there's any new stuff below.]

Michael Ledeen is still angry. I never was. But then, I didn't lose anyone I personally knew.

It's always chancy to try to recollect emotions from an event five years on, but thinking back to that day in San Juan, watching the first tower burning, I don't recall anger. When I saw the second plane strike the second tower, the only feeling that I had, I think, was resignation, along with the instant knowledge that we were now at war, in a way that we had never been in my lifetime. This, I thought, was what it was like for my grandparents (whose age I was closest to when the event occurred for them) when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I remember a sense of foreboding, and wondering what the future held. On a more practical and personal note, I remember wondering when and how I would get back to California, since all flights in the US would surely be grounded soon, including the one that I was about to depart to the airport to catch.

That earlier war, at least for my parents and grandparents, lasted less than four years (though for Asia and Europe it was much longer). Last year I wrote an essay on the fourth anniversary comparing the two wars. I still think it holds up well (or at least as well as it did the last time). Here's a replay:

For better or worse, other than my postings on space policy, to the degree that I've any repute at all, I've become best known in the blogosphere through spoofing the modern media by showing how they would have reported an earlier war. A war that, instead of being kicked off (at least for us) by a surprise attack on New York on a sunny Tuesday morning in September, was kicked off (at least for us) by a surprise attack on a sunny Sunday morning on Oahu, Hawai'i.

On the first anniversary of that attack, it was just a month after the US invasion of northern Africa, to take on Rommel's Afrika Korps, on the heels of the British and Allied victory at El Alamein. Earlier that year, in the summer, we had engaged in the first all-US air attack on Europe. It would only be a few days before we would first learn of massacres of Jews by the Nazi SS.

On the other side of the world, in the Pacific, on that very day we were establishing a beachhead in Buna, New Guinea, and engaged in bloody ground and naval warfare to evict the Japanese forces from Guadalcanal, following up on our landmark victory over the Imperial Japanese Navy at Midway in the summer.

And five days before that anniversary in 1942, a physics professor named Enrico Fermi first set up a secret laboratory in Chicago to build the world's first nuclear reactor, to manufacture the fuel needed for the first nuclear weapons.

On the first anniversary of September 11, we had removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, and were preparing to expand the war into the Middle East itself, with plans advancing to remove the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein from power, and in his place establish a beachhead for democracy in the very heart of Arabia.

On the second anniversary of Pearl Harbor, we were engaged in continuing island-by-island warfare in the Pacific, with fierce fighting in the Gilbert Islands, Tarawa and other places, seeing the Japanese forces in a slow and bloody retreat. In Europe, Mussolini's Italy had fallen to Allied forces and changed allegiances two months before, declaring war on Nazi Germany. A week and a half before, on November 28th, 1943, the three Allied leaders--Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin--had met in Teheran, Iran, and determined to continue the war and liberate France. They also elicited a pledge from Stalin to join the war in the Pacific once Germany was defeated (which turned out in retrospect to be a lousy deal, as he clearly had not only no interest, but an opposition to a free post-war Europe).

In September, 2003, we had deposed Saddam, and were commemorating the second anniversary of the attack on the twin towers. But unfortunately, it became clear at that point that much of the media no longer took the war seriously, based on the foolish themes that appeared in their stories at the time, and their actions in almost avoiding remembrance. I mocked them with this piece, demonstrating how they would have covered the second anniversary of the US at war.

In early December, 1944, three years after Pearl Harbor, we were liberating northwest Europe, and advancing on Germany. The last major German counterattack of the war, the so-called Battle of the Bulge, would occur in less than two weeks (events relating to which would have been covered by today's media like this, and this). In the Pacific, we were starting to attack the Japanese homeland by air on a regular basis, and the bloody invasion of the island of Iwo Jima by US Marines, that would last several carnage-filled weeks, would begin the following day, on December 8th, with an initial naval bombardment.

On September 11, 2004, no one was paying much attention to what was happening in the war, because much of the media was engaged in trying to drag the rotting carcass of John Kerry's presidential campaign across the finish line. The only war coverage was that of the daily attacks on our troops and the Iraqi people by the "insurgents" (many of whom were foreign saboteurs sent across the border into Iraq from Syria and Saudi Arabia, and supplied by Iran--three nations with whom we are at war, a reality that the administration remains unwilling to publicly acknowledge). But rather than attacking the president on this legitimate issue, the media preferred to prop up Dan Rather's pathetic story about the president's national guard service, while ignoring the many legitimate issues about Senator Kerry's Vietnam record, both during and after his tour of duty.

On the fourth anniversary of Pearl Harbor, the war was over.

It had ended in Europe in May of 1945, and in the Pacific almost exactly sixty years ago, with the signing of the surrender treaty with the Japanese on the deck of the Missouri in Tokyo Harbor. There were storm clouds on the horizon, due to Stalin's perfidy, but a relieved nation had fought off what was perceived to be an existential threat, with many military casualties (though nowhere near as many as other participants), and virtually unscathed on the home front (unlike much of Europe and Asia, in which many millions of civilians died, most quite brutally), and wanted to get back to normal life.

But four years after September 11th, and now five years, we remain at war with another totalitarian ideology (and one that is in some ways an offspring of the Nazis, in both its hatred of those unlike the holders of it, and particularly of the Jews). And we've never been compelled, as a nation, to take this war as seriously as we were that one. There has been no draft, and despite daily death counts from the media, and parading bereaved mothers as proxies for their own war against the administration, there have not been thousands of gold stars in windows across the nation--the US casualties in the entire war to date would be dwarfed by those of any number of single battles in the second world war. As Lileks wrote two years ago, this war has a much different feel to it:

The old wars were simple: the other side had accents, uniforms, nations, cruel habits and urbane sneers. The old wars took years. The old wars were in black and white. The old wars were monophonic, scored by Max Steiner, released by Warner Brothers, and the only proof they really happened at all was the small battered box in the back of Dad’s sock drawer, the box that held some oddly colored metal bars.

Out of political correctness, the president continues to misname this war as one against a tactic--"terror," instead of one against an ideology that wants to ultimately impose itself on the entire world (though that has started to slowly change, as he starts to call it what it is--a new form of totalitarianism and fascism). Such, in fact, is the political correctness of the times that we could, last year, actually contemplate honoring the first Americans to fight back against it, five years ago, with a memorial that looks like this. Can anyone imagine the equivalent sixty years ago--a memorial to the USS Arizona stylized to look like a rising sun?

We've not been asked to sacrifice, either on a governmental level (the pork continues to flow in highway and energy bills), or on a personal level (rather than being asked to save tinfoil and plant "victory gardens", the populace was advised to go out and win one against Osama by going to the mall).

Five years ago, the big news was shark attacks, and a missing woman. We were at war, but didn't know it. It took a sudden enemy attack, on a cloudless morning, to (at least momentarily) wake us from our national lethargy. This year, the sharks and missing girl were knocked out of the news not by an enemy attack, but by a natural disaster, nature and entropy being entities with which we have warred since the dawn of history and before, and ones over which we only gradually gain the upper hand, and will probably never completely conquer.

But if we didn't know that we were at war on September 10th, 2001, the enemy did. They still do. We must not forget it again, until they are decisively defeated, as we defeated the brutal Nazis and the Japanese imperialists sixty years ago, even if it takes decades.

I wasn't angry then, and I'm not angry now. But I am resolved.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:59 PM

The Luxury Of Nonresponsibility

Instapunk has some useful thoughts on the deranged Bush haters.

Only one of the 300 million people who live in America wake up every day to a briefing from the nation's intelligence agencies about what threats might become reality today. That's a fact. The man's name is George W. Bush.
I'm NOT saying this makes him immune from criticism. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Forget all the invective about his cowardice or shirking of military duty when he was a twenty-something. Five years of such briefings would be enough to give most of us Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's probably the case that the President of the United States has been damaged by what he's been through. It's the most obvious explanation conceivable for why the White House seems so slow to respond to the daily firestorms the mass media engender. My guess is, not too many of us would want to be living inside George W. Bush's head right now. It's too much. For anyone. He needs advice and constructive criticism and thoughtful opposition. But who -- and I'm including all of you in this -- is served by characterizing the advice, criticism, and opposition as the obvious response to a criminal idiot?

Though I myself am slow to anger, and relatively unemotional, I'm glad that I didn't have to make the decisions for the past five years.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:13 PM

America The Brave

Brit (and space buff) Gareth Slee has a tribute to the NY firefighters.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:02 AM

Into Whacked-Out Conspiracy Theories?

Brendan O'Neill has found some folks who are turned all the way up to eleven on them:

Sitting on the comfy couch, their cups of tea in hand, they try to convince me that the 11 September 2001 attacks were executed by elements in the west who wanted to launch wars and "make billions upon trillions of dollars".
"We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true," says Shayler. "The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire; they were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane." Machon nods. In black trousers and black top, this sophisticated blonde in her late thirties comes across more like a schoolmarm than a 9/11 anorak. "The Pentagon's anti-missile defence system would definitely have picked up and dealt with a commercial airliner. We can only assume that whatever hit the Pentagon was sending a friendly signal. A missile fired by a US military plane would have sent a friendly signal." She says this in a kind of Anna Ford-style newsreader's voice, as if she were speaking the truth and nothing but the truth. She takes another sip of tea.

Say the phrase "conspiracy theorist" (but don't say it to Shayler and Machon if you can help it, because they angrily deny being conspiracy theorists) and most people will think of those nutty militiamen in redneck areas of America who hate Big Government, or of taxi drivers with possibly anti-Semitic leanings in some hot, dusty backwater of the Middle East who revel in telling western clients in particular: "America and the Jew did 9/11." Yet, here in Highgate, I am talking to a man and woman who have worked in the British secret services and who, together with their landlady Belinda, a professional linguist, truly believe that American elements facilitated 9/11 in order to "justify their adventurism in oil-rich countries in the Middle East", in Shayler's words. Here we have a new kind of conspiracy theorist: the chattering conspiracist, respectable, well-read, articulate, but, I regret to report, no less cranky than those rednecks and misguided Kabul cabbies.

Amazing.

[Late afternoon update]

Jim Robbins finds another refugee from Toontown:

Meyssan's purpose is to uncover a much deeper plot of the United States against the world. He reveals other interesting facts, like bin Laden was an agent of the U.S. who was used by President Bush to destroy secret CIA offices in the World Trade Towers. Seems like a lot of effort — when Stansfield Turner wanted to do it he just fired a bunch of guys. And if the WTC planes were part of the plan, and presumably also United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania, why go to the trouble of fabricating a strike on the Pentagon instead of just using another aircraft like the missing Flight 77? At some point Occam's Razor has to come into play. But to the tortured mind of Meyssan, whose other causes include hard anti-Catholicism and "rejection of a return to a moral order" it probably makes a lot of sense.
Today is Yom Hashoah, the Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust, and Meyssan's theory fits neatly with those of the Holocaust deniers. In both cases, the premises of their originators are indefensible, which forces them into a position where they have to throw the facts overboard to sustain their arguments. But notions like this are kept alive by people who have a predisposition to believe them, those who have pre-existing grudges and will engage in whatever reality-denying behavior justifies their baseline prejudices. For example, it is already widely believed in the Middle East that Sept. 11 was not perpetrated by bin Laden but by the Mossad, the CIA, or some other group, in order to give the United States a pretext to intervene in the region. Meyssan's theory is a qualitative step beyond the idea that al Qaeda was not behind the attacks — he denies that the attack on the Pentagon even happened, at least not "the way the government says it did." This story is certain to find fertile soil in some of the more radical quarters, especially among those that both deny the Holocaust happened and wish it had been more effective. For example Ibrahim Abu-al-Naja, the first deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, who complained about how the world was going to make the Palestinians "pay the price for what happened to [the Jews], if indeed anything had happened to them." Or the recent editorial on WAFA, the Palestinian Authority news service, that admitted that a few Jews went to the gas chambers, but "about whose number there is some ambiguity." (WAFA had no trouble counting the 12 million Native Americans allegedly exterminated in the 17th-19th centuries.) If Meyssan has any sense at all, he will rush out an Arabic edition pronto.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AM

He's Dead, Jim

I agree with Jonah:

While I don't subscribe to so-called ass-brained theories that Bin Laden never existed, I am coming around to the view that he's dead as Michael Ledeen has suggested. I mean why wouldn't Bin Laden issue a video for the five year anniversary of 9/11?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:22 AM

Continuing To Shed Innocence

Hitchens says that it will get worse before it gets better (particularly because we don't seem to be able to unite before the enemy), and it's too early for commemorations:

The time for commemoration lies very far in the future. War memorials are erected when the war is won. At the moment, anyone who insists on the primacy of September 11, 2001, is very likely to be accused--not just overseas but in this country also--of making or at least of implying a "partisan" point. I debate with the "antiwar" types almost every day, either in print or on the air or on the podium, and I can tell you that they have been "war-weary" ever since the sun first set on the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and on the noble debris of United Airlines 93. These clever critics are waiting, some of them gleefully, for the moment that is not far off: the moment when the number of American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq will match or exceed the number of civilians of all nationalities who were slaughtered five years ago today. But to the bored, cynical neutrals, it also comes naturally to say that it is "the war" that has taken, and is taking, the lives of tens of thousands of other civilians. In other words, homicidal nihilism is produced only by the resistance to it! If these hacks were honest, and conceded the simple truth that it is the forces of the Taliban and of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that are conducting a Saturnalia of murder and destruction, they would have to hide their faces and admit that they were not "antiwar" at all.

Steven Den Beste has related thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AM

Stupidity

We can have a war on drugs (which is absolutely unwinnable) or a war against the Jihadis, but it's nuts to think that we can have both.

Want a criticism of the Bush administration? Here's one: the blindness of the drug warriors is appalling, and has set us back dramatically in the real war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:55 AM

September 10, 2006
Another Tuesday, September 11

Four-hundred-and-forty-one years ago:

The lessons for us today, almost five centuries hence, are equally important. The same enemy exists today. Instead of galleys he uses airliners, and instead of Janissaries he uses suicide bombers. He hates and fears western civilization, and seeks to convert or enslave us. We have to meet him and engage him everywhere he is, just as the Knights did. What it will take to win against him is what it took to win at Malta: preparation, skill at arms, leadership, and above all faith and an iron will.

This has truly been a long war, and no immediate end is in sight.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:04 AM

September 09, 2006
Refuse to be Terrified

Terrorism is not a leading cause of death. As Tierney notes in his column today (subscription required):

Outside of Afghanistan and Iraq,” [John Mueller, author of Overblown] says, “the number of people killed around the world since Sept. 11 by groups in sympathy with Al Qaeda is not that high. These are horrible and disgusting deaths, but they’re not a sign of a diabolically effective organization. The total is less than the number of Americans who drowned in bathtubs during this period.”
As it is, he figures, the odds of an American being killed by international terrorism are about one in 80,000. And even if there were attacks on the scale of Sept. 11 every three months for the next five years, the odds for any individual dying would be one in 5,000.

Get over the fear and refuse to be terrified and the terrorists have lost. For more comps, read on.

In 2001, terrorism in America killed about as many people as category E66 "Obesity" according to US mortality tables and thousands of people fewer each year since. Half as many as F10 "Mental and behavioral disorders due to use of alcohol (F10)". Seems like our dependence on foreign alcohol and chocolate is causing death. Jerry's kids with MS warrant one weekend a year and they die 3,000/year.

So now that it's been 5 years, terrorism has still only killed 3,000 in the US and we are down to 600/year over the past 5 years. Like Thrombosis (I74) which suggests letting people get out of their seats on airplanes. Terrorism kills about as many as "Exposure to excessive natural cold (X31)". How about a war on stranglers (X91) which kills 690 per year.

3,000/year out of 2,400,000 is one in 800/year. 600/year is one in 4,000/year.

A 3,000 person attack every three months forever would be 12,000 dead/year out of approximately 2.5 million dead per year or a one in 200 lifetime chance of dying from terrorism.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 10:15 AM

September 05, 2006
Good For Mitt Romney

He gives Khatami exactly the amount of respect he deserves:

Governor Mitt Romney today ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area, where he is scheduled to speak at Harvard University.
“State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel,” said Romney.

Romney’s action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town. The federal government provides security through the U.S. State Department.

Romney criticized Harvard for honoring Khatami by inviting him to speak, calling it “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.”

I'm not a Republican, but if he wins the nomination, this will count a lot for me in 2008.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:54 PM

September 04, 2006
Birds Of A Feather

Gerry Adams is meeting with Hamas.

Reminds me of the old joke about the guy walking down the street in Ulster, when he feels the barrel of a gun against the back of his neck.

"Now would you be Protestant, or would you be Catholic?"

Thinking quickly, he says, "I'm a Jew!"

There's a pause, and then, "Begorrah, and I'm the luckiest Palestinian in Belfast."

And then there's the variation.

"So, then would you be a Protestant Jew, or a Catholic Jew...?"

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:36 AM

September 03, 2006
Creating More Terrorists

I'm sure that any minute, we'll see editorials railing against radical Islamists about this:

FAR-RIGHT extremists have adopted the tactics of Islamic jihadis by posting videos on the internet in which they threaten to behead British Muslims.
The films show balaclava-clad white British men brandishing guns, knives and clubs, calling on all Muslims to leave Britain or be killed. One appears to be a soldier who has served in the Gulf.

In one film, a man tells Muslims to "go home" or risk being burned alive. He threatens, "I'll cut your head off", and claims to have "comrades" across Britain who have "had enough".

Any minute now.

[SOUND="Crickets Chirping"]

[/SOUND]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:29 PM

Iranians Love America

And aren't that thrilled with their government. Someone at the WaPo (in the travel section) got off script:

What took place over the next fortnight astonished me. Everywhere I went -- from the traffic-choked streets of Tehran in the north to the dusty desert town of Yazd in central Iran, to the elegant cultural centers of Isfahan and Shiraz -- I was overwhelmed by the warmth and, dare I say it, pro-Americanism of the people I met.
Ponder the irony of that last statement for a moment. While much of the rest of the world seems to be holding their collective noses at us Americans, in Iran people were literally crossing the road to shake an American's hand and say hello. Who knew?

Initially, when Iranians asked me where I was from, I'd suggest they guess. But this game quickly proved too time-consuming -- no one ever guessed correctly. So instead I would simply mumble "American." And then their faces would light up. For better or worse, Iranians are avid fans of America: its culture, films, food, music, its open, free-wheeling society.

Which reraises the question. How to punish a rogue, tyrannical government without harming its people?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:36 PM

Prelude To Jihad In America

Walid Phares notes the most recent rejoinder to those who keep their heads in the sand, and don't believe that we are at war with an enemy whose ultimate goal is world domination:

...the “Azzam” video reconfirms clearly, in an English language that academic translators [cough...Juan Cole...cough--ed] won’t be able to distort, that al Qaeda’s movement worldwide and in the United States is seeking total annihilation or conversion of the enemy: American and other democracies.

It also indicates that they know who both their friends, and their enemies are:

Sensationally but not unexpectedly, he “name” a number of intellectual-enemies in this country: Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer and Michael Spencer. Rarely Jihadi Terrorists at this high level media exposure named symbols of their enemy’s intelligentsia. And in addition to “experts” named in the tape, Gadahn goes on a ferocious attack against American “Tele-Evangelists” and their media, showing the other type of foes al Qaeda is very upset with.
...“Azzam” names “sympathetic” personalities for whom he has messages for action; He asks journalist Seymour Hirsh to “reveal more” than what was published in a New Yorker article on the War: Obviously an open call by al Qaeda to M Hirsch to resume the attack against the US War on Terror. Then “Azzam” turn to two British journalists and thank them for their “admiration and respect for Islam” encourage them to do the final step: Convert. He names British MP George Galloway and journalist Robert Fisk. But more troubling in Gadahn’s tape was his direct call to Jihadists within the US Armed forces to work patiently till the time comes and they should continue to aggregate while escaping the surveillance of their military authorities.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that either party is sufficiently serious about the threat, though Bush at least talks a good game once in a while.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 AM

September 02, 2006
Religion Of Peace™ Update

The group that kidnapped and converted the Fox News guys has declared that they will attack all non-Muslims in Gaza and "Palestinian" territories. They call themselves "Holy Jihad Brigades." Gee, consider: names like this, and Hezbollah (Party of God).

Good thing this isn't a religious war. Lord only knows what they'd call themselves if it were.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:17 AM

September 01, 2006
Should I Laugh, Or Cry?

Really, this was just an idle question:

...what would they say at Turtle Bay if Iran offered up "peacekeeping troops" in south Lebanon? Since they don't formally recognize Iran's role in the war, how would they refuse? For that matter, why wouldn't they accept an offer from Syria to help "police" its border with Lebanon?

Well, now we know the answer:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Friday that Syria has pledged to step up border patrols and work with the Lebanese army to stop the flow of weapons to Hezbollah.

Well. That should sort things out.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:42 PM

Who Lost Britain?

Mark Steyn, on a nation that seems willing to fight Islamism everywhere except on its own soil:

But, in a world in which the prospects for the Anglosphere are better than almost anybody else's, there is one bleak exception. At some point soon, we're going to be asking: Who lost Britain? In the weeks after last year's tube bombing, I doubted that the clarion call for a reassertion of "British identity" would last, and so it proved. By the first anniversary, Britain was back in its peculiarly resistant multiculti mush in which the proper reaction to such unfortunate events is to abase oneself ever more abjectly before the gods of cultural relativism. What matters after mass slaughter on the Underground is not the wound to the nation but the potential for hurt feelings of certain minorities. Had the latest disrupted terrorist plot to take down up to ten UK-US airplanes actually succeeded, I'm sure it would have gone much the same--BBC discussion panels on which representatives of Muslim lobby groups warn of outbreaks of Islamophobia. Even as Heathrow and all other British airports were shut down, Shahid Malik, MP for Dewsbury, the neighborhood that produced the July 7th bombers, explained the situation: "The action of Israel and the inaction of the West is contributing to the difficult task of tackling extremism." Deconstruct that--because it's the most artful extension of Jew-blaming in centuries: even Hitler never thought to complain that those bloody Jews were provoking Germans into blowing up their fellow Germans. Of course, it's ludicrous. This plot was well advanced long before the first Israeli strike against Hezbollah--despite the truly contemptible way Reuters, the BBC and other British media outlets inserted reflexively a causal connection.
But suppose Mr. Malik's words were true--that the actions of the Zionist Entity are so repellent they drive British subjects to plot mass murder against their fellow British subjects. What does that imply? That, well before push comes to shove, the primary identity of those nominal "Britons" is not British and never will be.

...On the broader cultural front, where this war in the end will be won, there's little evidence of any kind of will. When one considers the impunity with which the country's incendiary imams incite treason, it requires a perverse genius on the part of Tony Blair to have found the political courage to fight an unpopular war on a distant shore but not the political courage to wage it closer to home where it would have commanded far more support. That's the sad lesson of the July 7th bombings: the British government has a strategy for southern Iraq but not southern England.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:31 AM

August 30, 2006
Just On The Other Side

Melanie Phillips writes about the media war against Israel:

The level of anti-Israel, anti-American madness has reached such a pitch in Britain that any similar expression of alarm at the manifestly blatant mendacity in the reporting of the Middle East has simply become unthinkable. Yet thanks to the efforts of the blogosphere — notably Little Green Footballs, Powerline, Zombietime and EU Referendum, we can see that the behaviour of the western media during the Iranian/Syrian/Hezbollah war against Israel has constituted a major, world-wide scandal, and one which has the capacity to derail the efforts of the west to defend itself.
...In short, much of the most incendiary media coverage of this war seems to have been either staged or fabricated. The big question is why the western media would perpetrate such institutionalised mendacity. Many ancillary reasons come to mind. There is the reliance upon corrupted news and picture agencies which employ Arab propagandists as stringers and cameramen. There is the herd mentality of the media which decides collectively what the story is. There is the journalists’ fear for their personal safety if they report the truth about terrorist outfits. There is the difficulty of discovering the truth from undemocratic regimes and terrorist organisations. There is the language barrier; there is professional laziness; there is the naïve inability to acknowledge the depths of human evil and depravity; there is the moral inversion of the left which believes that western truth-tellers automatically tell lies, while third world liars automatically tell the truth.

But the big answer is that the western media transmit the lies of Hezbollah because they want to believe them. And that’s because the Big Lie these media tell — and have themselves been told — about Israel and its place in history and in the world today has achieved the status of unchallengeable truth. The plain fact is that western journalists were sent to cover the war being waged against Israel from Lebanon as a war being waged by Israel against Lebanon. And that’s because that’s how editors think of the Middle East: that the whole ghastly mess is driven by Israel’s actions, and that therefore it is only Israel’s aggression which is the story to be covered. Thus history is inverted, half a century of Jewish victimisation is erased from public consciousness, victims are turned into aggressors and genocidal mass murderers turned into victims, and ignorance and prejudice stalk England’s once staunch and stalwart land.

"Useful idiots" was the term of art during the Cold War. And Hezbollah found them very useful indeed, as Iran continues to.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:02 PM

August 29, 2006
Are They Muslims?

Donald Sensing has an interesting post (with interesting comments) on what the religious status of Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig is today:

...were the forced confessions of Islam by Centanni and Wiig valid?
I would not count them as valid because there is no reason to believe from the men's reports that they experienced a religious change of heart. That is, the men's confession did not spring from faith in Allah, it was a deed done from fear of their lives.

But, let us remember that the basis of Islam, indeed the very meaning of the word, is "submission," not faith. There is no concept of original sin in Islam as there is in Christianity; indeed, while original sin is the conceptual glue that holds Christian doctrine together, it is entirely rejected in Islam. Christianity teaches that original sin cannot be remitted by any human works, only by the works of God, namely, Christ dying and resurrected. Hence, no deeds human beings can do can bring them to salvation. Thus, wrote St. Paul, "If you believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the dead and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved." Note the order: confession follows a change of heart, an affirmation of belief. Without the change of heart the confession's utterance is of no value.

But in Islam, the confession's utterance is unconnected to a change of heart. In fact, a change of heart is wholly irrelevant. The confession stands alone and its only point is that it is done, not that it is believed. The entire edifice of salvation theory in Islam is built on one thing alone: human submission to perform deeds ordered by Allah. Islam does not teach that Allah desires human beings to love him; they are commanded to obey.

There are a lot of interesting issues here, one of which is that some Christians would consider them insufficiently faithful, in that they valued their life over their faith (this assumes, of course, that both men were/are Christians--it certainly wouldn't apply to me, since I have no faith other than provisional materialism). They might point out the relatively recent example of the young Christian woman at Columbine who refused to renounce her lord at gunpoint, and died.

As one WoC commenter points out, in the mentality of the enemy, we have once again showed ourselves to be weak and insufficiently devoted to our own beliefs (a microcosm of the larger societal problem of a soft multi-cultural post-modern Europe and much of America, unwilling to defend our own values). It was another demonstration of being, in Osama's formulation, the "weak horse." I'm not, of course, saying that the men had some sort of patriotic duty to take a bullet for the team--I certainly wouldn't have, but it's a symptom of just how difficult it will be to win this war, and persuade the enemy that they've lost.

More practically, in many places in the world, including Gaza and the West Bank, these two men are now apostates and liable to be killed under sharia law (remember the Christian convert in Afghanistan?), because they have since renounced their "conversions." I wouldn't go back to the Middle East if I were them. Their statements of encouragement for other reporters to continue to cover Gaza and "tell the story of the Palestinian people" (is that really the job of a so-called objective news reporter?) may sound nice to PC western ears, but it will have little effect in making the region safer for them, or others. Such words will also be interpreted as a sign of weakness by the enemy.

And I should say that I find tedious the argument that, because there were forced Christian conversions in history (e.g., during the Crusades and the Inquisition), Christians are hypocritical in criticizing this. One is history. The other is happening today. The point is that Christianity has largely evolved from a Middle Ages mentality. In the twenty-first century, Islam (or much, too much of Islam) remains firmly within it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 AM

August 28, 2006
Back To The Future

Will the future be like the fifties, in which we have to shop for fallout shelters?

We have stark choices ahead of us. It will be very costly to prevent Iran from getting nukes (and to prevent North Korea from proliferating them). It may be even more costly not to do so. And many on the left seem to have their heads firmly buried in...errr...the sand.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:29 AM

Israel's Tet Offensive, Second Attempt

For some weird reason, the previous post on this topic was drawing spammers like flies to Michael Moore before his semi-annual bath. So if you do have any comments on it, post them here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:02 AM

Being Killed By False Guilt

Shelby Steele has an important essay on the false consciousness of the left, and Europe:

The West is stymied by this extremism because it is used to enemies that want to live. In Vietnam, America fought one whose communism was driven by an underlying nationalism, the desire to live free of the West. Whatever one may think of this, here was an enemy that truly wanted to live, that insisted on territory and sovereignty. But Osama bin Laden fights only to achieve a death that will enshrine him as a figure of awe. The gift he wants to leave his people is not freedom or even justice; it is consolation.
White guilt in the West--especially in Europe and on the American left--confuses all this by seeing Islamic extremism as a response to oppression. The West is so terrified of being charged with its old sins of racism, imperialism and colonialism that it makes oppression an automatic prism on the non-Western world, a politeness. But Islamic extremists don't hate the West because they are oppressed by it. They hate it precisely because the end of oppression and colonialism--not their continuance--forced the Muslim world to compete with the West. Less oppression, not more, opened this world to the sense of defeat that turned into extremism.

But the international left is in its own contest with American exceptionalism. It keeps charging Israel and America with oppression hoping to mute American power. And this works in today's world because the oppression script is so familiar and because American power cringes when labeled with sins of the white Western past. Yet whenever the left does this, it makes room for extremism by lending legitimacy to its claim of oppression. And Israel can never use its military fire power without being labeled an oppressor--which brings legitimacy to the enemies she fights. Israel roars; much of Europe supports Hezbollah.

Fortunately, at least in England, the left may be finally waking up to reality:

It is amazing how a few by-election shocks and some madmen with explosive backpacks can concentrate the mind. At any rate, British citizens, black and white, can move onwards together — towards a sunlit upland of monoculturalism, or maybe zeroculturalism, whatever takes your fancy.
That multiculturalism really is officially dead and buried can be inferred both from Ruth Kelly’s comments last week and, indeed, from the title of the commission that the government had convened in the wake of the July 7 terrorist attacks last year and to which her observations were made.

In fairness, Kelly, the communities and local government secretary, merely posed the question as to whether the creed had resulted in division and alienation. “Have we ended up with some communities living in isolation from each other?” she asked. That she was speaking wholly rhetorically is evident from the title of the commission: the Commission for Integration and Cohesion. You don’t get either of those things with multiculturalism: they are mutually exclusive.

...This is how far we have come in the past year or so. When an ICM poll of Britain’s Muslims in February this year revealed that some 40% (that is, about 800,000 people) wished to see Islamic law introduced in parts of Britain, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality responded by saying that they should therefore pack their bags and clear off. Sir Trevor Phillips’s exact words were these: “If you want to have laws decided in another way, you have to live somewhere else.”

How "racist."

I should note that the author gets one part wrong, though, or at least it's very misleading:

We are not born with a gene that insists we become Muslim or Christian or Rastafarian. We are born, all of us, with a tabula rasa; we are not defined by the nationality or religion or cultural assumptions of our parents. But that was the mindset which, at that time, prevailed.

While it's true (as far as we currently understand) that there's no gene for any specific religion or nationality or culture, we are not born with a tabula rasa. There are innate human traits, one of which is to have some sort of religion and sense of nation and culture. What is a blank slate is which one it will be.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 AM

August 27, 2006
Israel's Tet Offensive?

In an interesting analysis, Dan Gordon writes that Hizbollah lost, and Israel won, except in the press:

What they failed to gain militarily they accomplished through the manipulation of the Western Media, which were their willing dupes and through the ineptitude and weakness, if not down right appeasement of the political leadership of the International community. This has all but guaranteed that this war will be but round one.

As a result, it only delayed the ultimate war, it didn't end it.

[Monday morning update]

I've had to close comments on this post. For some weird reason, it was really attracting spam--I got over two hundred yesterday, and they were continuing to hit me this morning. If you want to comment, go here. Hopefully the male enhancement hawkers won't follow us there.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:53 PM

August 25, 2006
Time For New NGOs

To paraphrase Golda Meir, so-called human rights organizations will be useful when they learn to love human rights more than they hate the US and Israel. Or to paraphrase someone else--they're not in favor of human rights, they're just on the other side.

We need to either reform them (unlikely--it would require a housecleaning so thorough there would be little left) or form some new ones that could be more credible.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:16 PM

Idle Question

Given that some of the nations who have offered troops for the farce that is a ceasefire in Lebanon don't recognize Israel's right to exist (e.g., Malaysia and Indonesia), and the UN itself doesn't seem to have a problem with this, what would they say at Turtle Bay if Iran offered up "peacekeeping troops" in south Lebanon? Since they don't formally recognize Iran's role in the war, how would they refuse? For that matter, why wouldn't they accept an offer from Syria to help "police" its border with Lebanon?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:38 PM

Words Mean Things

Orson Scott Card isn't very happy with his fellow Democrats. I'm sure that it's very frustrating for him to have to defend George Bush, about whom there are a great deal of things worthy of criticism (if so, I certainly share it), but the lunacy of the continuing attacks on him make it necessary.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:09 AM

Did Hezbollah Win?

Amir Taheri thinks not. Michael Young agrees.

Longer term, I suspect that the media is another loser, with continuing self-inflicted blows to its credibility in the wake of the fauxtography and willing (and even eager) acceptance of staged Hezbullah propaganda. I hope so, anyway.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 AM

August 24, 2006
Overreaction

Bruce Schneier says that our mindless reactions to terrorist plots is a victory for them in itself:

Regardless of the threat, from the would-be bombers' perspective, the explosives and planes were merely tactics. Their goal was to cause terror, and in that they've succeeded.
Imagine for a moment what would have happened if they had blown up 10 planes. There would be canceled flights, chaos at airports, bans on carry-on luggage, world leaders talking tough new security measures, political posturing and all sorts of false alarms as jittery people panicked. To a lesser degree, that's basically what's happening right now.

Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:41 AM

Gee, Ya Think?

The British government may be finally waking up. They're starting to ask if multi-culturalism has been a failure.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:10 AM

Look For Terrorists, Not Weapons

Bob Poole, with whom we had dinner on Saturday, has a column on the current wasteful and ineffective state of airline security. As the Israeli columnist noted a few weeks ago, we've become drugged into a stupor by political correctness.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 AM

August 22, 2006
Well, So Far...

Doomsday isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm sure the end will be along any minute, though...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:10 AM

August 20, 2006
No Teeth In The Bulldog

You know, there was a time in the British Empire that this would be considered an act of war:

The Sunday Telegraph revealed in April that Iranian-made de-vices employing several EFPs, directed at different angles, were being used in Iraq.
And in June, this newspaper obtained the first picture of one of the Iraqi insurgent weapons - designed to fire an armour-piercing EFP - believed to have been responsible for the deaths of 17 British soldiers.

Apparently, for all the talk of the "war mongers" Bush and Blair, war (or at least waging a war that one is actually in, like it or not) has gone out of fashion in the west. And the Iranians and Syrians are taking full advantage of that fact.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 PM

Lighten Up

Roger Scruton says that the problem with Islamists is that they take themselves too seriously:

Now of course it is wrong to give gratuitous offence to people of other faiths; it is right to respect people's beliefs, when these beliefs pose no threat to civil order; and we should extend toward resident Muslims all the toleration and neighborly goodwill that we hope to receive from them. But recent events have caused people to wonder exactly where Muslims stand in such matters. Although Islam is derived from the same root as salaam, it does not mean peace but submission. And although the Koran tells us that there shall be no compulsion in matters of religion, it does not overflow with kindness toward those who refuse to submit to God's will. The best they can hope for is to be protected by a treaty (dhimmah), and the privileges of the dhimmi are purchased by onerous taxation and humiliating rites of subservience. As for apostates, it remains as dangerous today as it was in the time of the prophet publicly to renounce the Muslim faith. Even if you cannot be compelled to adopt the faith, you can certainly be compelled to retain it. And the anger with which public Muslims greet any attempt to challenge, to ridicule or to marginalize their faith is every bit as ferocious as that which animated the murderer of Theo Van Gogh. Ordinary Christians, who suffer a daily diet of ridicule and skepticism, cannot help feeling that Muslims protest too much, and that the wounds, which they ostentatiously display to the world, are largely self-inflicted.

He also notes that for this reason, and others, "fascist" is not an unreasonable word with which to describe them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 PM

Minority Views

...from the Arab world. Our challenge in this war is to make them majority (and vast majority) views.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:25 PM

Countdown To The Apocalypse

Only two days until Iran's promised response (like we can trust their promises?) to the UN ultimatum, here's a roundup of relevant and interesting links. Here's one:

Americans are now most aware of the Iranian role in promoting fascism: 58 percent in the poll think Iran is now the "main promoter of Islamic fascism in the Middle East," and 76 percent believe Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons "at any cost."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:33 AM

Love It Or Leave It

A (brave) British Muslim MP says that those British Muslims who pine for sharia law should move to Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:09 AM

Time Of Decision For Israel

Michael Widlanski isn't very impressed with PM Olmert, either:

As the combat has trailed off in Lebanon, it can now be said that whatever Israel’s losses, it has discovered a great comedic genius: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert—a man who sent his army to war, but only after tying its shoelaces together.
In fact, Olmert is more than a performing comedic artist; he is also a director of a war cabinet that encompasses a veritable Shakespearean company performing a seemingly endless comedy of errors.

It's dismaying in the short run, but in the long run, this loss may be good news, if it results in Israel finally taking its enemies seriously. Ralph Peters agrees:

...what on earth might give us cause for hope?
* Israel's recent defeat, for one thing. Yes, you read that right. The truth is that Israel got a relatively cheap, if embarrassing, wake-up call. And Israel's a part of Western civilization, not of the Middle East's decaying cultures. That means that Israel doesn't just wallow in blame - like Americans, Israelis figure out what went wrong and then fix it. After the post-war soul-searching and investigations are finished, failed leaders will be replaced and Israel will re-emerge with a renewed sense of mission, a stronger government and a powerfully reformed military - the next time the IDF goes to war, watch the way it devastates its enemies.

* The "unity of Muslims" confronting the West is history (it was always a bogus, ramshackle affair). Sunni-Arab leaders increasingly grasp that the real threat isn't from the United States or Israel, but from the explosion of Shia ambitions, prowess, wealth and desire for vengeance. The future of the Middle East could go a number of ways, but we may find ourselves as bemused spectators, while our sworn enemies and phony friends kill each other. Afterward, we'll pick up the pieces.

... The florid American master of horror fiction, H. P. Lovecraft, warned his characters, "Do not raise up what ye cannot put down." Islamist terrorists are reviving the West's thirst for blood. And this time it won't be slaked in Flanders.

Things are going to get uglier east of Suez. And we're going to win.

Yes, if not now, then soon, I suspect that the Islamists (whose knowledge of American history seems to end no earlier than the late sixties) are going to (like Yamamoto) "wake up a sleeping giant," and they're oblivious to the consequences.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:11 AM

The Coming Wars

Caroline Glick has a depressing, and entirely plausible (and in fact likely) analysis of the inevitability of war in the Middle East, and Israel's need to prepare for it now (which probably includes forming a new, competent government).

Just one disagreement. Israel will not have to go to war with Iran. Israel has been at war with Iran (and Syria) for years, only via proxie.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:45 AM

August 19, 2006
Getting Cocky

We're already starting to see dire consequences of Israel's disastrous war. Al Aqsa thinks that it now knows how to defeat Israel:

"Hizbullah proved what we have already known and felt here in a number of opportunities. The Israelis are lying when they paint their military as unbeatable. A few hundred Hizbullah fighters showed them what an army is, and how to conduct a battle."
According to Abu Nasser, Nasrallah's organization still hasn't had its last word.

"From our acquaintance with them, there is no way they are going to disarm. The organization has strategic objectives and the current battle proves that if it will decide to initiate another battle – the road is paved. The next time Iran will be in the picture and missiles on Tel Aviv will be part of the game. When this happens, it will be a lot easier for us. We are proud of our brothers, the Hizbullah fighters. They are inspirational teachers that demonstrated everything we have been feeling in recent years – Israel is falling apart," he said.

Many of the Arabs are now feeling their oats, and the street in Damascus may be starting to demand (foolishly) that the chinless optometrist take back the Golan Heights. This would be an effort doomed to failure, of course, but the enemy, heady with their recent success, don't understand that.

It's a cliche that it's hopelessness that causes the Arabs to behave the way they do toward Israel, but in fact, the opposite is true. It's when they have hope that they become most aggressive, and Israel's failed campaign has provided them with an overabundance of it. The next battle is not a question of if, but when and where, and whether Israel will be ready for it this time (perhaps with a new government). It also makes it all the more incumbent for Israel to procure and develop effective defenses against missiles.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 AM

August 18, 2006
Having It Both Ways?

Andy McCarthy points out the cognitive dissonance of the ACLU and New York Times:

...which is it? Is the TSP leak a big nothing that changed no one's behavior, or a bombshell that changed everyone's behavior? Evidently, it depends on which scenario the Left believes will damage the Bush administration more on any given day.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:42 AM

Need A Knock-Out Blow

Here's an interesting article on the history of Israeli military conflicts, and why they lost (or at least didn't win, making another inevitable soon) this one.

I'm too busy to post much on this right now, but this leads to a much bigger theme. One of the damaging things that the UN has done over the decades is to short-circuit many conflicts, causing them to actually go on unabated for years, albeit at a lower level with flareups, because its emphasis and urgency is always on band-aid ceasefires and halting fighting, rather than achieving true peace or justice.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AM

Finally Waking Up?

Victor Davis Hanson writes that there is some hope amid the current gloom in the Middle East:

...all is not lost, since lunacy cuts both ways. Iran and Syria unleashed Hezbollah because they were both facing global scrutiny, one over nuclear acquisition and the other over the assassination of Lebanese reformer Rafik Hariri. Those problems won’t go away for either of them — nor, if we persist, will the democratic fervor in Afghanistan and Iraq on their borders.
We still don’t know the extent of the damage that Hezbollah suffered, but it perhaps took casualties ten times the Israelis’ — losses — not to be dismissed even in the asymmetrical laws of postmodern warfare. Hezbollah’s leaders were hiding in embassies and bunkers; Israel’s were not. For all the newfound magnetism of Nasrallah, he brought ruin to his flock, and fright to the Arab establishment around Israel.

A surprised Israel now has a good glimpse of the terrorists’ new way of war, and probably next time will attack the supplier, not the launcher, of the rocketry. And when the Reuters stringers go away, the “civilians” of southern Lebanon, off-camera, might not be so eager to see more real fireworks lighting up their skies — or far-off, pristine Syria and Iran in safety praising the courage of the ruined amid the rubble. Note how Hezbollah already is desperately racing around the craters to assure its homeless constituency that it has enough Iranian cash to buy back lost sympathies.

Even the ceasefire can come back to bite the Islamists and their supporters. Hezbollah won’t be disarmed as promised, much less stay out of Katyusha range of the border. And that defiance will only reveal the impotence of the Lebanese and the U.N., reminding both that they have talked themselves into a corner and now are responsible to keep caged their own pet 7th-century vipers. This can only work to Israel’s favor when the next rockets go off, since no one then will be proposing an “international” solution — although it will be interesting to see whether Jacques Chirac talks of the “nuclear” option once his soldiers begin to be picked off by Hezbollah.

In a larger sense, the foiled London terrorist plot won’t endear either Islamists or their appeasers to millions in the world who face travel delays, cancelled flights, and body searches — on top of paying billions more to the Arab oil producers who in response whine even more in their victimhood.

Unfortunately, Melanie Phillips says that Britain's chattering classes remain fast asleep:

Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson of the Metropolitan Police described the plot as a “criminal” act which was “not about communities” but about “people who might masquerade in the community, hiding behind certain faiths.” So an act of holy war to be perpetrated in the name of Islam just happened to use that faith as a random bit of camouflage, just as it might have used Zen Buddhism, say, or Zoroastrianism?
Then there’s the customary chorus that it’s all due to the war in Iraq and Britain’s poodling to America. This was also the premise of the letter last weekend by 38 Muslim groups, MPs, and peers that unless Britain altered its foreign policy it would get more terrorist outrages. This shameful threat to the nation produced a furious denunciation by the home secretary, John Reid, for proposing that terrorists should dictate British policies.

But the argument that foreign policy is the cause of the threat to Britain — a claim trotted out by a wide spectrum of people — is itself idiotic beyond measure. As Reid said, there was an al Qaeda plot in Birmingham to blow up Britain back in 2000 — before 9/11, let alone the war in Iraq. Similarly, jihadi attacks on the U.S. began 22 years before 9/11 with the Iran embassy hostage crisis in 1979, followed by two decades of further attacks.

Even now, much of Britain fails to understand the apocalyptic messianism now driving the regime in Iran to develop nuclear weapons with which to blackmail the world.

It fails to acknowledge the religious nature of this world war, with even more alarming signs of an emerging Sunni and Shia strategic alliance in Iraq and Gaza, and with al Qaeda supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon. When President Bush said we were in a war against Islamic fascism, he was merely stating a demonstrable truth.

And this remains disturbing (and what's even more disturbing is how undisturbing it is to many in power in the UK):

A recent Pew opinion poll across Europe revealed that, while Britain was the most respectful country of all towards its Muslim citizens, they repaid the compliment by hating their home country, the west and the Jews more than Muslims anywhere else. Why? The answer is inescapable. British Muslims are being radicalised by Britain itself.
Since Muslims whose minds are already bent by the propaganda of lies and hatred against America, Israel and the Jews pouring out of the Muslim world are further subjected by the BBC and other media outlets to daily — even hourly — diatribes about the evil of America, the evil of Israel and the fact that Britain is a patsy of evil America and evil Israel, who can possibly be surprised that untold numbers of impressionable young Muslims sign up to rid the planet of this apparent scourge?

The BBC, whose global influence is equalled only by its culpability, powerfully incites hatred by persistently misrepresenting Israel’s self-defence as unwarranted aggression, and giving air-time to an endless procession of Islamic jihadists, propagandists, anti-Western activists and bigots with rarely even a hint of a challenge.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AM

Don't Know Much About History

The New York Times thinks that the administration is "rewriting the Geneva Convention," when in fact it's the New York Times that is engaging in revisionism.

Mark Danziger explains the historical foolishness of the argument that it's important for us to abide by Geneva so that our enemies will. In fact, when we grant Geneva rights to people who have no rules at all, we weaken the Conventions, and strip them of meaning. There are good reasons to treat Jihadi prisoners humanely, in general, but Geneva is a very misguided and in fact counterproductive one. And as a commenter points out, it's only possible to make the argument that the Times does if one has never actually read the Conventions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:57 AM

August 17, 2006
Banging Their High Chair For Attention

In the midst of all the news in the Middle East, North Korea may be getting ready for an underground nuclear test. Here's hoping for a dud (though it would be hard for us to know if they failed).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:29 PM

Clarity

Lileks, on the absurd theatre that is the United Nations:

...the West struck a deal with Hezbollah and its paymasters, and it was regarded as a positive development. Peace in our time, and all that.
It's a wonder they didn't pass out tiny collectible umbrellas from the Franklin Mint "Neville Chamberlain Collection" to solemnize the event.

The cease-fire resolution wasn't surprising; the United Nations may have created Israel, but it's been apologizing ever since. Nevertheless, let no one assert the document lacks teeth. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it: "This resolution has an arms embargo within it, and a responsibility of the Lebanese government to make sure that illegal arms are not coming into their country."

Yes, that'll work. You can well imagine the frosty reception that awaits an Iranian general who tells the mullahs he's found a way to slip new rockets into Lebanon:

"We will smuggle in the parts under the guise of providing reconstruction machinery; if satellites detect the tell-tale profile of the rockets, we will simply point to the damage suffered by the Lebanese Space Agency. Then we tattoo assembly instructions on small children and send them via diplomatic pouch. When the parts are in place -- why are you looking at me that way?"

The mullahs look at one another, and one finally speaks.

"General, perhaps you were unaware of this fact, but all parties have agreed to disarm Hezbollah. Assurances were made to Ms. Rice. Do you understand? Assurances. Now rip up your mad schemes, return to base, and think no more of perfidious things."

I think he's being sarcastic again.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:02 PM

The Missiles Of August

Some scary reading over at Technology Review, on the democratization of high-tech weaponry. As technology continues to advance, and things like this get cheaper, asymmetric warfare is going to become ever harder to wage. At some point, when fighting an enemy that worships and revels in death, we may have no choice except to give him what he wants, wholesale.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:13 AM

August 16, 2006
The Battle Lines

...continue to be more clearly drawn. From the Guardian:

The Salafist movement was under-rated and misunderstood and the reaction to it has been confused. As always, the right is triggerhappy and hostile to free expression; as always, the left never wants to do anything that would hazard its self-righteous sense of moral purity.
These are historic fault lines. The right tolerated fascism in the thirties, the left Soviet Communism in the fifties. Of course these two earlier totalitarian movements were different in nature and our response when it came was not always well judged - the tendency is to think first of the excesses of the right typified by the witch hunts of the odious McCarthy, but we should remember, too, that the Democratic party in the immediate postwar years of Henry Wallace would have abandoned Europe just as the left in the eighties would have left Europe at the mercy of the new Soviet missiles.

The apologists for the Islamo-fascists - an accurate term - leave millions around the world exposed to a less obvious but more insidious barbarism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:55 PM

Useful Anti-Semitic Idiots

Nelson Ascher writes about anti-semitism by proxie, and the Jihadis' real agenda:

The Nazis managed to convince millions and millions of Frenchmen and Poles, Belgians, Norwegians etc. and, yes, Brits and Americans that, since they were fighting a common enemy, the Jews, they weren’t really the mortal enemies of France and Poland and Belgium and Norway and England and the US. Untold millions were eager to believe that Germany wasn’t really threatening them and their countries, that the Germans didn’t really want to conquer, exploit and kill them. Why? Because they either thought that they could make a common cause with the Nazis against the Jews, or remained indifferent, neutral and defenseless because, being indifferent to the fate of the Jews, they believed it was none of their problem. Many of them even turned against those in their own countries who wanted to fight the Nazis and blamed them for putting everyone else in danger just to “protect the Jews”.
In short: if the Jews were used in the beginning as scapegoats, their main use throughout the war was as a tool to “divide and conquer”. Thanks to their sincere or opportunistic ant-Semitism the Germans were able to paralyse important forces in the countries and societies they wanted to defeat and submit.

That’s just what is happening once again before our very eyes. Though the Jihadists have their own clear, even megalomaniac goals, and while they kill thousands in the US or fight for Shari’a in Europe, while they complain about East Timor or fight for Kashmir, it is enough for them to involve the Jews, particularly Israel, in their struggle or their declared agenda to get the active support or at least the indifference of those in Europe, the US and elsewhere who would like to believe that their complaints, grievances and goals are restricted to or only motivated by Israel. Of course, they also declare they’re fighting against America, but then, for those who hate America anyway (and often the Jews and/or Israel too), the same logic works perfectly.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:56 AM

Creating Buzz

The book Debunking 9/11 Myths, has its own blog. Lileks reviewed it himself the other day:

I read the entire book. Sane, logical, unemotional, sensible, comprehensive. There: I’m now officially part of the conspiracy. My membership card should arrive in two weeks. I understand we get 10% off at Denny’s.

Yeah, I wish. I haven't had the time to read it yet.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:48 AM

This Is Surreal

Hezbollah says they might withdraw as long as the Lebanese army doesn't mess with their stuff while they're gone:

Hezbollah indicated it would be willing to pull back its fighters and weapons in exchange for a promise from the army not to probe too carefully for underground bunkers and weapons caches, the officials said.

Amazing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:58 AM

August 14, 2006
Is The Bush Doctrine Dead?

Norman Podhoretz, in a long essay, asks and answers the question.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:39 PM

"History Doesn't Care"

A long, but must-read piece, particularly for the White House, which seems to be going wobbly (I have to say that I've been extremely unimpressed with Dr. Rice for the last few months).

President Bush set out a series of policy changes from the weeks after 9/11 to his second Inaugural in 2005. Threats would be confronted before they arrive, the sponsors of terror would be held equally accountable for terrorist murders and America would promote democracy as an alternative to Islamic fascism, the exploitation of religion to impose a violent political utopia. Every element of the Bush doctrine was directed toward a vision: a reformed Middle East that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it.
That vision has been tested on nearly every front, by Katyusha rockets in Haifa, car bombs in Baghdad and a crackdown on dissent in Cairo. Condoleezza Rice calls this the "birth pangs" of a new Middle East, and it is a complicated birth. As this violent global conflict proceeds, and its length and costs become more obvious, Americans should keep a few things in mind.

First, the nation may be tired, but history doesn't care. It is not fair that the challenge of Iran is rising with Iraq, bloody and unresolved. But, as President Kennedy used to say, "Life is not fair."

...In foreign-policy circles, it is sometimes claimed that past nuclear proliferation—say, to India or Pakistan—has been less destabilizing than predicted. In the case of Iran, this is wishful thinking. A nuclear Iran would mean a nuclear Middle East, as traditional rivals like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey feel pressured to join the club, giving every regional conflict nuclear overtones. A nuclear Iran would also give terrorist groups something they have previously lacked and desperately want: a great-power sponsor. Over time, this is the surest way to put catastrophic technology into the hands of a murderous few. All options have dangers and drawbacks. But inaction might bring the harshest verdict of history: they knew much, and they did nothing.

Bill Quick has further thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:56 AM

The Holy Land

With the Middle East seemingly on a rolling boil right now, Taylor Dinerman has a new review of Bob Zubrin's 2003 satire The Holy Land. I briefly reviewed it myself a couple years ago, and it sadly remains very topical today.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:59 AM

August 13, 2006
Escalation?

If this report is true, it seems monumentally stupid on Syria's part (not that there's anything improbable, or wrong with that). In fact, it seems like a golden opportunity for Israel to salvage some face from what is so far (relative to Arab expectations) a disaster.

Israel could take out Syria's tanks with a trivial effort, and no losses whatsoever. If they think that they're somehow going to get the Golan back in this little imbroglio, Baby Assad (or whoever is really running the country) is even dumber than he looks.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:42 PM

"A Murderous Tower Of Babel"

Minette Marrin writes about Britain's disastrous multi-culti policy fashion, and its resulting tragic failure to assimilate its immigrants:

Today, in the borough of Southwark as a whole, about a third of the entire population comes from a black or ethnic minority “community”, as official figures so tendentiously put it, when the problem is precisely the lack of community. “More than 100 languages are spoken in our schools and 43% of our pupils speak English as an additional language,” says the council.
This shows, as the council says, a rich diversity and for many years in this country we have been required by the progressive establishment to celebrate this diversity. Yet such extreme diversity is quite obviously at odds with community. It is at odds with the development of shared culture and shared purpose, of shared language in shared school rooms and the creation of the ties that bind a community together.

To throw together such a hugely various collection of people from all over the world, in such numbers, from all kinds of different cultures speaking different languages, is to create a miserable, murderous Tower of Babel. So it has proved in Southwark and in other places like it. The result is racial tension of all kinds, bullying, crime and fear.

If you wanted to invent a way of demoralising people and setting them against each other in their deprivation, you could hardly have come up with anything better, short of bombing them. The ties of community are fragile; they are hard to weave but easy to break; they can’t be drawn together by wishful thinking.

Community needs a critical mass of familiarity, shared language, shared tradition and shared moral attitudes. A strong community can accept outsiders and is often enriched by them, as ours has been, but it also needs a high degree of common purpose and common culture. That might seem blindingly obvious, yet immigration policy has been based on a determined refusal to admit the obvious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:01 PM

Drugged By PC

Ari Shavit asks what happened to Israel, and answers:

Generally it is not right to conduct an in-depth investigation of a wartime failure during a war. However, at the end of the most embarrassing year of Israeli defense since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Israeli government is not drawing conclusions. It is not reorganizing the system, there is no evidence of a real learning curve and it is not radiating a new ethos. On the contrary: It is adding another layer of folly onto a previous one. Its slowness to react is dangerous. Its caution is a recipe for disaster. Its attempt to prevent bloodshed is costing a great deal of bloodshed. So that now of all times, just when the forces are moving toward south Lebanon, there is no escaping the question of where we went wrong. It is so that Israel will be able to achieve a last-minute victory and so that the troops will be able to achieve their goals and so the soldiers will be able to return home safely, that we must ask already now: What happened to us? What the hell happened to us?
A simple thing happened: We were drugged by political correctness. The political correctness that has come to dominate Israeli discourse and Israeli awareness in the past generation was totally divorced from the Israeli situation. It did not have the tools to deal with the reality of an existential conflict. It did not have the tools to deal with a reality of an inter-religious and inter-cultural conflict. That is why it focused entirely on the Palestinian issue. It made the baseless assumption that the occupation is the source of evil. It assumed that it is the occupation that is preventing peace and causing unrest and perpetuating the instability.

I think that the Israeli left finally gets it. Sadly, there's no sign that their compatriots in Europe, the US and Canada do. Whether or not Olmert survives this debacle will help tell the tale. Fortunately, the Lebanese cabinet is in disarray, and the attempted hudna is breaking down, so Israel may yet get a chance to continue to remove the Iranian infection that is killing Lebanon, and preventing peace.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:28 PM

Now They're Making Me Mad

Apparently, the two young men (of whose religion we may not speak) with the untraceable cell phone collection in my home state, were planning to blow up the bridge. It's certainly the most compelling target in the state, particularly given on what hard times downtown Detroit has fallen.

Still, the Ambassador or Bluewater bridges would have been much more convenient. Hey, here's an idea--they could blow up the Windsor Tunnel and flood Detroit! With any justice (and a lot of luck), they could submerge Dearborn itself. To heck with those pesky laws of physics.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AM

Why Didn't I Think Of This One?

The People's Cube says that this latest escapade in Lebanon isn't the first time that those high-strung Jews have overreacted:

In 1943, Europe itself suffered from a similar Jewish overreaction to some controversial German policies, in an event known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, when Zionist radicals attacked the National Socialist German Workers Party that was loved by the German people for its far-reaching educational and social welfare services. In fact, many academics who teach Peace Studies at prestigious universities believe that it was the Zionists' "disproportionate use of force" that had ruined hopes for peace in Europe and caused a humanitarian crisis that could have easily be avoided if only Jews had shown restraint and tolerance towards the democratically elected German government.

Brilliant.

And here's a related post off the same link--a report from Germany by what appears to be Kevins Sites' grandfather.

I wonder if I could dig up an old interview by Mike Wallace with Hitler, in which Mr. Wallace told us how reasonable, rational and serious he seemed? All they wanted was Lebensraum, after all.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:09 AM

August 11, 2006
Five Minutes To Midnight

A long piece by Robert Tracinski on the inevitability of war:

We can't avoid this war, because Iran won't let us avoid it. That is the real analogy to the 1930s. Hitler came to power espousing the goal of German world domination, openly promising to conquer neighboring nations through military force and to persecute and murder Europe's Jews. He predicted that the free nations of the world would be too weak—too morally weak—to stand up to him, and European and American leaders spent the 1930s reinforcing that impression. So Hitler kept advancing—the militarization of the Rhineland in 1936, the Spanish bombing campaign in 1937, the annexation of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938, the invasion of Poland in 1939—until the West finally, belated decided there was no alternative but war.
That is what is playing out today. Iran's theocracy has chosen, as the nation's new president, a religious fanatic who believes in the impending, apocalyptic triumph of Islam over the infidels. He openly proclaims his desire to create an Iranian-led Axis that will unite the Middle East in the battle against America, and he proclaims his desire to "wipe Israel off the map," telling an audience of Muslim leaders that "the main solution" to the conflict in Lebanon is "the elimination of the Zionist regime." (Perhaps this would be better translated as Ahmadinejad's "final solution" to the problem of Israel.)

Like Hitler, Ahmadinejad regards the free nations of the world as fading "sunset" powers, too morally weak to resist his legions of Muslim fanatics. And when we hesitate to kill Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, when we pressure Israel to rein in its attacks on Hezbollah, when we pander to the anti-Jewish bigotry of the "Muslim street"—we reinforce his impression of our weakness.

The result has been and will be the same: Iran will press its advantage and continue to attack our interests in the Middle East and beyond. The only question is when we will finally decide that Iran's aggression has gone too far and its theocratic regime needs to be destroyed.

And here's an apt description of some recent commenters here:

The larger evasion is this: the left senses that a regional war is coming, that Iran is hell-bent on starting it, and that there is no way to avoid it. But all of this runs directly counter to their whole world-view. Rather than questioning that world view, they simply assert that this can't be happening. They have to believe that something, anything—no matter how implausible—will stop it from happening. If we just get everyone together and talk, and we keep tinkering with diplomatic solutions until we find something that works, surely we can find a way to avoid a regional war in the Middle East. Can't we? Please?
And so the left confirms the right's sense that the appeasement of the 1930s is the best historical precedent for the current era.

Depressing, but necessary reading.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:33 AM

In The Mail

I just got a review copy of the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths," which is a book version of the in-depth investigation that Popular Mechanics did. It's in a similar format to Snopes, with a "Claim" (the myth), then a "Fact," in which the evidence and physics are brought to bear to debunk it. It looks like an interesting book, from an engineering standpoint. What the book doesn't explain, of course, is why (besides Bush derangement) people buy into these nutty conspiracy theories. I hope that PM sends a copy to Cynthia McKinney, though she doesn't seem like the type that reads books, particularly factual ones.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 AM

On The Virtues...

...of killing children.

"It is our love of these innocents that endangers them. If we did not care if children died, they would be in little danger."
"That cannot be," she replies in anger.

"But it is so," I contest. "If we did not care if our children died, they would not be targets. There would be no reason to target them, because we would not be moved by their deaths.

"If we did not care if their children died," I add, "there would be no reason to clutter military emplacements with their presence. If it were not that we are horrified by the deaths of children, the enemy's children would be clear of all places of battle -- because they are, except for the fact that we love them, a hindrance."

She bites her lip.

"Of course, we cannot cut out our hearts," I tell her. "Nor should we -- as we wish to remain men, and good men, rather than monsters. Yet it is our love that is the chief danger to the innocent now -- to our own innocents, and theirs also."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:42 AM

It's The Jihad, Stupid

Gerard Baker says that it's counterproductive to blame ourselves:

Events such as yesterday’s near-miss should remind us that September 11, 2001, gave birth to a radical and dangerous new world. It required the US — an imperfect country to be sure, but the only one with the power and the will to defend the basic freedoms we too easily take for granted — with its allies to remake the international system. It provided a terrifying harbinger of much larger atrocities to come, when terrorists and their state supporters get hold of weapons with which they can kill millions, not thousands. This new enemy is not like old enemies. It is fundamentalist and suicidal and apocalyptic. The old system, rooted in a liberal philosophy that relied on patient diplomacy and made a virtue of being slow to respond to attacks, was unequal to this new challenge. The new system required rapid action to open up the Middle East, the festering root of all these threats to modernity.
I will grant you that the Iraq war has been characterised, in conception and execution, by blunder after blunder. And it is certainly possible that, in their failures there, the US and Britain have made the world more unstable, not less. But we should not, in our frustration, confuse the real enemies here. We should not mistake the unlooked-for dangers caused by blunders and arrogance in Washington for the targeted threats posed by nihilism and hatred in much of the Middle East, and in some of our own cities.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AM

The Terrorists Are Winning

Even when they lose.

...the terrorists are having a major impact on our society. There have been enough successful attacks (9/11, London, and Madrid to name the most obvious) that each foiled attack still heightens the public fear level, causing a predictable government overreaction. Today's news will certainly cost us a little more freedom and a lot more treasure.
It became a standing joke in the months after 9/11 attacks that, if we did not continue some trivial activity, "Then the terrorists have won." Sadly, it's no joke.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:48 AM

August 10, 2006
Another Rectification Of Names

I'm glad that the President has finally stopped calling this a War on Terror, and is now identifying the enemy. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Keith Burgess-Jackson that "Islamofascism" is the wrong term:

Why would President Bush use “fascist” to describe such an ideology? I honestly don’t know. The only thing I can think of is that “fascist,” like “communist,” has negative emotive meaning. It’s an all-purpose term of abuse. To call something fascist is primarily to condemn it—that’s President Bush’s goal—and only secondarily to describe it. (This is why Brian Leiter and other leftists call President Bush a fascist. It’s pure abuse, with little or no cognitive content.) The best term to describe the people President Bush has in mind is “Islamists.” A Muslim is an adherent of Islam, which is a religion. Islamism is not a religion; it is a political morality (note the “ism”) and a set of doctrines about permissible means of social change. (Terrorism is one such means.) Those who subscribe to it are Islamists. All Islamists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Islamists. Islamism competes not with Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Confucianism but with liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, anarchism, and socialism. See here for more on this important distinction.

But it is obviously another form of totalitarianism, just as we fought in the last two world wars.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:17 PM

Dogs And Cats Living Together

Martin Bright says that "the left" can take a few lessons from "the right":

...the Foreign Office seems determined to press ahead with courting radical Islamists. Just this month, the British government paid for Yusuf al-Qaradawi to attend a conference in Turkey to discuss the future of European Islam. At home, it funded two Islamist youth organisations, the Federation of Islamic Student Societies and Young Muslim Organisation, to help run a roadshow of Muslim scholars to tour the country. Fosis and YMO, while condemning violence, are ideological allies of the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami. It is ironic that conservative thinkers categorise these organisations accurately as part of an Islamist extreme right, while many on the left continue, wrongly, to see them as part of some wider international Muslim liberation movement.
While this situation remains, there is no shame for those on the left opposed to the rise of radical Islam to build alliances with conservatives prepared to call fascism by its real name.

Yes. Like (finally) George Bush.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:46 AM

Litani Grievance

Two days after my prediction that the Israelis would move north to the Litani River in Lebanon, they are doing it.

The Israelis see the "300-500" soldiers lives that will be lost in the exchange as worth the cost of the border security. Hezbollah says that Southern Lebanon will be a "graveyard".

I disagree with Jacque Chirac who says that allowing continued hostilities "would mean the most immoral result". It is immoral to demand status quo ante borders that are indefensible and an invitation to future hostilities and extra deaths on both sides of the Litani. Expect the second half of my prediction, a wall, to be built as soon as hostilities die down.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 10:44 AM

I'm Getting Thirsty Already

The new security procedures mean that the airlines are going to have to provide a lot more water, if you're not allowed to bring your own.

[Update a little later, with a few more thoughts]

Women are going to get hit harder by this than men. They're more likely to want to take their special liquids (shampoos, conditioners, etc.) that won't necessarily be purchasable at the destination, in a carry on for a short trip. For the men, standard shampoo and toothpaste will be purchasable at the other end.

I predict that this is going to mean a lot more checked baggage. I wonder if they'll be able to handle it?

I also think that as it gets more and more of a PITA to fly, at some point people are going to rebel, and demand that we adopt the Israeli approach--to start looking for terrorists, instead of weapons. Now that Mineta's gone, the opposition to profiling may be reduced. It will be interesting in light of the Hamdan decision what the Supreme Court will have to say about it if it occurs and (as will be inevitable from the CAIR lawsuits) it hears a case.

Oh, and did you notice Bush's speech today? He didn't say we're at war with terror. He said we're at war with "Islamic fascists." That's a big improvement.

[Evening update]

I think that the new airline security policies are idiotic. I'll explain why in a TCSDaily column. Probably Monday.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AM

Deja Vu

Why is America waiting to be attacked by Tehran?

What is the explanation for America's willful fiction that the United Nations Security Council can engineer an accommodation in Lebanon, when it is vivid to every member state that this is a replay of September 1938, when Europe fed Hitler the Sudetenland as the U.N. now wants to feed the jihadists the sovereignty of Israel?

As the author points out, as is often the case, we won't start this war, but as usual, we'll have to finish it.

[Update]

Listening to Sky News describing British Muslims who claim that they are Muslims first, and British citizens second. Sounds like it's time to deport some folks.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:21 AM

August 07, 2006
Fallacy of Chain Logic

Peace in Lebanon requires all belligerents to agree.
It requires Hezbollah ceasing fire which they say is contingent on:
1. Israel ceding Syrian-claimed Shebaa Farms near the Golan Heights
2. Israel leaving before Hezbollah agreeing
3. An exchange of the captured soldiers for prisoners

Israel ceasing fire which they say requires:
1. Rocket attacks have to stop and a strong international force come in before Israel leaving
2. Kidnapped soldiers must be returned before cease fire

For an international force to come in:
1. There must be an agreement before coming in
2. There must be a cease fire before coming in
3. There must be a willing country to do the deployment

There are other actors that have other things to do such as Syria, Iran, US, Russia and China among others.

These are logically inconsistent and quite unlikely even if the basic inconsistencies get resolved by some miracle. I get a gestalt from the reporting that peace is just a matter of putting more pressure on the parties and that it is a minor issue that divides them. The logical fallacy is that we have a number of unlikely events that must all happen for peace to be achieved and pundits are treating the chain as strong as the strongest link: that Israel and Hezbollah both agree that a prisoner exchange would be a good idea.

My prediction is that we will have no partnership, no peace and that Israel will re-occupy Lebanon north to the Litani River, there will be a new wall, and Hezbollah will be envigorated to continue killing Israeli soldiers at the rate of 50-100/year which was the pre-2000 level. Israel will accept this as a trade vital to keeping Northern Israel free of short range rockets and unacceptable levels of civilian deaths. Lebanon will be a war zone until Hezbollah is beaten by some other force in the rest of Lebanon.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 09:46 AM

What Do They Both Have In Common?

Both Iraq and Lebanon resulted from the UN being either unable, or unwilling, to enforce its own resolutions. But it's easier to blame it on the Jews and the Amerikkkan imperialists.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 AM

A Grim Prognosis

For a Monday morning. From "Grim":

I suspect that we will one day speak of the war in Iraq the way we speak of the Spanish Civil War -- that is, rarely by comparison to the greater war that followed it. Peace is not in the cards. Things are going to get worse. Our enemies are glad to employ terrorists, who will try to bring the war to our homes. The wise man will prepare his sword, and the arm that may wield it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:32 AM

August 06, 2006
Is Nasrallah Launching Iran's Armageddon?

Omar (of the Iraqi blog Iraq the Model) is concerned that it is. It certainly can't be rejected out of hand, given the insanities that have been spouting from Ahmadinejad's mouth recently. He certainly seems of a mind to immanentize the Islamic eschaton.

Morons who think that I'm a right-wing neocon Christer will, of course, scratch their heads at this post, thinking that my only concern is that it will preempt the Rapture.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 PM

"Bigoted" Sentiments

"I hope Nasrallah gets a rocket between the legs for what he is doing to me here, for harming grandma and grandpa."

Scare quotes in the title for the foolish troll who's been infesting my comments section for the last few days.

They're the words of an Arab. An Israeli Arab, of course.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:21 PM

August 04, 2006
It's A Quagmire!

For Hezbollah. At least according to the editor of the Arab Times.

And don't expect Israel to let up. Even much of the Israeli (formerly) anti-war left now understands that they are literally in a fight for their lives.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:03 PM

August 03, 2006
Bulls Eye?

Has anyone noticed that the leftist trolls who have been infesting the place recently haven't had much to say about Lileks' latest screed?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:31 PM

"An Extension Of Iran"

An interesting interview with Walid Phares, on the Middle East:

The U.S. and its allies can be accused of certain shortcomings as well. While the speeches by the U.S. president, congressional leaders from both parties, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac were right on target regarding Lebanon, and while the U.S. and its counterparts on the Security Council were diligent in their follow up on the Hariri assassination and on implementing UNSCR 1559, there was no policy or plan to support the popular movement in Lebanon. Incredibly, while billions were spent on the war of ideas in the region, Lebanese NGOs that wanted to resume the struggle of the Cedar Revolution and fighting alone for this purpose were not taken seriously at various levels. Policy planners thought they were dealing with the “Cedar Revolution” when they were meeting Lebanon’s government and Lebanese politicians. The difference between the high level speeches on Lebanon and the laissez-faire approach from lower levels is amazing. Simply put, there was no policy on supporting the Cedar Revolution against the three regimes opposing it and the $400 million received by Hezbollah from Iran.
...What is Israel’s plan in Lebanon? If its plan is mainly to bomb the infrastructure until a major political change occurs, it is unlikely to succeed. Analysts do not assume that this is the Israeli plan, since Hezbollah’s strategic ability to reemerge won’t be eliminated from the skies. Besides, all competent experts on Lebanon know that bombing until the Lebanese government does something also won’t work. This government, which failed to request international intervention when the conditions were favorable and has included Hezbollah and pro-Syrian ministers in its cabinet, is completely paralyzed.

A continuous “bombing-only” approach would hugely degrade Hezbollah’s infrastructure, but would also lead to the collapse of this government and the formation of a radical pro-Syrian, pro-Iranian government in Beirut. There would be a cease fire then, and Israel would get a year of respite, maybe less, before the Iranians and the Syrians would re-arm the new Hezbollah-led government in Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Cedar Revolution would be massacred and regional pressures would revert to Iraq.

Israel’s war with Hezbollah is not about the kidnapped soldiers or Katiushas. It is about Hezbollah’s attempt to remain a state within a state, and, along with Syria, to threaten Israel with missiles while Iran completes its nuclear armament. The rest can be easily imagined. And as long as there is no strategic change in Lebanon, starting with Hezbollah’s disarming and having international forces taking the control of the Lebanese-Syrian and Lebanese-Israeli borders, the bombings may give Israel some time, but will eventually transform Lebanon into an extension of Iran.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:39 PM

Not Anti-War, Just On The Other Side

Lileks has some thoughts on current events in the Levant. There's a hint of sarcasm to them:

The US continues to support Israel. This is becoming difficult, since many important nations with well-dressed, urbane spokesmen have decided that Israel should stop its strange policy of firing rockets on UN-run stem-cell research facilities for no apparent reason. These diplomats will tolerate a little wartime madness – we all have our moments, after all – but enough is enough, and now they must go home and sit in the basement and wait for more rocket attacks. If they’re good, they will get a snack.
Strict Neutrality, or Dingellism. This may seem odd to some, given that one side consists of bloodthirsty religious lunatics who relish the indiscriminate killing of civilians, and the other is an Islamic social welfare organization reluctantly pressed into combat. (Any objections to those characterizations, Rep. D? Just curious.) Perhaps the West, in the name of fairness, could supply Hezbollah with the tools it requires. After all, it is manifestly unjust that Israel has such wizardly munitions on their side, and Hezbollah is forced to use crude de-vices made from disassembled Iranian baby-milk factory equipment. And it is rather condescending to believe that Hezbollah fires its missiles randomly without caring where they land; if they had access to precision munitions, it is possible they would aim more carefully.

...The usual delusions are abundant. The progressives imagine they’re the vanguard shielding the last jot of human rights from the ever-gathering fascist storm. (Forget the executions in Somalia for the crime of watching the World Cup; there’s a rumor Wal-Mart won’t offer the usual new-release discount for DVDs of Al Gore’s eco-doc.) They imagine that conservatives support Israel because they want to convert Jews and usher in the last book in the “Left Behind” series. They have internalized the Palestinian narrative so deeply they blame the “occupation” for rocket attacks coming out of territory no longer occupied. They’re so convinced of their rectitude that the obscenity of an Israeli flag spattered with swastikas makes perfect sense: why, if they weren’t actually Nazis, the progressives wouldn’t oppose them. They marched with communists for Worker’s Rights, regardless of whether anyone in communist countries had a job or any rights. And now they march with Hezbollah supporters for Peace and Justice.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AM

August 02, 2006
Bad News For The Bad Guys?

Is Hezbollah on the ropes? And Syria and Iran getting nervous?

If Israel continues to chase them north, it would be interesting to see what kinds of things have been stashed in the Bekaa Valley. Particularly of vintage early 2003...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:37 AM

August 01, 2006
Moral Authority

This is old news that I missed while at the NewSpace conference, but Lileks has a screed up about Howard Dean and the war that's still timely. It's funny, and sad (as Lileks often is):

...the revelatory moment in Dean’s assertion was its touching faith in Talk and Work. President Gore or Kerry would have been working day after day after day on the issue. Non stop! Sleeves rolled up, dinner at the desk: make another pot of coffee, Mabel, this Golan Heights dispute won’t solve itself. This suggests they believe the difficulties of the Middle East have the weight and consequence of a tariff dispute. This suggests that they don’t understand that the Hezbollah definition of “Disarm” is blowing off the limbs of Israelis. Imagine a typical negotiation:
Fierce-eyed Hezbollah representative: Thank you for the invitation; lovely office. Death to Israel.

Gullible American: Well, that’s just rhetoric; we understand.

Hezbollah: It is not rhetoric. It is truth. The Zionist entity is a festering infected splinter in the lip of the Caliphate.

(pause)

GA: So you’re saying you want some antibiotics as well? We can do that. But you have to show us you’re ready to coexist with Israel.

Hezbollah: We recognize the right of Israel to exist, but only as a footnote in history books.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 AM

July 31, 2006
Be Careful What You Wish For

Why is this not a functional declaration of war?

Iran awarded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez its highest state medal on Sunday for supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff with the international community, while Chavez urged the world to rise up and defeat the U.S., state-run media in both countries reported...
"Let's save the human race, let's finish off the U.S. empire," Chavez said. "This (task) must be assumed with strength by the majority of the peoples of the world."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:41 PM

July 30, 2006
It Never Ends

This time, Mark Steyn takes on the moronic "chicken hawk" argument:

Aside from anything else, I wonder if the gentleman (if that's the word) understands how freakish it would strike every previous generation of Americans (and, indeed, almost every other society in human history) to berate a blameless young lady for not grabbing a rifle and heading for the front. And, if the issue is "extraordinary disrespect" to the troops, it's utterly self-defeating to argue that only active-duty servicemen get proprietorial rights in a war.
In fact, the notion that "fighting" a war is the monopoly of those "in uniform" gets to the heart of why America and its allies are having such a difficult time in the present struggle. Nations go to war, not armies. Or, to be more precise, nations, not armies, win wars. America has a military that cannot be defeated on the battlefield, but so what? The first President Bush assembled the biggest coalition in history for Gulf War I, and the bigger and more notionally powerful it got, the better Saddam Hussein's chances of surviving it became. Because the bigger it got, the less likely it was to be driven by a coherent set of war aims.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:16 AM

Still Waiting

I'm hearing cries of outrage from the world over "Israeli war crimes." Where are the accusations against the organization that launches rockets from civilian population centers, in the cynical hope that the world will respond to Israel's predictable actions in exactly the way it is?

I can no longer take seriously any of these so-called human rights organizations.

[Update a few minutes later]

I'm watching video on Fox News of rocket trails (presumably Hezbollah rocket trails) departing from a building that reportedly looks very much like the one that was hit in Qana.

[Update a few minutes after that]

Well, there's not complete silence:

THE UN's humanitarian chief Jan Egeland called for a three-day truce to evacuate civilians and transport food and water into cut-off areas...
...Mr Egeland blasted Hezbollah as "cowards" for operating among civilians.

"When I was in Lebanon, in the Hezbollah heartland, I said Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending in among women and children," he said.

The accompanying picture is indeed damning, but this denunciation aside, the general asymmetry of the criticism, and the associated media coverage, remains sickening.

It bears repeating: Israelis kill civilians when they miss their targets. Hezbollah (and other terrorist organizations) kill civilians when they hit theirs.

[Update at mid-Sunday morning]

Josh Trevino has further thoughts on the asymmetry:

Let us call the childrens' deaths in Qana what they are: a horrific freak of war. They were not intended; they were not actively sought; and they were not the product of criminal negligence. In weeks of war and thousands of sorties against a foe that intentionally hides amongst civilians in the active hope of just this manner of carnage, the remarkable fact is that this hasn't happened before. Contrary to founding advocates of airpower -- and unlike its battlefield foes -- Israel does not seek the death of civilians for their own sake. Pace the rationalizations extended to Allied aircrews obliterating Western European villagers unfortunate enough to live near a rail junction, Israel does not even regard acceptance of this manner of death -- unintended, incidental, and not worth especial efforts to preclude -- as acceptable within the moral parameters of war. The uninformed and the insane will react with bitter derision upon being told this, on the heels of the news from Qana: but their emotional self-indulgence does not negate the fact at hand.
Need it be said -- and it is a sign of our fallen age that it does need to be said -- Israel's enemy in this war operates under no such constraint. (One assumes that in bygone days, the difference between a Western democracy and a band of murderous savages would not need repeated explanation.) Hezbollah and the average Islamist do not shrink from direct assaults on civilians as such and as an end in itself. Indeed, it has been their sole tactic in this entire war. If they have not produced scenes of masses of dead children, it is not for lack of trying -- it is, after all, the only thing they try for. That they have not managed it is indicative of the confluence of blind luck and Israeli battlefield superiority. But give it time: give it infinite time to launch its rockets and try its luck, as the braying proponents of ceasefire would have it, and eventually we'll see Jewish children, too, incinerated in their sleep. The difference, of course, is that the perpetrators then will celebrate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:28 AM

July 29, 2006
A Rectification Of Names

So, up in Seattle, a Muslim goes Jew hunting in a target-rich environment, killing one and wounding several others, all of them women, one of them pregnant (he almost got a twofer, there). Once again, we're assured by the authorities that there's no reason to think that this is terrorism. In fact, the police are now reportedly guarding the local mosques against "retaliation," ignoring the fact that the vast amount of such incidents seem to occur not against mosques (in which much hateful propaganda is propagated), but against synagogues.

Stop and think about the absurdity of that for a moment. A man walks into a building full of Jews, says that he's angry about Israeli actions, and starts shooting at innocent civilians. But we should be relieved, I guess, because it's not terrorism.

This is just the latest example of the ongoing folly, begun in the wake of September 11, of calling the conflict in which we suddenly found ourselves (but had really been going on since at least 1979) a war against "terror." As has been oft stated before, while the people who are trying to kill us largely are terrorists, the terror is a tactic (and a very successful one, given the nature of our news media), not a cause. Anyone can engage in it, and to say that we are at war with terror is to misidentify the enemy, in a profound and counterproductive way.

The problem of this misnaming of the war manifests itself in many ways. It allows opponents of the liberation of Iraq to claim that it had nothing to do with the war, because somehow "terrorist" has been rendered synonymous with Al Qaeda and bin Laden, and as we all know (at least those of us fundamentally and perhaps willfully ignorant of the actual history), Al Qaeda would have nothing to do with Saddam, and vice versa. By focusing exclusively on the "terrorists" that are Al Qaeda, it obscures the much larger enemy. And it allows the "authorities" to absurdly claim that the Pakistani who just went on the shooting spree in Seattle isn't a "terrorist," because he didn't bring along his Al Qaeda membership card and decoder ring.

As was the case with the first three world wars, we are at war not with terror or any other particular tactic, but with an idea, or rather, a large set of ideas, most or all of which are inimical to our culture, and to the civilization that is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment. There is no win-win outcome to this war. There are, in the words of divorce courts, irreconcilable differences between the West and the Jihadis. There is, ultimately, not room enough on this planet for both ideologies, because theirs demands submission of all to it.

And despite their sectarian differences, it is an idea shared by Al Qaeda, by Hezbollah, by Hamas, by the Taliban, and by (unfortunately) vast swaths of people across the Middle East and Asia. It is not a new idea--this is just the most recent flareup of a war that has been going on for over a millennium. All that is new is that technologies have evolved, and our culture softened and grown unconfident in the value of our own ideas, in a way that gives them hope that finally, victory may be at hand.

Israelis, even the Israeli left, now finally understand that "land for peace" was a chimera, a hopeless endeavor, because their enemy doesn't want land, or peace. They are like the alien in Independence Day who, when asked what it wanted of us, hissed, "I want you to die."

Our culture is an offense to them, our material success is an offense (and rebuke) to them (because infidels have no right to be successful), our very existence, and particularly the existence of Jews in what they consider their own holy land, is an intolerable ongoing offense to them, made more offensive by the fact that this lowest form of life has made the desert bloom in a way that they never could.

It is all one war, and it's not a war against "terror." It is a world war largely of the Anglosphere (and some of its new allies, such as Poland and eastern Europe, and Israel--an honorary member) against fundamentalist Islamism. It is a war in which much of Europe has been cowed into sitting on the sidelines, by the enemy within. Russia and China are torn, partly for purely mercenary reasons, because our enemy is hungry for their arms and has abundant resources with which to purchase them, and partly due to their desire to see the Anglosphere and particularly its lead nation, the "hyperpower," brought low. But Chechnya and the Uigers in western China demonstrate that they will only be able to feed others to the alligator for so long, before they become the next meal.

We are at war with an idea, and it's an idea shared by the man up in Seattle. Part of that idea is that Israel shouldn't exist, and that it's intolerable when it does anything to defend itself and ensure its future existence. That part at least of the idea was clearly shared by the shooter in Seattle, by his own words. He may not (or he may) be a member of Al Qaeda, but we are not at war exclusively with Al Qaeda, which is just one front, one manifestation of the much larger enemy. We battle over a divide of ideologies, and there are many on the other side of that divide, some of whom, sadly, live among us. And they can unfortunately constitute a fifth column. He walked among us, in normal garb, but when he felt his time come, he picked up arms and made war against the nation that had welcomed him, and not against our military, but against helpless women.

The authorities don't want to call him a terrorist. Fine.

Let us, then, call him what he is. He is the enemy. He is a foreign operative on our soil, a spy, a combatant out of uniform, and there is no need for a civil trial. The laws of war allow him to be summarily shot. And if that were to happen, it would, finally, be a welcome recognition of the true nature of this war.

[Late Saturday morning update]

Hugh Hewitt has some related thoughts.

[Early afternoon update]

Steve Sailer says: "Anti-Semitic terrorism ... another job Americans just won't do!"

[Sunday morning update]

In honor of the occasion, Mark Steyn reprises an article from the LAX 4th of July shooting a couple years ago: "Fancy that, another free-lance Jihadi."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:16 AM

July 27, 2006
Disproportionate

Claudia Rossett talks about disproportionate responses by the UN.

Where are all the so-called "human rights" organizations? When will someone formally accuse Hezbollah of war crimes? Hiding weapons and fighters among a civilian population is a war crime. Making war out of uniform, or wearing the uniform of the enemy, is a war crime, and both are illegal via the Geneva Conventions. But when Lebanese civilians are killed or injured as a result of these actions, the autonomic response in Turtle Bay and among the NGOs is to blame the Jews.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:35 PM

July 26, 2006
The Real World War I

Joseph Farah (a Christian Arab, for what it's worth) says that we're in neither World Wars III or IV. This is just the latest flareup of the original world war, going back centuries:

If the radical Islamic jihadists in the Middle East – the mullahs of Iran, their puppets in Hezbollah, the suicidal maniacs of Hamas and their patrons in Syria – had the power to destroy every Jew in Israel, they would do it. Does anyone doubt that for a minute?
On the other hand, the Jews of Israel do possess the power to destroy their enemies. Yet, there is no question in anyone's mind that they would never resort to such an option unless they were somehow faced with annihilation themselves.

Likewise, today, the West has the power to destroy every Islamic country in the world. It's not a consideration. Yet, everyone reading this column understands intuitively and intellectually that if the shoe were on the other foot, the West would be in big trouble.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:26 AM

July 24, 2006
Deja Vu

It's a sad commentary on public debate that this has to be done over and over again, but Jeff Jacoby dismantles (once again) the imbecilic "Chicken Hawk" "argument:"

``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:09 AM

July 20, 2006
Hiding Behind Skirts

Arnold Kling discusses the knotty problem of hostage-taking nations and movements that are at the root (at least tactically) of the war we're in.

As long as we let these creatures continue to flout the Geneva Conventions without even calling them on it, while demanding that we grant Geneva protection to them, there will be little hope of winning.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 PM

Our Friends The Russians

No problems with Damascus or Teheran, according to them:

Hezbollah and Hamas should be integrated into peaceful politics, and third countries should not be blamed for the current Middle East crisis, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said.
"We need to find a way for Hamas and Hezbollah to achieve their largely legitimate political goals through participation in political life ... and not through force," Lavrov told the Echo Moscow radio station Wednesday, adding that less radical parts of Hezbollah and Hamas could return to peaceful politics.

So, the destruction of Israel and eventual worldwide domination of Islam is a "largely legitimate political goal"?

This is looking more and more like a world war every day.

[Via Andy McCarthy]

And what a weekend to be immersing myself in a space conference.

As one wag once said about the Balkans, the Middle East seems to be producing a little more history than it can locally consume.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 PM

July 18, 2006
No New Thing Under The Sun

Mark Steyn discusses the shocking truth--that George Bush didn't invent war:

Lawrence Keeley calculates that 87 per cent of primitive societies were at war more than once per year, and some 65 per cent of them were fighting continuously. "Had the same casualty rate been suffered by the population of the twentieth century," writes Wade, "its war deaths would have totaled two billion people." Two billion! In other words, we're the aberration: after 50,000 years of continuous human slaughter, you, me, Bush, Cheney, Blair, Harper, Rummy, Condi, we're the nancy-boy peacenik crowd. "The common impression that primitive peoples, by comparison, were peaceful and their occasional fighting of no serious consequence is incorrect. Warfare between pre-state societies was incessant, merciless, and conducted with the general purpose, often achieved, of annihilating the opponent."
...One swallow doesn't make a summer, of course, but I wonder sometimes if we're not heading toward a long night of re-primitivization. In his shrewd book Civilization And Its Enemies, Lee Harris writes:

"Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe. . . . That, before 9/11, was what had happened to us. The very concept of the enemy had been banished from our moral and political vocabulary."

For many, it still apparently is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:42 AM

July 17, 2006
The Scorpion's Sting

This primer may offer some reasons that Israel isn't being more aggressive with respect to Syria. They need to come up with a way to neutralize these things.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:02 PM

He Forgot One

I agree that we're in a new world war (and the third in a row that is a fundamental clash of ideologies), but I wish that Newt would stop calling it World War III. It's World War IV. World War III was the Cold War. And unfortunately, this one may last almost as long.

[Update]

I should note this (a couple years old, and quite long) essay by Norman Podhoretz on this issue.

[Late morning update]

If we're in a long world war, then it makes no sense to talk about the "war" in Iraq. It was only a battle, as was Afghanistan, as Larry Schweikart points out:

The supposed value of history is that it allows one to apply a long-term lens perspective to current events. That, however, seems to be sadly missing in the case of the War on Terror, and, especially, Iraq. Let me say from the get-go that the Bush Administration erred badly in allowing the struggle in Iraq to be labeled a "war." It is a battle, part of the larger War on Terror. It is no more a "war" than Sicily or North Africa were "wars." But Bush fell into the Left's trap and allowed it to be called a "war," and as such it has been separated from the "War on Terror," and the "War in Afghanistan," itself a battle.
As historians (objective ones, that is) look back 30 years from now, and write the history of this war, they will find the battle of Iraq essentially was over after November 2004. I do not say that because Bush won reelection--that was critical, but so was the formation of the Iraqi government at that time--but because those two events then allowed a military victory at Fallujah, which was the tipping point of this battle (or, if you prefer, "war"). At Fallujah, more than 2000 terrorists were killed and the real al-Qaeda back of the so-called "insurgency" broken. Since then, Zarqawi was scrambling, as did the Japanese after Okinawa, to re-stock his ranks of suicide bombers. They were both unsuccessful. Last month, Zarqawi was killed, replicating the shooting down of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's plane in 1943. Even then, the war in the Pacific was not over--and the bloodiest battles had not been fought--but again, the outcome was further cemented.

And he's optimistic that we're going to ultimately win. I hope he's right.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:12 AM

July 15, 2006
The Other Lone Star State

Don't mess with Knesset...

...we have had the Yom Kippur War, the Attrition War, the Lebanon War, two intifadas and endless terror. Israel has not only survived, but has become stronger. It is a vibrant and prospering democracy, with robust economic growth over the last five years, the highest number of books published per capita in the world, and second place in the world in the publication of articles in scientific journals. The Arabs, in the meantime, with all their aggression, have only brought on their peoples misery and poverty. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan tower above this self-destructiveness as leaders who really served the best interests of their people by making peace with Israel.

Of course, that's just a necessary, not a sufficient condition, as we've seen by the dismal state of affairs in both countries, but particularly Egypt.

[Credit for slogan and flag to "Dutchgirl" (who's really a Dane--no shock there)--scroll down to the sixth post]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PM

July 13, 2006
It's All One War

Michael Ledeen says that the mask is coming off.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:35 AM

July 09, 2006
Can Anyone Explain To Me

...why we should take the IAEA seriously?

Mohammad El-Baradei's capitulation to Iran has made huge waves at the IAEA in Vienna. The other inspectors are up in arms. "This totally bankrupts our work" says a Viennese inspector. "Mohammad El-Baradei folds vis-a-vis the Mullahs and leaves us standing in the rain. Why don't we just let Iran be in charge of inspecting their own nuclear program?"

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AM

July 07, 2006
Unfortunate Choice Of Words

Ahmadinejad:

Iran's hard-line president warned Friday that continued Israeli strikes against Palestinians could lead to an Islamic "explosion..."

Yes, I know I pulled context, but I think he may be right--just not in the way he means, or hopes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:44 PM

July 06, 2006
More Of This, Please

The Danes are going after "honor" killings like the FBI after the mafia:

As in the Surucu case the general practice so far has been to sentence only the actual murderers. Last Tuesday in Denmark, however, a jury of the Østre Landsret ruled that not only the man who pulled the trigger was guilty, but every family member who collaborated in “punishing” Ghazala Khan, an 18-year old Danish-born woman of Pakistani origin, who was shot by her brother, 30-year old Akhtar Abbas, on 23 September 2005, two days after her marriage.

This has been tolerated for far too long. If more countries take this tack, we'll see fewer murders of young women, and perhaps more of these people going back to their countries of origin, where they can practice their barbaric traditions in...errr...peace. Part of assimilation has to mean stamping out this nonsense. The failure to do so to date is another failure of the multi-culti myths.

[Update at 1:44 PM EDT]

I just noticed that nowhere in the article does it mention the religion of those involved. Guess they didn't think it was relevant.

[Update on Friday morning]

Some have pointed out in comments that religion is in fact irrelevant in this case, since this is a cultural practice, not a religious one (e.g., Hindus do it as well). It's a reasonable point.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:23 AM

Where Are The "Star Wars" Critics Now?

The DC Examiner wants to know. So do I.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AM

July 05, 2006
Short Fast

My grilled animals didn't taste quite as good when I read this:

Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade.

But they still tasted pretty good.

Aren't these people pathetic? They call us chickenhawks, but they can't even be bothered to go hungry for more than one day to defend their so-called principles. Are they really so daft as to imagine that anyone will care about this "sacrifice"?

Don't answer that question.

[Update at 3 PM]

You know, I hadn't done the math before, but this makes it even funnier. With 2700 people at one "strike" (read: too busy to eat for a few hours) per person per day, this could go on for almost a decade. Yes, I'm sure it will be front-page news every day...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AM

Reciprocity

The Church is finally standing up to Islam.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:48 AM

June 29, 2006
Progress?

Oil is flowing freely in northern Iraq, at least temporarily. Knocking off the Zarkman can't have hurt.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:10 PM

Blame George Bush

Moscow says that it's not the insurgents' fault, but ours, that their diplomats were killed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AM

June 27, 2006
Fill 'Em With Lead

This sounds like a repeat of the M-16 debacle from Vietnam. The Army weapons procurement bureaucracy never seems to learn.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:50 PM

June 26, 2006
Where's The ACLU (Part Two)?

...and what are they going to do about these phone tappers?

The Sunday Telegraph newspaper quoted a document sent to soldiers of the Territorial Army's (TA) London Regiment, which has soldiers fighting in Iraq.
The document warned that insurgents in southern Iraq had managed to obtain the home telephone numbers of British soldiers using electronic intercept devices.

It said there had been many instances in the last weeks of relatives and friends of personnel serving abroad on operations getting nuisance phone calls''.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:33 AM

Perspective

Whenever you hear someone talk about 2500 deaths in Iraq over three years, recall (or learn about), almost ninety years ago, the Battle of the Somme:

The first day of the battle, codenamed Z-Day, was generally accepted to be the worst of them all, with some battalions suffering losses of more than 90 per cent.
The Battle of the Somme was supposed to be won by the Allies on that first day of July. It was partly thanks to this overconfidence that the generals allowed Malins access to the trenches. Instead, the battle lasted until November - long after the finished film had been screened at home. By the end of the offensive, there were more than one million casualties from both sides. After five months of bitter fighting, the Allies had advanced just five miles.

As horrific as the battle was for the British troops who suffered and died there, it cost hundreds of thousands of French and German lives as well. One German officer famously described the Somme as "the muddy grave of the German field army".

Among those to experience the horrors of the battle from within the trenches were a young JRR Tolkien, later to write the epic Lord of the Rings, the poets Robert Graves and Siegfried Sassoon, future British Prime Minister Anthony Eden - and an Austrian corporal named Adolf Hitler.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:48 AM

June 24, 2006
Only Raped?

According to the dictates of the Religion of Peace™, she should be grateful that she wasn't killed:

Sehar Muhammad Shafi, 24, has fled her home city of Karachi with her husband and two young daughters after being attacked and raped for changing her faith.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:18 PM

June 23, 2006
Five Years Too Late

But still welcome news. "Underperformin' Norman" Mineta is resigning.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:10 AM

June 22, 2006
Hoist By His Own Petard

Almost literally:

Iraqi security sources said a lieutenant of Al Qaida network chief Abu Ayoub Al Masri was found killed in a car on its way to an insurgency strike. The sources said a bomb inside the car blew up prematurely and killed the lieutenant and three other Al Qaida operatives.

Don't you just hate when that happens? No virgins for them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:55 PM

Why Now?

A speculative discussion of why we're only now hearing about the finding of chemical shells in Iraq, and what else the administration isn't telling us.

[Update in the afternoon]

"Formerspook" has the back story.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:34 AM

June 20, 2006
Redeployment

Are foreign terrorists in Iraq on the run to the border?

Let's hope so.

Maybe they're retreating to Okinawa.

You know, I suspect that Iraqis are probably getting pretty tired of all these illegal immigrants coming into Iraq to do the jobs that Iraqis won't do. You know...chopping off heads, blowing up marketplaces?

Gee, I feel a satire coming on...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:31 PM

Feet Of Clay

It turns out that Coleen Rowley isn't quite the whistle-blowing heroine she's been made out to be.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:02 PM

June 19, 2006
Poison Gas And "Torture"

Cliff May has some thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:08 PM

Dems Deride, Truth Dies

John Fund writes about the Democrats' dilemma in their continuing attempts to rewrite history.

Most people, including me, are willing to discuss and debate the wisdom of both past and current policy in Iraq. But it's not possible to debate seriously people who continue to insist that Bush lied, and that it was about oil, or avenging his daddy, or because he's a bloodthirsty warmonger. And people who continue to spout such nonsense are (thankfully) going to continue to lose at the polls, regardless of how unhappy the American people are with the Iraq situation. Which is better news for the Republicans than they deserve.

[Update a few minutes later]

I should add that I actually agree with the Democrats that the administration has been incompetent in the war. The problem is that in this (as on almost all issues), the Dems would be even worse (in many cases, not even being willing to actually wage it). As I've said on numerous occasions, I wish that we'd had better choices in 2004.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:01 PM

June 16, 2006
Has Al Qaeda In Iraq Been Destroyed?

Strategy Page says maybe:

The death of al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi was not as important as the capture of his address book and other planning documents in the wake of the June 7th bombing. U.S. troops are trained to quickly search for names and addresses when they stage a raid, pass that data on to a special intelligence cell, which then quickly sorts out which of the addresses should be raided immediately, before the enemy there can be warned that their identity has been compromised. More information is obtained in those raids, and that generates more raids. So far, the June 7th strike has led to over 500 more raids. There have been so many raids, that there are not enough U.S. troops to handle it, and over 30 percent of the raids have been carried by Iraqi troops or police, with no U.S. involvement. Nearly a thousand terrorist suspects have been killed or captured. The amount of information captured has overwhelmed intelligence organizations in Iraq, and more translators and analysts are assisting, via satellite link, from the United States and other locations.

There is this, too:

The damage done by the post- Zarqawi raids has spurred the Sunni Arab amnesty negotiations. These have been stalled for months over the issue of how many Sunni Arabs, with "blood on their hands", should get amnesty. Letting the killers walk is a very contentious issue. There are thousands of Sunni Arabs involved here. The latest government proposal is to give amnesty to most of the Sunni Arabs who have just killed foreigners (mainly Americans). Of course, this offer was placed on the table without any prior consultations with the Americans. Naturally, such a deal would be impossible to sell back in the United States. But the Iraqis believe they could get away with it if it brought forth a general surrender of the Sunni Arab anti-government forces.

I heard a lot of bloviation from Capitol Hill last night on the news on this subject. Many of our lawmakers are seemingly outraged (or at least feigning outrage) at the notion that soldiers who have been making war on US troops should get amnesty. But isn't this the way of every war? During a war, soldiers try to kill each other. After the war, they go home. At least that's been the tradition with the US.

Regardless of their unorthodox (and some say cowardly) means of killing US soldiers (e.g., IEDs), there's nothing illegitimate about it, per se (though the lack of uniforms and command structure is troubling). We are supposedly in a "War on Terrorism." It seems to me that we should be encouraging the enemy to at least stop waging war on innocent civilians, which this should do. And there are no doubt many who planted IEDs that were sincere in their belief that the US was an occupying power, and its soldiers a legitimate target. Certainly we'd do the same, if we had to.

If the war is over, then the soldiers on both sides put down their arms, and no harm, no foul. If making that offer results in an end to the war, then why do we complain? We didn't, after all, punish the ordinary soldiers of the Wehrmacht after we defeated Germany. It may in the end be difficult to really make the necessary distinctions between attackers of troops and attackers of civilians, but the principle seems sound. All of this outrage on the Hill seems more emotional than reasoned, to me.

[Update a few minutes later]

Great (OK, well, some kind of) minds think alike. Jonah Goldberg has a similar rant, which is even tougher on the posturing, "get out now" Democrats (and Republicans, where it applies).

His point is mine. Amnesty is a consolation prize for losing the war. What many in the bug-out brigade seem to want is for them to win.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AM

June 15, 2006
This Was A Really Bad Week

For the Democrats to have this debate...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:05 PM

The Deadliness Of Political Correctness

"Fjordman" over at The Gates Of Vienna says that we didn't win the Cold War decisively enough, and it makes it harder to fight the new form of anti-Enlightenment totalitarianism represented by Jihad. We still haven't put the wooden stake through the heart of Marxism.

[Via Mars Blog]

[Update in the afternoon]

Here are some related thoughts on multi-culturalism and how it will kill us as well, if we let it, from the preface of Ayann Hirsi Ali's new book.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:16 AM

Time Is On The Side Of The Infidels

An interesting find in the Zarkman's (un)safe house:

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

I particularly like this problem they seem to be having:

By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

Those evil propagandists! Only they could fool people into thinking that brutally murdering and blowing up innocent men, women and children, and kidnapping and people and making head-chopping snuff films with them, was harmful to the population.

Anyway, they must be talking about Iraqi media. I haven't seen much of that in the western press. Most of what I read here, based on interviews with Murtha and Kerry, is that we can't win, and must give up. Wonder what they'll have to say about this document? Someone should ask them. But they won't.

And note that the enemy knows who its best friends are, as evidenced by the fact that this is their numero uno strategem:

To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

Yup. They keep playing the western media like a finely-tuned Strad. And the western media love the tune, because they share a common enemy--George Bush.

[Update in the afternoon]

I just noticed in reading more carefully that a key part of Al Qaeda/Iraq's strategy seems to be to foment a war between the US and Iran. We'll have to look out for this. I wonder if the Iranian government is aware of this (and if they've been harboring Al Qaeda types to whom they'll no longer be as friendly).

[Update a couple minutes later]

Here's a story that says the Iraqi government believes that it's broken the back of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The mine of information from Al-Qaeda documents seized during raids spelt "the beginning of the end" for the terror group, said Iraqi national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie
"We believe Al-Qaeda in Iraq was taken by surprise; they did not anticipate how powerful the Iraqi security forces are and how the government is on the attack now," Rubaie told reporters.

The documents had given Iraq an "edge over Al-Qaeda and will also give us the whereabouts of their network and their leaders and their weapons, and the way they lead the organisation and the whereabouts of their meetings".

I hope they're right, but I'll keep the champagne chilled for now.

[Update at 3:30 PM]

One more interesting point about that letter from the (un)safe house, re: benefits to AQ in Iraq of a US/Iran war:

“The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.”

Emphasis mine. Who do they think (in bin Laden's lexicon) is the "strong horse" now?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:17 AM

Numerology

They couldn't even wait for the next thousand on the odometer. Remember the big deal the press made about the 2000th death in Iraq? Now the magic (and utterly meaningless) number is 2500:

While there were no details on who it was or where the 2,500th death occurred, it underscored the continuing violence in Iraq just after an upbeat Bush returned from a surprise visit to Baghdad determined that the tide was beginning to turn.

In other words, we've now lost, over a period of over three years, almost as many as died in a couple hours on the beaches of Normandy (perhaps even the same number as were lost just in training for that event). Would the media have been so hung up on these kinds of numbers during that war? It seems unlikely, but if they had (or to be more precise, had today's media been reporting then), the story would have been something like this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:36 AM

June 14, 2006
How Nations Die

Mark Steyn:

Melanie Phillips makes a point that applies to Britain, Canada and beyond: "With few exceptions, politicians, Whitehall officials, senior police and intelligence officers and academic experts have failed to grasp that the problem to be confronted is not just the assembly of bombs and poison factories but what is going on inside people's heads that drives them to such acts." These are not Pushtun yak herders straight off the boat blowing up trains and buses. They're young men, most of whom were born and all of whom were bred in London, Toronto and other Western cities. And offered the nullity of a contemporary multicultural identity they looked elsewhere -- and found the jihad. If we try to fight it as isolated outbreaks -- a suicide attack here, a beheading there -- we will never win. You have to take on the ideology and the networks that sustain it and throttle them. Does [Toronto mayor] David Miller sound like a man who's up to that challenge? A reader in Quebec, John Gross, emailed me to distill the mayor's approach as: "Don't get mad, get even . . . wimpier."

Despite the delusions of many Canadians, being "nice" will not save Canada.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:51 AM

Self Censorship

The intimidation of the Islamists is working:

Bertel Haarder believes that the government of Denmark — the same government of which he is a member — cannot protect him from people who would kill him because of what he says. He believes that the police, the laws, and the courts of the sovereign democratic state of Denmark are of no use, and are unable to defend him from his country’s enemies.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 AM

June 13, 2006
Good News From Iraq

It's been a tough week for terrorists. I particularly liked this part:

...an interesting statement made by the speaker of the parliament after the debate:
“We are doing like our uncle America; it is democracy speaking,” he said.

Of course, to our leftist friends, this just proves that the Iraqi government is a puppet of the US. Such a notion couldn't possibly be sincere, or widespread...

[Update a few minutes later]

It's also a tough week for many terrorist sympathizers. Despite all the hyperventilating, Karl Rove will not be indicted. I agree with John Podhoretz that, on the available evidence, Fitzgerald's behavior in this matter has been shameful.

[Update at 10:13 AM EDT]

Tom Maguire has more on the Fitzmas Fizzleout. And getting back to the original post topic, Ralph Peters writes about destroying the symbols of terror.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AM

June 12, 2006
Unintended Consequences

Remember all of the outcry because Rumsfeld wasn't getting better armored Humvees to the troops? Well, it turns out that the new "up armored" Humvees in Iraq are apparently killing more soldiers in rollovers than they're saving with the new armor:

...serious accidents involving the M1114 have increased as the war has progressed, and the accidents were much more likely to be rollovers than those of other Humvee models, the newspaper reported.

Duhhhhh!

Increasing the vehicle mass, and coincidentally raising the center of mass, is obviously going to decrease its stability in turns. Didn't anyone consider this when they came up with the design? People forget that this vehicle was a replacement for the jeep, not the tank.

This is a classic engineering safety trade, but soldiers killed in auto accidents don't get all the press that the ones killed with IEDs do. That doesn't fit the template that we're losing the war, because they were killed by media outcry, not terrorists.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:34 AM

Nope, No Terrorism Here

One of the enduring myths of the anti-war left is that there were no ties between Saddam and terrorism. No, of course there weren't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AM

A Gloomy View Of The Future

The return of the Goths. And Barbary pirates.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:58 AM

June 11, 2006
Whole Lot Of "Vowing" Going On

Some people talk, others act.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:30 PM

June 09, 2006
Hallelujiah

In the joint news conference with the Danish PM, I just heard the president use the words "totalitarian" and "Islamofascism" to describe the enemy. Now if we can just get the administration to stop calling it a "war on terror" and rectify names. It's a War against Jihad. I suspect that we'll hear whining from CAIR any minute, though, for implying that Islam is not a Religion of Peace™.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 AM

June 08, 2006
Rays Of Hope?

Donald Sensing is sensing signs that the civil war within Islam is shifting toward the reformists. I hope he's right, because the alternative is almost unthinkable. And even if he's right, a long war remains ahead.

[Update a few minutes later]

Claudia Rossett has additional thoughts on the meaning of yesterday's victory (sorry, no scare quotes--it was a huge victory, particularly combined with the government jelling). She offers some badly needed perspective:

...this is an excellent moment to step back and look at just how far in this war we have come. Five years ago, al-Qaeda's commanders, from their safe haven in Afghanistan, were training thousands of terrorists and planning the Sept. 11 strike on a sleeping America. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein ruled by terror, with a record of exporting brutality and war from Baghdad at any opportunity to wherever he could reach - invading his neighbors, rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers, and openly rejoicing over Sept. 11.
Today, elected governments lead Afghanistan and Iraq, which has just completed its cabinet lineup. Bin Laden is afraid to venture out of hiding; Saddam, pulled from his spider hole, is on trial in Baghdad. And now, Zarqawi is dead, and the circumstances of his death may encourage decent people not only in Iraq but elsewhere to help hunt down his collaborators.

This is the benefit. What she doesn't mention is the cost. And in the context of history, it's trivial. I'll use an adjective that many will find appalling, but it's perfectly valid. We did it with the loss of only two or three thousand soldiers. This would have been a small toll for many single battles of past wars, with much less beneficial results. Think about that leverage again. We have liberated fifty million people with the loss of less than 0.01% of that number in American troop losses. Even if one adds in all of the innocent Iraqis who have died (and they're not to be trivialized, but they also have to be balanced against those who would have continued to die under the brutality and deprivation of Saddam's regime), it remains an amazing feat.

In my little satire, recall that the War Between the States cost many tens of thousands of lives of American troops (just on the Union side--many more when adding in the Confederacy). Get a little perspective, people.

To paraphrase someone else, never before have so few had to give their lives for so many.

[Update on Friday morning]

Christopher Hitchens explains the significance of Zarqawi's death, and the dire consequences that would result if we listened to the continuing misguided calls for immediate withdrawal:

Most fascinating of all is the suggestion that Zarqawi was all along receiving help from the mullahs in Iran. He certainly seems to have been able to transit their territory (Herat is on the Iranian border with Afghanistan) and to replenish his forces by the same route. If this suggestive connection is proved, as Weaver suggests it will be, then we have the Shiite fundamentalists in Iran directly sponsoring the murderer of their co-religionists in Iraq. This in turn would mean that the Iranian mullahs stood convicted of the most brutish and cynical irresponsibility, in front of their own people, even as they try to distract attention from their covert nuclear ambitions. That would be worth knowing. And it would become rather difficult to argue that Bush had made them do it, though no doubt the attempt will be made.
If we had withdrawn from Iraq already, as the "peace" movement has been demanding, then one of the most revolting criminals of all time would have been able to claim that he forced us to do it. That would have catapulted Iraq into Stone Age collapse and instated a psychopathic killer as the greatest Muslim soldier since Saladin. As it is, the man is ignominiously dead and his dirty connections a lot closer to being fully exposed. This seems like a good day's work to me.

Me, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 PM

Good Riddance To Vile Jihadist Rubbish

Ding dong, the Zarkman is dead. Dr. Sanity has a roundup of predictable reactions from the "~~insan~~reality-based community."

Here are some more, from the Kos Krazies. I particularly like this one:

"Yes the timing of Zarqawi's death does seem too good for Bush to be true. It reeks of distraction politics."

Yes, the old "timing is suspect" comment. There's never a coincidence with this crowd. What would they have said a hundred forty three years ago?

Maybe something like this:

TIMING OF UNION "VICTORIES" VIEWED AS SUSPICIOUS

July 5th, 1863

WASHINGTON (Routers) While many rejoiced at the news of the simultaneous fall of Vicksburg and bloody Union "victory" at Gettysburg, some question the timing of the two events. They accuse the Lincoln administration of orchestrating good news, at the cost of thousands of our children's lives, to coincide with the nation's birthday, in an attempt to prop up its sagging poll ratings.

"Grant could have taken Vicksburg any time over the last few weeks. Why on the Fourth of July?" asked one Democrat staffer. He went on, "...and why didn't Lincoln order Meade to defeat Lee on July 1st? Why let the battle go on for three blood-drenched days?"

There are rumors, in fact, that after the recent indecisive battle of Brandy Station, President Lincoln ordered General Meade to allow General Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to forage in Pennsylvania, in order to stir up a martial frenzy among a public whose enthusiasm for this war, that benefits only arms merchants, has been waning.

"This was all trumped up by that war-mongering cabal headed by Lincoln and Stanton, to cover up their incompetence in waging this senseless Republican war," proclaimed one Senator. "I'm very suspicious of the timing."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 AM

June 07, 2006
EU Delenda Est

A long essay from The Gates of Vienna on why the EU must die, or Europe itself will, at least in any recognizable modern western form.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:21 PM

From The Horse's...Errrr...Mouth

Ayatollah Khomeini didn't seem to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. Will CAIR denounce his words?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:07 PM

June 06, 2006
Bad News In Somalia

Al Qaeda has actually won a battle in the war, something that rarely happens on the actual battlefied. Unfortunately, it happens every day, in the western press...

[Wednesday morning update]

Jonah Goldberg has further thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:52 PM

June 04, 2006
Europe Smelling The Coffee?

Support for the "Palestinian cause" has apparently plummeted across the pond.

Better late than never, I guess.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:46 PM

June 03, 2006
Inadvertent Humor From BBC/ABC

Yeah, let's take advice on Iran policy from Jimmy Carter. After all:

His comments are significant, given that he was the president when US relations with Iran hit an all-time low.

Some British reporter actually wrote this with a straight face, and some British and Australian editors actually printed it, again with no humor intended.

And while we're on the subject of Iran, read about the sycophantic stenography of a Walter Duranty wannabee at the WaPo.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:35 PM

June 01, 2006
Betting Against The House

Gerard Baker says that Condi is playing a losing hand on Iran.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 PM

May 30, 2006
Religion Of Intimidation

Australian model Michelle Leslie explains why she wore a burqa. Unfortunately, even wearing one isn't sufficient to prevent abuse of women, since it's endemic. But hey, it's just another culture, right? And cultures are good.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:47 AM

May 29, 2006
The Hunters, Not The Hunted

Another very important Memorial Day piece, in (of all places) the New York Times.

In the past, the American public could turn to its sons for martial perspective. Soldiers have historically been perhaps the country's truest reflection, a socio-economic cross-section borne from common ideals. The problem is, this war is not being fought by World War II's citizen-soldiers. Nor is it fought by Vietnam's draftees. Its wages are paid by a small cadre of volunteers that composes about one-tenth of 1 percent of the population — America's warrior class.
The insular nature of this group — and a war that has spiraled into politicization — has left the Americans disconnected and confused. It's as if they have been invited into the owner's box to settle a first-quarter disagreement on the coach's play-calling. Not only are they unprepared to talk play selection, most have never even seen a football game.

This confusion, in turn, affects our warriors, who are frustrated by the country's lack of cohesion and the depiction of their war. Iraq hasn't been easy on the military, either. But the strength of our warriors is their ability to adapt.

Read the whole thing. Also read some eloquent thoughts from (non-American, but American in spirit) Christopher Hitchens:

"Always think of it: never speak of it." That was the stoic French injunction during the time when the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had been lost. This resolution might serve us well at the present time, when we are in midconflict with a hideous foe, and when it is too soon to be thinking of memorials to a war not yet won. This Memorial Day, one might think particularly of those of our fallen who also guarded polling-places, opened schools and clinics, and excavated mass graves. They represent the highest form of the citizen, and every man and woman among them was a volunteer. This plain statement requires no further rhetoric.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:28 PM

May 28, 2006
Londonistan

Melanie Phillips has a brief excerpt on her new book about radical Islam in the UK in, of all places, the Guardian. What I find interesting, and dismaying, is all of the leftist, multi-culti denial in the comments.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AM

May 27, 2006
Taking Stock

On Memorial Day weekend, Victor Davis Hanson recounts our many policy mistakes in Iraq. Over the past decades. (Hint: removing Saddam wasn't one of them, and few of them were committed by the current administration.)

There are few Ernie Pyles in Iraq to record the heroism of our soldiers; no John Fords to film their valor — but legions to write ad nauseam of Abu Ghraib, and to make up stories of flushed Korans and Americans terrorizing Iraqi women and children.
Yet here we are with an elected government in place, an Iraqi security force growing, and an autocratic Middle East dealing with the aftershocks of the democratic concussion unleashed by American soldiers in Iraq.

Reading about Gettysburg, Okinawa, Choisun, Hue, and Mogadishu is often to wonder how such soldiers did what they did. Yet never has America asked its youth to fight under such a cultural, political, and tactical paradox as in Iraq, as bizarre a mission as it is lethal. And never has the American military — especially the U.S. Army and Marines — in this, the supposedly most cynical and affluent age of our nation, performed so well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:58 AM

May 26, 2006
Letter To A Useful Idiot

Cathy Seipp has some words for Cindy Sheehan. And Howard Zinn.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:01 AM

Is There A More Loathsome Politician?

...in the western world than George Galloway?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:41 AM

May 24, 2006
It's A Clash, All Right

...but I get tired of hearing the phrase "clash of civilizations." There's nothing civilized about fundamentalist Islam. Wafa Sultan agrees:

Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
[...]

Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:42 PM

I Wish That Sensenbrenner Was Right

...upon release of this latest Congressional report it will up to the American flying public to voice their concerns. After all, with air cargo holds remaining uninspected, TSA screeners recently failing tests for both weapons and bomb materials allowed through security points and hearing that identification of air marshals is continually at risk, should not sit well with flyers. As Sensenbrenner admits about the report, “I think the American public will be shocked.”

I'd like to be shocked, but it's pretty hard to be, for anyone who has been paying attention to this nonsense for the last four-plus years.

The Department of Homeland Security is a disaster, as many of us thought it would be, and TSA has been largely idiotic, exclusive of that decision. If anyone wants to find evidence for incompetence of the Bush administration, here it is, in spades. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no reason to think that a Democrat administration would be any better. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats. And they may be the death of this nation yet.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:33 PM

May 23, 2006
Like Dogs To Their Vomit

Anti-war folks keep coming back to their false myths.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:00 AM

May 15, 2006
Us And Them

Arnold Kling reminds those who have forgotten of the asymmetric difference between us and the real enemy (i.e., not the Bush administration, which seems to be the real enemy to much of the left, and too much of the Democrat Party):

Many people have fled radical Muslim regimes to live in the U.S. Hardly anyone has fled the U.S. to live under radical Muslim regimes.
In the United States, women are allowed to choose whether or not to wear modest clothing. Radical Muslims deny them that right, as well as others.
Americans who abuse enemy prisoners cower in shame and are prosecuted. Radical Muslims celebrate war crimes, proudly display photos and videos of war crimes, and honor the criminals.
More Iraqis would like to see the terrorists give up tomorrow than see the Americans leave tomorrow. (If there is any doubt about that, we can put the issue up for a vote in Iraq.)
Americans see negotiations as a way to resolve differences. Radical Muslims see negotiations as a sign of weakness.
When Muslims come to live in America, we provide them with safety, tolerance, and equal rights. Jews and Christians do not enjoy equal rights -- or even safety -- inside countries run by radical Muslim regimes.
The American military is trained to try to minimize civilian casualties. For radical Muslims, civilian casualties are a measure of success.
Americans go to war reluctantly, when other means fail. Radical Muslims accept cease-fires reluctantly, when other means fail.
Americans desire the approval and support of the European people. Radical Muslims desire the intimidation and submission of the European people.
If radical Muslims would renounce violence, then we would not disturb them. If we renounce violence, then we will be conquered and brutalized.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:25 PM

May 10, 2006
What, Me Worry?

Well this certainly inspires confidence in the ability of the federal government to protect me:

How much do you think Osama bin Laden would pay to know exactly when and where the President was traveling, and who was with him? Turns out, he wouldn't have had to pay a dime. All he had to do was go through the trash early Tuesday morning.
It appears to be a White House staff schedule for the President's trip to Florida Tuesday. And a sanitation worker was alarmed to find in the trash long hours before Mr. Bush left for his trip.

Well, it seems to be at least as effective as TSA at the airports.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:01 PM

May 09, 2006
It's The Women, Stupid

Bernard Lewis says that women hold the key to winning the war against the Islamofasciomisogynists.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:12 PM

A Blooming Islamic Reformation?

Maybe. In Morocco:

“We need our people to know the real West…to understand that the West ain’t no angel, but it ain’t no demon either,” Abaddi said, attempting a Western accent, at a private dinner in a Washington, D.C., suburb last week. “[This effort] is not a luxury. We are not being pressured to do it. We are trying to train responsible people to live in dangerous times.”
“Our world is threatening to destroy itself,” he noted, citing apocalyptic rhetoric coming out of Tehran, Iran’s nuclear program, radical Islamic terrorism, AIDS, and severe global poverty. “Morocco can help bring about peace. I think the Moroccan model is practical and helpful. It communicates an entirely different concept of Islam to the rest of the world….I personally can’t sit back and do nothing. After all, there is an Arab proverb that says, ‘Don’t be a mute Satan.’ I feel compelled to do everything I can to make a better world.”

It's not perfect, as the article describes, but it's an encouraging step.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 PM

Depressed

Al Qaeda knows, and admits, that they're losing the war. They do think they've had some success on one front, though:

The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.
This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad (for example, taking control of a university, a hospital, or a Sunni religious site).

Don't expect to read about this aspect in the New York Times.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AM

May 04, 2006
The Blogwar

...between Juan Cole (who I hope goes to Yale soon, so he ceases damaging the reputation of my alma mater in Ann Arbor) and Christopher Hitchens continues. One of the Iranian readers at Winds of Change says that Professor Cole's Farsi isn't all it's cracked up to be. And Iowahawk has hacked Juan's outbox, and found a first draft of one of his emails to Hitchens. As Joe points out, it's difficult to parody the professor, since he does such a good job of it himself, but Mr. Burge manages it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:52 AM

May 03, 2006
Friends Of The Dictators

Instapundit has an interesting roundup of links and discussion about the notion of the morality of allowing the Saudi and Iranian governments to control their oil, and the hypocrisy of the left in defending their right to do so.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:24 PM

The Cultural Wars In Europe

Here's a long, but vital essay by George Weigel:

Earlier this year, five days short of the second anniversary of the Madrid bombings, the Zapatero government, which had already legalized marriage between and adoption by same-sex partners and sought to restrict religious education in Spanish schools, announced that the words “father” and “mother” would no longer appear on Spanish birth certificates. Rather, according to the government’s official bulletin, “the expression ‘father’ will be replaced by ‘Progenitor A,’ and ‘mother’ will be replaced by ‘Progenitor B.’” As the chief of the National Civil Registry explained to the Madrid daily ABC, the change would simply bring Spain’s birth certificates into line with Spain’s legislation on marriage and adoption. More acutely, the Irish commentator David Quinn saw in the new regulations “the withdrawal of the state’s recognition of the role of mothers and fathers and the extinction of biology and nature.”
At first blush, the Madrid bombings and the Newspeak of “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B” might seem connected only by the vagaries of electoral politics: the bombings, aggravating public opinion against a conservative government, led to the installation of a leftist prime minister, who then proceeded to do many of the things that aggressively secularizing governments in Spain have tried to do in the past. In fact, however, the nexus is more complex than that. For the events of the past two years in Spain are a microcosm of the two interrelated culture wars that beset Western Europe today.

The first of these wars—let us, following the example of Spain’s birth certificates, call it “Culture War A”—is a sharper form of the red state/blue state divide in America: a war between the postmodern forces of moral relativism and the defenders of traditional moral conviction. The second—“Culture War B”—is the struggle to define the nature of civil society, the meaning of tolerance and pluralism, and the limits of multiculturalism in an aging Europe whose below-replacement-level fertility rates have opened the door to rapidly growing and assertive Muslim populations.

The aggressors in Culture War A are radical secularists, motivated by what the legal scholar Joseph Weiler has dubbed “Christophobia.” They aim to eliminate the vestiges of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture from a post-Christian European Union by demanding same-sex marriage in the name of equality, by restricting free speech in the name of civility, and by abrogating core aspects of religious freedom in the name of tolerance. The aggressors in Culture War B are radical and jihadist Muslims who detest the West, who are determined to impose Islamic taboos on Western societies by violent protest and other forms of coercion if necessary, and who see such operations as the first stage toward the Islamification of Europe—or, in the case of what they often refer to as al-Andalus, the restoration of the right order of things, temporarily reversed in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella.

The question Europe must face, but which much of Europe seems reluctant to face, is whether the aggressors in Culture War A have not made it exceptionally difficult for the forces of true tolerance and authentic civil society to prevail in Culture War B.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:51 PM

May 02, 2006
What's The Big Deal?

Christopher Hitchens takes Professor Cole to school on what Persian words mean:

In some ways, the continuing row over his call for the complete destruction of Israel must baffle Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I have to say, that this is a brilliant opening line of the article. Hitchens has a way of finding the key truth that eludes most of us, but once stated, is stupefyingly obvious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:32 PM

May 01, 2006
"A Fire In A Field"

Watching United 93, Gerard Vanderleun remembers the other heros of that day:

Far away on that day, far from the pillar of flame and plume of ash at the foot of the island, there was another fire in a field in Pennsylvania. Those nearby felt the shudder in the earth and saw the smoke, but it would be some days before we understood what it was, and longer still until we began to know what it meant.
The film I saw by myself tonight expands that meaning and brings a human face to the acts by the passengers of United 93 that endure only in that rare atmosphere that heroes inhabit. What I know in my heart, but what always escapes my understanding until something like this film renews it, is that heroism is a virtue that most often appears among us not descending from some mythic pantheon, but rising up out of the ordinary earth and ordinary hearts when the moment calls for actions extraordinary.

I saw this ordinary courage in New York on that day as I learned of the police and the firemen who had gone up the stairs to save others' lives. That they, in their hundreds, had gone up when all others were fleeing down is an image that can never be erased from my memory. Time fades all impressions as surely as it faded the faces of the missing on the walls of my city, but let's, just for now, remember it it once again, for it we fail to remember and sustain the memories of our heroes, we are surely done as a nation and a people.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:43 AM

The Forgotten Front

Michael Totten describes a visit to northern Israel, at the Lebanese border:

“How dangerous is it here, really?” I asked the lieutenant.
“I say this to my guys every morning: Everything could explode at any moment. Just after I said it this morning a bus load of pensioners showed up on a field trip. An old woman brought us some food. It’s crazy. They shouldn’t be here. You shouldn’t be here.”

“What’s happening here is very unusual," Zvika, the Israeli Defense Forces Spokesman, said. But he wouldn't tell me what, exactly, was so unusual. Shortly after I left the country, a story broke in the Daily Telegraph that explained it.

Iran has moved into South Lebanon. Intelligence agents are helping Hezbollah construct watch towers fitted with one-way bullet-proof windows right next to Israeli army positions.

Here's what one officer said:

This is now Iran's front line with Israel. The Iranians are using Hizbollah to spy on us so that they can collect information for future attacks. And there is very little we can do about it.

These events are not unconnected with Iraq, or Afghanistan. There is a common thread here--the ongoing war of the Jihadis against the West, which had been going on for years, but which we only came to recognize in 2001.

And hit Michael's tip jar, so he can afford to continue to do great (and dangerous) reporting like this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 AM

April 28, 2006
You Have To Be Lucky Every Time

Rush Limbaugh has an interesting interview with Paul Greengrass, the ("liberal") director of United 93:

GREENGRASS: I'll tell you one of the most chilling things that I have learned from my experience of looking at terrorism. About 20 years ago the IRA bombed the hotel where the prime minister, Prime Minister Thatcher, and her cabinet were, and about ten people were killed, and Prime Minister Thatcher -- who I never agreed with politically in the entirety of her career, but she was our prime minister, and I don't agree with blowing her up. Luckily she escaped. Later that night, the IRA issued a statement. They said, "Tonight you were lucky. You have to be lucky every time. We only have to be lucky once," and in that expression is the heart of the mind of the terrorist operation.
"We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky every time," and the truth is we can't always be lucky.

That's why we've gotta find somewhere solutions to these things, and we have to be prepared, it seems to me, and maybe you and I aren't going to agree about this, to look at what we do and ask ourselves some tough questions about it. Are what we're doing, are the things that we do, the things that they want us to do? Because one of the things terrorists want to do is goad us, make us react in ways that make the problem worse. I'm not making a political point now. I'm just, you know, answering the question, and that also is in this film. You know, we, all of us, wherever we stand on the political spectrum, if we're going to confront this problem and prevail, have got to ask ourselves hard questions and be prepared to challenge our beliefs. Because unless we get some consensus here, we're not going to prevail.

If you're going to see the movie this weekend, it's a good time to reread (or read for the first time, if you missed it) humorist Dave Barry's staggeringly unfunny, but masterful essay on the event. I wish I'd written it. I wish I had a tenth of the talent it took to write it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 PM

April 20, 2006
The Civil War In Iraq

Michael Yon explains what he meant earlier, in a must-read photo essay.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 AM

April 18, 2006
Saddam And Osama...

...sitting in a tree. K I S S I N...

Gee, here's an interview with Thomas Jocelyn, on what the captured documents have revealed about their relationship.

The same document...indicates that Iraq was in contact with Dr. Muhammad al-Massari, the head of the Committee for Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR). The CDLR is a known al Qaeda propaganda organ based in London. The document indicates that the IIS was seeking to “establish a nucleus of Saudi opposition in Iraq” and to “use our relationship with [al-Massari] to serve our intelligence goals.” The document also notes that Iraq was attempting to arrange a visit for the al Qaeda ideologue to Baghdad. Again, we can’t be certain what came of these contacts.

Just recently, however, al-Massari confirmed that Saddam had joined forces with al Qaeda prior to the war. Al-Massari says that Saddam established contact with the “Arab Afghans” who fled Afghanistan to northern Iraq in 2001 and that he funded their relocation to Iraq under the condition that they would not seek to undermine his regime. Upon their arrival, these al Qaeda terrorists were put in contact with Iraqi army personnel, who armed and funded them.

Obviously, this paints a very different picture of prewar Iraq than many would like to see.

No doubt.

Another leftist myth is imploding.

And here's one more reason that we need to blow up the CIA and start over:

After the first Gulf War, however, the U.S. intelligence community appears to have simply assumed that Iraq was no longer a serious player in international terrorism. Even though Saddam made it clear that he would support terrorists against the West when confronted, the U.S. intelligence community was not particularly worried about this possibility. Thus, according to the Senate Intelligence Report (July 2004), we learn that there “was no robust HUMINT [Human Intelligence] collection capability targeting Iraq’s links to terrorism until the Fall of 2002.” Up until then, “HUMINT collection was heavily dependant on a few foreign government services and there were no [redacted] sources inside Iraq reporting on strictly terrorism issues.”

Think about that. From the first Gulf War until 2002 the U.S. intelligence community was asleep at the wheel when it came to Iraq’s ties to terrorism. So, when evidence surfaces showing that the CIA and others may have missed some important developments during that time, it is quite natural for the bureaucrats who oversaw this mess to pretend as if that evidence doesn’t exist. Or, to pretend as if the evidence doesn’t mean anything. Or, to pretend as if they knew what Saddam and bin Laden were thinking and that they could never work together against a common foe.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AM

April 17, 2006
How Low Can She Go?

Cindy Sheehan's excellent Easter adventure. I guess she can do this because she has, in Maureen Dowd's words, "absolute moral authority." I'm not a Christian, but if I were, I'd be appalled.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:31 PM

Clueless Joe

Christopher Hitchens is still waiting for some substantive answers from Joe Wilson:

...it's true that the two men knew each other during the Gulf crisis of 1990-1991. Indeed, in his book The Politics of Truth, Wilson records Zahawie as having been in the room, as under-secretary for foreign affairs, during his last meeting with Saddam Hussein. (Quite a senior guy for a humble mission like violating flight-bans from distant Niger and Burkina Faso.) I cite this because it is the only mention of Zahawie that Wilson makes in his entire narrative.
In other words (I am prepared to keep on repeating this until at least one cow comes home), Joseph Wilson went to Niger in 2002 to investigate whether or not the country had renewed its uranium-based relationship with Iraq, spent a few days (by his own account) sipping mint tea with officials of that country who were (by his wife's account) already friendly to him, and came back with the news that all was above-board. Again to repeat myself, this must mean either that A) he did not know that Zahawie had come calling or B) that he did know but didn't think it worth mentioning that one of Saddam's point men on nukes had been in town. In neither case, it seems to me, should he be trusted with another mission that requires any sort of curiosity.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:22 PM

TSA Follies

First, we have this story, of a Marine put on a TSA no-fly list because he was detected with gunpowder residue on his combat boots.

Then, KLo over at NRO asks:

Small thing, all things considered, but wouldn't an expired I.D. be something to notice?

Not in a sane world. I've commented on this before. And I just noticed in the last comment on that post:

And as far as security being "bullshit"? How many planes have been hijacked since new security procedures have been put in place?

And how many would have been had they not?

This is the "tiger repellant" fallacy.

"Why do you keep jumping up and down on one foot?"

"To keep the tigers away."

"Are you crazy? There's not a tiger within thousands of miles of here, except in zoos."

"See? It works!"

It's not the airport security procedures that have prevented hijackings (though they may have cut down on attempts)--it's the fact that the passengers are much more alert now, and will never again allow another plane to be hijacked. Every flight from now on, as long as we remember Flight 93, will be Flight 93.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:38 PM

Air Superiority

I knew that the Raptor was superior, but I hadn't realized just how superior:

The aircraft is simply the most advanced ever built. There is nothing on earth to touch it. In simulated dogfights it has wiped the floor with the opposition.
In one such encounter, six F-15 Eagle air-superiority fighters — which the Raptor is replacing and which has a perfect combat record of 101 victories with zero defeats — were sent up to “kill” a single Raptor. All six were shot down...

...The Aggressors are the dogfighting experts of the US Air Force. In aerial combat training they act as the “enemy”. It’s their job to give the opposing fighter jocks a hard time. It’s also their job to “kill” them. A sort of baptism of fire — a wake-up call.

Huffman and his hot-shots were sent up against the Raptor. I’ll let him finish the story.

“We still joke about our missions against the Raptor, because they can be fairly boring.

“We fly to the [designated combat] range. Die. Go to the tanker [to refuel]. Go back out to the range. Die. Go back to the tanker. Go back out. Die. After the third time we go home.”

Same thing the next day, and the next.

As Huffman told Code One magazine, the 64th flew almost 300 sorties against the Raptors “and we never once got to merge [make visual contact] against a single Raptor”.

Another hard-assed air combat supremo, Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Garland, a former F-15 Eagle pilot and now a Raptor jockey, told Code One magazine: “Six adversaries provide a good workout for two F-15 Eagle pilots. But for two Raptors, defeating six adversaries is about as difficult as eating breakfast. We [Raptor pilots] don’t even break a sweat.”

Unfortunately, the enemy in this war doesn't employ aircraft as its primary, or even secondary means of force projection.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:06 AM

What We Are At War With

I'm on long record as being opposed to the "War on Terrorism." Not that I don't think that we should be fighting these thugs, but that the war was misnamed from the beginning. Jonathan Rauch explains:

"I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war," says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. "If you can't define who's a real threat and who's just exercising free speech, it's a problem." As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.
Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.

But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world's nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.

No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for "the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state."

..."This is a struggle over Islam and who's going to control Islam," Habeck says. "If you can't talk about that, you can't talk about most of the story." Specifying that the war is against Jihadism -- as distinct from terrorism or Islam (or Islamism, which sounds like "Islam") -- would allow the United States to confront the religious element of the problem without seeming to condemn a whole religion. It would clarify for millions of moderate Muslims that the West's war aims are anti-jihadist, not militantly secular.

In any case, says Habeck, "people are not buying the administration's claim that this has nothing to do with Islam." A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that the proportion of Americans saying that Islam helps stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled (to 33 percent) since January 2002, when 9/11 memories were still vivid. If anything, the tendency of Bush, Blair, and other Western leaders to sweep Jihadism under the rug is counterproductive and fuels public suspicion of those leaders and of Islam itself.

What's interesting (particularly in light of this post) is that the left is supposedly against imperialism, but they never seemed to mind the imperialism of the Soviets. And now they are either sanguine, or in denial (or even supportive, because it opposes that evil western Amerikkkan imperialism) about Islamic imperialism.

[Via La Dynamist]

[Update a couple minutes later]

I think this is an opportunity for the administration. Since so many whine that the president will never admit to error, he could take some wind out of their sails, while clarifying the nation's war policy, by admitting that calling it a "War on Terrorism" after 911 was a mistake. This would undercut a lot of the arguments about why we don't go after the IRA, or other groups, while showing that he can recognize mistakes and rectify them. Renaming it a war on Jihadism would also increase pressure against Iran, which is clearly of a jihadist mindset, and increase justification for preventing them from getting nukes (assuming that any is really needed).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AM

April 16, 2006
Who Protects Freedom Of Speech?

I've been meaning to post on this topic, but Tigerhawk beat me to what I was going to say:

Comedy Central has, at least, been forthcoming about its reason for censoring "South Park":
Comedy Central's belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite the decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events.
With the power of freedom of speech and expression also comes the obligation to use that power in a responsible way. Much as we wish it weren't the case, times have changed and, as witnessed by the intense and deadly reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons, decisions cannot be made in a vacuum without considering what impact they may have on innocent individuals around the globe.

We appreciate the transparency, because it prevents us from having to imagine the reasons Comedy Central might have had. This admission clarifies the issue. Comedy Central censored "South Park" because it feared that Muslim extremists would do violence if it did not.

Now, businesses like Comedy Central and Border's Books and the major newspapers have every reason to want to avoid violence, so it is understandable that threatened or potential violence motivates them to censor themselves. They are fiduciaries. But they cannot also claim to stand for freedom of speech. That requires courage, and above all the willingness to stare down the threat of violence.

[Emphasis Tigerhawk's, but I agree]

Yes. The point is that Borders (and Comedy Central) had a perfect right to abide by their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, in not putting themselves in a position of being sued by someone injured by violent muslims as a result of their book and magazine sales. But when they do that, they forfeit any right to claim to be upholders of free speech. I was upset less by Borders' actions, than by their unwillingness to be forthright about their reason for them, which would have provided more insight into the enemy that we face.

There are some other interesting points made in the comments to Tigerhawk's post. How much responsibility does Borders have to protect their own customers, versus the responsibility of the government to do so? Would a plaintiff have a legitimate (and more important, in these days of nonsensical and whimsical jury decisions in civil cases) case that Borders was irresponsible in selling magazines that published cartoons that some violent people would find offensive?

On this holiest day of the Christian calendar, these are useful questions to think about and ask. Will CAIR put up guards outside of Borders to protect freedom of expression in this country? If not, why not? And if not, what does that tell us about where their primary loyalty lies? What part of their name is more important to them, the American (the "A" part of the acronym) or the Islamic (the "I" part)? If the answer is the latter--that it is not allowed to depict Mohammed, let alone insult him--is more important than the right of free expression, this tells us much, I think.

If we are to be cowed against criticism of a religion (uniquely of Islam) by violent threats, but free to have "Piss Christ," and the Middle Eastern press (hardly a free one) can run cartoons reiterating over and over the blood libel against the Jews and compare them to Nazis, what does that tell us about Islam itself? Can we live with it, not as it purports to be, but (as revealed by this episode) it really is, and maintain our own values?

[Update on Monday morning]

There is some discussion in comments about the First Amendment, and whether or not Borders has a responsibility to enforce it. That's not what this is about. The First Amendment is an example of what's being discussed here, not the basis of it. What is at stake is not a constitutional right, but a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment.

Does, or does not, Borders stand for freedom of expression? If they don't, if they have been cowed by some combination of Islamic and legal threats, then they should forthrightly make a very public and loud statement to that effect, describing exactly what went into their decision. While it's true that, as one commenter noted, they have been transparent in this, in terms of email explanations, I want them to be more than that. If they purport to support this freedom, I expect them to be incandescent.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:24 PM

The Age Of A Scary Us

Mark Steyn:

Happy Easter. Happy Passover. But, if you're like the president of Iran and believe in the coming of the "Twelfth Imam," your happy holiday may be just around the corner, too. President Ahmadinejad, who is said to consider himself the designated deputy of the "hidden Imam," held a press conference this week -- against a backdrop of doves fluttering round an atom and accompanied by dancers in orange decontamination suits doing choreographed uranium-brandishing. It looked like that Bollywood finale of ''The 40-Year-Old Virgin,'' where they all pranced around to "This Is The Dawning Of The Age Of Aquarius." As it happens, although he dresses like Steve Carell's 40-year-old virgin, the Iranian president is, in fact, a 40-year-old nuclear virgin, and he was holding a press conference to announce he was ready to blow. "Iran," he said, "has joined the group of countries which have nuclear technology" -- i.e., this is the dawning of the age of a scary us. "Our enemies cannot do a damned thing," he crowed, as an appreciative audience chanted "Death to America!"
The reaction of the international community was swift and ferocious. The White House said that Iran "was moving in the wrong direction." This may have been a reference to the dancers. A simple Radio City kickline would have been better. The British Foreign Office said it was "not helpful." This may have been a reference to the doves round the atom.

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:40 AM

April 15, 2006
Red On Red

This seems like good news:

Sheikh Osama Jadaan's dislike of foreign occupation is nothing compared to his contempt for Iraq's other intruders - the foreign jihadists who have indiscriminately killed thousands of his countrymen. Now, in what coalition commanders hope will mark a turning of the tide against al-Qaeda in Iraq, he has become the first of the Sunni tribal leaders to declare war on the terrorists to whom, until now, they have given safe haven.
He is well-placed to do so - his al-Karabla tribe lives around the desert city of Al Qaim, near the Syrian border in Anbar province, the Sunni insurgents' stronghold.

Sheikh Jadaan's armed followers claim to have arrested and killed 300 would-be jihadis entering from Syria, many bound for service as suicide bombers with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:31 PM

April 14, 2006
No Sense Of Humor

Think of this next time someone says that George Bush has "destroyed civil liberties" in this country:

"While the outcome of the recent arrests in connection with SMS messaging is not clear yet, what is certain is that SMS jokes have already put some people into serious trouble," wrote the website Rooz Online.
The clampdown is in line with the authorities' uncompromising stance on the internet and bloggers. Wary of modern communications as a means of spreading political dissent, Iran is second only to China in the number of websites it filters - using technology made in America.

Large numbers of the nation's estimated 70,000 to 100,000 bloggers have faced harassment or imprisonment. The regime has acknowledged monitoring text message traffic. It first admitted it had access to text traffic last December when a military plane carrying more than 100 journalists crashed shortly after take-off at Tehran airport.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:03 AM

April 12, 2006
"Although"?

Here's an interesting story from SEEBS news:

Although Americans believe they are better informed about Islam than they were five years ago, a new CBS News poll finds fewer than one in five say their impression of the religion is favorable.

OK, class, what's wrong with the first word of this story?

Anyone, anyone, Bueller?

Yes, it's the word "although." Clearly, any sane person would have started off that sentence with the word "Because."

But "because" the MSM wants to persist in feeding us the CAIR line that "Islam is a religion of peace," they have to use a nonsensical word to preface the rest of the thought. For the devil's advocates in the room, please explain to me and my other readers how a better understanding of Islam would compel one to have a more, rather than less, favorable impression of it.

[Update on Thursday morning]

This kind of reminds me of a similar confusion about cause and effect, when the New York Times will start a story, "Despite the recent drop in the crime rate, the prison population is at an all-time high."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 PM

"How Can They Think That?"

Melanie Phillips writes about Saddam's secrets:

Earlier this year, Sada was interrogated about his claims by the American House Intelligence committee, to whom he gave the names of the Iraqi pilots. Subsequently, he says, the Committee went to Iraq and spoke to the pilots. The result, he says, is that a major American investigative and diplomatic effort is now under way to finally locate the missing WMD.
But in Britain, I say, people now firmly believe that there were no WMD and that we were taken to war on a lie. Sada looks utterly flabbergasted. ‘How can they possibly think that?’ he asks in bewilderment and anger, and puts his head in his hands.

They have to think that, because otherwise everything they've invested in, politically, for the last few years, is a lie.

[Via LGF]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 PM

April 11, 2006
Back To The War

With continuing great reporting, Michael Yon provides a travelogue of Thailand and the unreported war there, and Dubai. Oh, and he says that Iraq is in a civil war.

And here's a very long, but worthwhile essay on Iran by Mark Steyn.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 AM

April 10, 2006
Another Exit Poll Error?

Early exits indicated that Silvio Berlusconi was going to lose the elections in Italy, but now it's looking like he's pulled it out. If true, once again, so much for the hopes of the left that Iraq-war coalition leaders would pay for their decision to remove the dictator.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:17 PM

April 09, 2006
Since The Statue Fell

It's hard to believe, but it's been three years. Joe Katzman has a roundup of all the good things that resulted, something that the press would rather ignore. And Judith Weiss has more on the subject.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:17 AM

April 08, 2006
Terrorist Groupies

Over at Gates of Vienna, "Fjordman" has a long but fascinating posts on the self-loathing of western culture.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:04 AM

April 06, 2006
Time To Fess Up

I'm a warmonger. Just like Bridget Johnson.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:14 AM

Standing Up To The Bullies

Michael Totten does:

Let me give you some personal advice, Hussein. Maybe we can be on the same page for a change. Get out of the “suburbs” and go hang out in Beirut once in a while. Don’t tell people who you work for. Just strike up conversations in restaurants, coffeeshops, and bars. Lebanese are friendly, so that’s easy. Ask Sunni, Christians, and Druze what they think of Hezbollah. Listen to what they have to say. Remember that you have to live with these people. I suppose you could turn your guns on them. We all know you can beat the Lebanese military in a one-on-one fight. Who knows, though? There's always a chance the Israeli Defense Forces might intervene against you on Lebanon’s behalf. How much would that suck?

Welcome back from the Middle East. You did some great reporting there.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:33 AM

April 05, 2006
Tell Us Something We Don't Know

Not all's well in terrorist paradise. Osama bin Laden apparently has a big mouth.

Mohammed, held in American custody at an unknown location since his capture in Pakistan three years ago, portrays himself as a brilliant terrorist manager.
Throughout the discussion, he is almost contemptuous of the wealthy bin Laden, who held the purse strings.

According to Mohammed, bin Laden lacked inspiration and vision. The Saudi failed to understand the basic security requirements of terrorist plots, such as keeping silent about impending attacks. Mohammed cites bin Laden's decision to inform a group of visitors to his Afghan headquarters that he was about to launch a major attack on American interests.

Then he told trainee terrorists at the al-Farooq training camp "to pray for the success of a major operation involving 20 martyrs".

Mohammed and a fellow terrorist manager, Mohammed Atef, who was later killed in an American air attack, were so concerned that they asked bin Laden to shut up.

I guess he never heard the phrase, "loose lips sink ships."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:50 PM

"The Warm Mud Of Me"

Gerard Vanderleun writes about the return of history.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AM

April 04, 2006
Prophecies And Nukes

This is an article from January, but I was just thinking about this issue again in the context of an email discussion, on whether or not Iran can be trusted with nukes.

All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour - denied by the government but widely believed - is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a "contract" pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran.
Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.

Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

Now here's the funny thing (at least to me). During the eighties, many accused Ronald Reagan of exactly this--thinking the Apocalypse at hand, and being willing and even eager to hurry it along with his itchy nuclear trigger finger, because we all know what a Christy bible-banging nutbag he was. It should be added, of course, that no credible evidence that he actually believed this was ever produced, and in fact we not only survived the Cold War under Reagan, but won it decisively, without a shot being fired, let alone initiation of the End Times.

Yet somehow, I don't see much in the way of expressions of concern from any of the people who were shopping this nonsense about Reagan then, about another nation's leader who actually does believe this, and whose every word and action confirms such a belief. This seems to be the same mindset that feverishly sees a theocracy continually descending on America, but never seems to notice that it somehow (to paraphrase Tom Wolfe) always lands in the Middle East. As Dennis Prager pointed out the other day, MAD (ironically) requires sane people.

Nazis and Communists wanted to live and feared death; Islamic authoritarians love death and loathe life.
That is why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the Soviet Union. Communist leaders love life -- they loved their money, their power, their dachas, their mistresses, their fine wines -- and were hardly prepared to give all that up for Marx. But Iran's current leaders celebrate dying, and MAD may not work, because from our perspective, they are indeed mad. MAD only works with the sane.

There is great room for doubt that this is a description of the folks currently in power in Iran. Despite the nasty options facing us, none of them good, the worst outcome would be if they get their hands on nukes (if indeed, they haven't already, as some have suggested, via North Korea). It should be additionally worrying that they seem determined to develop launchers (which implies ICBMs) But some people are too busy trying to get us to disarm to be worried about them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:07 AM

April 03, 2006
When Islam Breaks Down

Here's a long (but as usual, worthwhile) essay from Dr. Dalrymple on the future of Islam. He's not optimistic.

One sign of the increasing weakness of Islam’s hold over its nominal adherents in Britain—of which militancy is itself but another sign—is the throng of young Muslim men in prison. They will soon overtake the young men of Jamaican origin in their numbers and in the extent of their criminality. By contrast, young Sikhs and Hindus are almost completely absent from prison, so racism is not the explanation for such Muslim overrepresentation.
Confounding expectations, these prisoners display no interest in Islam whatsoever; they are entirely secularized. True, they still adhere to Muslim marriage customs, but only for the obvious personal advantage of having a domestic slave at home. Many of them also dot the city with their concubines—sluttish white working-class girls or exploitable young Muslims who have fled forced marriages and do not know that their young men are married. This is not religion, but having one’s cake and eating it.

The young Muslim men in prison do not pray; they do not demand halal meat. They do not read the Qu’ran. They do not ask to see the visiting imam. They wear no visible signs of piety: their main badge of allegiance is a gold front tooth, which proclaims them members of the city’s criminal subculture—a badge (of honor, they think) that they share with young Jamaicans, though their relations with the Jamaicans are otherwise fraught with hostility. The young Muslim men want wives at home to cook and clean for them, concubines elsewhere, and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. As for Muslim proselytism in the prison—and Muslim literature has been insinuated into nooks and crannies there far more thoroughly than any Christian literature—it is directed mainly at the Jamaican prisoners. It answers their need for an excuse to go straight, while not at the same time surrendering to the morality of a society they believe has wronged them deeply. Indeed, conversion to Islam is their revenge upon that society, for they sense that their newfound religion is fundamentally opposed to it. By conversion, therefore, they kill two birds with one stone.

But Islam has no improving or inhibiting effect upon the behavior of my city’s young Muslim men, who, in astonishing numbers, have taken to heroin, a habit almost unknown among their Sikh and Hindu contemporaries. The young Muslims not only take heroin but deal in it, and have adopted all the criminality attendant on the trade.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PM

April 01, 2006
What Would We Do Without Experts?

For some reason, they think that "pressure on Iran may spur attacks":

As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:32 PM

March 31, 2006
A Preview For Iran?

This will make a big boom:

The test, named "Divine Strake," will involve nearly 40 times the amount of commercial ammonium nitrate and fuel oil explosive set off in the largest open-air, non-nuclear blast at the site to date. In 2002, 18 tons of explosives were set off at the Nevada Test Site.

700 tons of explosives. This isn't a weapons test--there'd be no way to deliver that size of ordnance. I've got to think that they're trying to figure out just how small they can size a nuke to (pardon the inadvertent alliteration) bust a bomb-building bunker.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:59 AM

Some People At The FBI

...need to be fired for monumental, criminal incompetence. In fact, I'd go further, and say that the entire organization needs to be overhauled from the top down. Same thing for the CIA.

While Samit was spending a solid three weeks trying to get Washington to act on his pre-9/11 terror fears, future 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour was raising suspicions with his flight training in Phoenix (suspicions Samit was not told about until after 9/11). Margaret Chevrette of the Pan Am International Flight Academy reported her worries to the FAA and somehow those concerns also made their way to CIA chief Tenet and into CIA memos of August 2001, but the FBI never acted on them. Yet on September 12, FBI agents interviewed Chevrette for more information on Hanjour—reflecting the fact that another local FBI agent (Arizona-based Kenneth Williams, author of the July 2001 Phoenix memo) had notified FBI headquarters of the danger posed by Middle Eastern terrorists training at U.S. flight schools.
There were also repeated attempts by the New York City FBI office to get follow-up on Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi and an August 2001 request from a New York FBI agent who warned that "someday someone will die" if New York did not win approval to launch a criminal investigation of al-Mihdhar. Al-Mihdhar was on American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.

Minneapolis, Phoenix, New York. Three different Bureau offices were hot on the terror plot in the days leading up to 9/11 and all were stiffed by Washington. If that is not institutional incompetence, Stalin purge-worthy stuff, heaven help the next 3,000 martyrs to J. Edgar Hoover's über-suits.

One exchange from the Moussaoui trial makes clear what happened in the weeks running up to 9/11:

"You tried to move heaven and earth to get a search warrant to search this man's belongings and you were obstructed," MacMahon said to Samit.

"Yes sir, I was obstructed." Samit replied.

No disaster, it seems, can force reform on the Bureau. The same people are still manning the posts at the FBI and Main Justice. They are going to miss the next terror attack because they are dead-certain to stop the last one. That's what bureaucracies do: cover ass.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:03 AM

March 29, 2006
A New Holocaust

Well, not so new--it's probably as old as history, and it's against women. And it's aided and abetted by the cultural relativists, who can never bring themselves to judge anything, except the (obvious) evil that is Amerikkka:

Cultural and moral relativists sap our sense of moral outrage by claiming that human rights are a Western invention. Men who abuse women rarely fail to use the vocabulary the relativists have provided them. They claim the right to adhere to an alternative set of values - an "Asian," "African" or "Islamic" approach to human rights.

This mind-set needs to be broken. A culture that carves the genitals of young girls, hobbles their minds and justifies their physical oppression is not equal to a culture that believes women have the same rights as men.

So-called "feminists" who complain about western gender oppression and "dead white European males," but turn a blind eye to this out of a misguided but fashionable leftist sensibility, brutally betray the ideals they pretend to, and their supposed "sisters."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:27 AM

March 27, 2006
"Moved To Syria"

This is an interesting pre-war Iraqi document, if the translation is accurate:

He mentioned that a meeting in Beijing in the beginning of this month was held between the Prime minister of China and the German Chancellor Schroeder in the occasion of the opening project for the fast train and the latter was asked about the information that was obtained by the Chinese intelligence and it says that Iraq has moved his mass of destruction weapon to Syria and the German Chancellor told him that the German intelligence did indicate this. And after two days the US state secretary went to Damascus to check on this with the Syrian government that in turn denied this news...

Well, the fact that they denied it provides no information as to whether or not it's true.

[Update at 11:20 AM EST]

Colonel Gordon Cucullu writes about the tipping point of truth:

Reams of documents – ultimately numbering in the millions of pages by the time CDs, hard drives, and computer memories are downloaded and printed – are slowly beginning to be translated and released for analysis. These documents – though only 2% or so are translated and available – substantiate without doubt the following allegations: Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, the Baathist regime and al Qaeda had extensive, wide reaching ties. Saddam was, at a minimum, a supporter of the 911 attacks if not a sponsor of them. Saddam’s intelligence services trained more than 8,000 al Qaeda terrorists, primarily from Somalia and Sudan, at camps such as Salman Pak and Ansar al-Islam within Iraq. And Saddam helped finance al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups.
Further, the documents substantiate a broad, on-going program Iraq had to develop nuclear weapons. Indeed, Saddam had instructed his minions to begin preparing to re-energize the program after UN sanctions were lifted, a hope he had reinforced by French, Russian, and German diplomats, and traitors like British Parliamentarian George Galloway, all of whom convinced him that delay and obfuscation of the UN would get him off the hook.

We also know, thanks to the work of former Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada, that Saddam had several civilian aircraft – one Boeing 747 and a “group” of 727s - stripped of passenger equipment and converted into cargo planes. The aircraft flew 56 sorties between Iraq and Syria, delivering drums of the chemical weapon Sarin along with other chemical and biological weapons. The deal with concocted on Saddam’s orders by “Chemical Ali” his general in charge of special weapons, and Bashar Assad’s cousin, General Abu Ali. It was a rare occasion for cooperation between the rival Baathist states, but as Sada notes, “there was complete agreement between them.”

In addition to the air sorties an uncounted amount of WMD were transported to Syria by commercial trucks – familiar 18-wheelers – and other civilian vehicles, including ambulances. “Saddam was convinced,” according to Sada, “that commercial trucks could pass right through security checkpoints…and they did.” American CIA overhead assets – spy satellites – were on the lookout for military trucks and ignored “routine” commercial traffic.

I don't know if the available evidence is as strong as he claims, but I haven't seen it all, and I certainly won't be surprised if it is. The only thing that I find surprising is how long it took the administration to release it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:09 AM

March 26, 2006
Huh?

I'm glad that the case has been dismissed, but for lack of evidence?

An Afghan court has dismissed case against a man who converted from Islam to Christianity for lack of evidence, an official said Sunday...
...Rahman had...been begging his guards to provide him with a Bible.

Something does not compute here. Clearly this was a political decision, taken to deal with the international firestorm (though there wasn't enough of one, in my opinion, from either the State Department or some of our allies). The problem is that it only deals with this one case, and doesn't address the underlying issue--Sharia law. Why won't this come up again?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AM

March 24, 2006
Peace And Tolerance

It's almost impossible to parody stuff like this:

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him..."

Yes, we're tolerant, so as long as he renounces his religious beliefs, we won't kill him.

Is this what we liberated them for, and what American troops continue to die for?

[Update at 4:17 PM EST]

As I said, you can't parody these folks. I was reading this Scott Ott post over at Free Republic, and at first took these first two paragraphs seriously:

(2006-03-24) — A judge in Afghanistan said today that Abdul Rahman, the man charged with converting to Christianity, would face the death penalty, or worse, if convicted of the crime.
“We could behead him and then throw the book at him,” said the judge presiding over the case, raising the specter that the punishment could include intentional abuse and damage to Mr. Rahman’s copy of the Bible.

It's funny 'cuz it could be true.

The fact that it was a Scrappleface spoof didn't quite become apparent until I finished it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:05 PM

Better Thinking on Iraq

Kagan's Myths of the Current War has been referred by the WSJ today. Myth 5, "Most Iraqis 'want us out,'..." is the most interesting:

The real issue about the popularity of American forces is the degree to which their presence fuels the fighting or contains sectarian conflict.

This issue of Foreign Affairs also has a fresh analysis:

The current struggle is not a Maoist "people's war" of national liberation; it is a communal civil war with very different dynamics.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 10:04 AM

Religion Of Pieces

Afghani Muslim clerics are threatening to take the Sharia law into their own hands:

...three Sunni preachers and a Shiite one interviewed by The Associated Press in four of Kabul's most popular mosques said they do not believe Rahman is insane.
"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian,'' said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed.''

Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled.''

"Cut off his head!'' he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left.''

As I've said before, this isn't a clash of civilizations. It's a clash between civilization and barbarism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AM

A Preemptive Nuclear Strike?

On Iran? Mark Buehner makes the case.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:02 AM

March 23, 2006
Come For The Decapitations

...stay for the stonings.

The Iranian government has struck a deal with the BBC to promote tourism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:23 AM

March 22, 2006
Churchillian

Whatever else you think of Tony Blair (and I understand that there are many who despise him, for apparently good reasons, at least on the domestic policy front), he seems to understand the enemy and its nature, and gives great speeches about it. He did so yesterday.

The easiest line for any politician seeking office in the West today is to attack American policy. A couple of weeks ago as I was addressing young Slovak students, one got up, denouncing US/UK policy in Iraq, fully bought in to the demonisation of the US, utterly oblivious to the fact that without the US and the liberation of his country, he would have been unable to ask such a question, let alone get an answer to it.
There is an interesting debate going on inside government today about how to counter extremism in British communities. Ministers have been advised never to use the term "Islamist extremist". It will give offence. It is true. It will. There are those - perfectly decent-minded people - who say the extremists who commit these acts of terrorism are not true Muslims. And, of course, they are right. They are no more proper Muslims than the Protestant bigot who murders a Catholic in Northern Ireland is a proper Christian. But, unfortunately, he is still a "Protestant" bigot. To say his religion is irrelevant is both completely to misunderstand his motive and to refuse to face up to the strain of extremism within his religion that has given rise to it.

Yet, in respect of radical Islam, the paradigm insists that to say what is true, is to provoke, to show insensitivity, to demonstrate the same qualities of purblind ignorance that leads us to suppose that Muslims view democracy or liberty in the same way we do.

Just as it lets go unchallenged the frequent refrain that it is to be expected that Muslim opinion will react violently to the invasion of Iraq: after all it is a Muslim country. Thus, the attitude is: we understand your sense of grievance; we acknowledge your anger at the invasion of a Muslim country; but to strike back through terrorism is wrong.

It is a posture of weakness, defeatism and most of all, deeply insulting to every Muslim who believes in freedom ie the majority. Instead of challenging the extremism, this attitude panders to it and therefore instead of choking it, feeds its growth.

None of this means, incidentally, that the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was right; merely that it is nonsense to suggest it was done because the countries are Muslim...

...This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other. And in the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain. We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us. Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy. It is just that; it is a policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong.

Read the whole thing. It's the first of three, with the other two to come in the next few days or weeks.

I wish, though, that actual British policy, particularly toward unassimilated Muslims in the UK, reflected the words of this speech.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 AM

March 21, 2006
I Had To Sort My Socks

I don't usually link to Indy Media, but go read all the lame excuses that folks at the San Francisco branch came up with to explain why they couldn't make it to the anti-~~America~~war rally this past weekend.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:51 PM

An Iraqi Civil War?

Belmont Club and Trent Telenko weigh in.

Me? It depends on how one defines a civil war. Also, there is an implicit assumption that a civil war in Iraq is a disaster for the US (which is why so much of the Bush-hating press wants to play it up). But civil wars can end, and have outcomes, and the outcome of this one certainly has the potential for continuing to achieve our Middle East goals (in this case, providing a stable source of oil to counter the Saudis, the establishment of a base from which to further pressure Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria).

When I hear the whining and the straw men about how Bush "lied" about how easy this would be, I wonder where they were when he was saying shortly after September 11 that this was a struggle that would take decades, and when Rumsfeld was saying that it would be a long, hard slog. I certainly never had any expectations that this would be easy, or happen overnight. In fact, it's gone about as well as I expected, and it's certainly gone much better than many of those who opposed it predicted (oil fields on fire, many thousands of innocent casualties, complete anarchy, Iran and/or Syria taking over, casualties from WMD that he didn't have, etc.).

And sometime, I need to sit down and write up the likely alternate history had we not removed Saddam. That wouldn't be a pretty picture, either, for the Iraqis, us, or the world. As the general once said, war is a series of shitty choices.

[Update at 10 AM EST]

Gerard Baker has done exactly that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AM

March 20, 2006
Another My Lai?

...or another "Jenin Massacre"? We won't find out until the investigation is complete, but expect the press to do its best to make it the former, without waiting for the facts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:31 PM

That'll Teach 'Em (Part 2)

Having a Pat Robertson moment (or, more likely, a Pat Robertson life), one of the many irredeemable lunatics that passes for religious leaders in the Middle East claims that bird flu discovered in Israel is a sign of Allah's wrath. He also "...asked for congregants to 'pray for Allah to dry out the sexual organs of the Jews with a disease so they won't be able to reproduce anymore.'" Can't you just feel the love emanating from the Religion of Peace?

As the article dryly notes, though:

Muhammed made his comments in spite of predictions the virus found in Israel may surface through migrating fowl in the nearby Palestinian territories.

The article also mentions cases appearing in Egypt. What did they do to piss off Allah? Turkey I can understand, what with their satanic secular state and all, but Egypt? What with all of the disasters going on all over the place, it's apparently pretty hard to stay on his good side, even if you're a Muslim. Maybe even especially if you're a Muslim, judging by (for instance) the tsunami last year. If what the moderate Muslims say about their religion is true, I'd be more a little convinced if Allah would start smiting all these false prophets.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:25 PM

That'll Teach 'Em

Thousands of women are being charged in Pakistan for being raped. Boy, can't wait for that good old Sharia law to come to my neighborhood.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:10 PM

Three Years On

As some noted in comments, I was too busy this weekend to say anything thoughtful or knowledgable [so what else is new?--ed Hey--I didn't hire you to snark at me!] about the third anniversary of the action to remove Saddam, but Mohammed at Iraq the Model wasn't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:59 AM

March 19, 2006
Speaking Truth To...

Well, not power, but insanity and murderousness.

I wrote previously of a courageous woman. Here is the video, in Arabic, with English subtitles.

And while I'm no big fan of Al Jazeera, props to them for showing it to the Arab world. I wonder why they did? Are they realizing that the jig is up?

And I think that if the Administration were smart, they'd provide SS protection to her.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 PM

March 17, 2006
Exposing The Lies

Barbara Stock writes about a very courageous Arab woman:

Within Islam, there is no greater sin than to question the teachings of Islam or Mohammed, and to do so is considered heresy and blasphemy and is punishable by death. Dr. Sultan is now a marked woman and no one is more aware of this than she. She now receives daily death threats but takes them all in stride. She is a woman at peace with her decision to speak out.
As she put forth one accusation after another, the two Islamic scholars had no answers. Their only response was that they didn’t have to respond to her because she was blaspheming Islam.

There is no logical response that the two Islamic religious leaders could have given when a strong and defiant Dr. Sultan tore into them with statements such as this: “The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not with their crying and yelling. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.”

Dr. Sultan finished her opening salvo with: “Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”

More will have to be as brave as her before this war is over. I hope that she can stay safe, but she is a very grave threat to the totalitarian monsters who make war on us, and want to reenslave her.

[Update at 9:40 AM EST]

Jim Geraghty is looking for ideas on how to help her. He doesn't have a comments section, though, so feel free to post them here.

He does have at least one good idea:

The prosecution of those threatening cartoon protesters (see below) is a positive sign. Let’s unleash the hounds and have law enforcement nail the guys threatening Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji and the signers of the Manifesto Against Islamism. Threatening to kill someone is a crime, fellas, and if we can nail Al Capone on tax evasion, we can nail you guys for leaving threatening messages to Muslim reformers.
I notice we didn’t see any “Massacre those who insult Islam” signs in the United States. I think it’s because enough Americans don’t take threats lying down and because we’re armed. Let’s just make very, very clear what’s acceptable in American discourse. You want to argue, fine. But if you threaten to kill somebody, it’s time for the authorities to step in.

Somehow I suspect that if you take away the Islamists’ threats, they’ll have a hard time coming up with other things to say.

Yes. For too long the calculus has been that if you criticized Islam, you were threatened with murder, while there has been no penalty for those making the threats. It's easy to see that, with those kinds of incentives, we're going to continue to get a lot more threats, and a lot less criticism. We need to change that incentive structure.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:24 AM

March 16, 2006
For Those Who Were Confused

A clarification on today's festivities in Samarra:

I've received several emails this morning from people wondering why we've launched a "massive bombing campaign" in Iraq. And they're saying, "won't that kill a lot of innocent civilians?" But they are confused by the term, "air assault."
An "air assault" is actually a helicopter-borne infantry assault. In this case, large numbers of helicopters are ferrying airborne-infantry soldiers to enemy targets.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:11 AM

Beginning Its Deployment

The army of analysts has started to work on the captured Iraqi documents.

This document is a letter written by a member of Saddam Intelligence apparatus (Al Mukabarat) on 9/15/2001 (shortly after 9/11/2001) where he addressed it to someone higher up and he wrote about a conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani Consul. In the conversation the Afghani Consul spoke of a relationship between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11/2001, and that the United States was aware of such a relationship and that there is a potential of US strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan if the destructive operations in the US (most probably he is referring to 9/11 attacks) were proven to be connected to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

I don't understand why the administration hasn't been working harder to get these documents analyzed and public. Also, this treasure trove just makes the actions of the government in firing Arab language experts for being gay look all the more stupid. We need all the translators that we can get right now. And what's even dumber is that, with everything else they have to worry about, the White House continues this nonsense.

President Bush's updated language says security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual."
If sexual behavior is "strictly private, consensual and discreet," that could lessen security concerns, according to the regulations that came as part of an update to clearance guidelines distributed in December.

This makes no sense. There are no intrinsic security concerns associated with someone's sexual orientation. Security concerns arise only in the context of the potential for blackmail. If someone is openly gay, there is no security concern. Sexual behavior that is "private and discreet" is in fact the behavior of someone in the closet, which would be a security concern. I don't often agree with the likes of Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, but I'd sure like to see a better explanation than this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:26 AM

March 15, 2006
George Clooney, "Neocon"

So says Max Boot. He makes a good case, though I doubt that Mr. Clooney will be thrilled.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:02 PM

The Ides Of March

That's today. And we all know what that means, right? Up against the wall, Amerikkkan imperialists.

Errrrr...except that the original press release is no longer there. And when one does a site search for "storm in White House" a number of links appear, but nothing about actually restoring American democracy on March 15th by overthrowing the elected government and replacing it with Amnesty International.

Maybe they decided it wasn't all that great an idea after all. Or they've just postponed the event until the national rage can build up a little more.

Sigh. I had so been looking forward to the show.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 AM

March 09, 2006
A River In Egypt

Tony Blankley writes about institutions in denial:

The media has pointed out that there is no evidence he was connected to Al Qaeda or another terrorist cell. But that is exactly the point. As I discussed in my book last year, the threat to the West is vastly more than bin Laden and Al Qaeda (although that would be bad enough.)
The greater danger is the ferment in Islam that is generating radical ideas in an unknown, but growing percentage of grass-roots Muslims around the world -- very much including in Europe and, to a currently lesser extent, in the United States.

A nation cannot design (and maintain public support for) a rational response to the danger if the nature and extent of the danger is not identified, widely reported and comprehended.

What are we dealing with? A few maladjusted "youth"? Or a larger and growing number of perfectly well-adjusted men and women -- who just happen to be adjusted to a different set of cultural, religious (or distorted religious) and political values. And does it matter that those values are inimical to western concepts of tolerance, democracy, equality and religious freedom?

The public has the right and vital need to have the events of our time fully and fairly described and reported. But a witch's brew of psychological denial and political correctness is suppressing the institutional voices of government, police, schools, universities and the media when it comes to radical Islam.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:55 PM

March 07, 2006
French Fries Back On The Menu?

Mssr. Chirac may be starting to figure out who the real enemy is:

In the Middle East, France and America are working intimately on Lebanon. They are pointing a collective finger at Syria and forcing U.N. resolutions demanding that it stop trying to control its neighbor. Chirac was a close friend of the murdered Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, who kept a good chunk of his $6 billion fortune in France. Furious Hizbullah leaders in Beirut, supported by Damascus, denounce the French president as a poodle of Washington. Even more significant is the new joint front on Iran. Chirac has led Europe's condemnations of Tehran's threats against Israel and has been instrumental in referring its nuclear challenge to the Security Council.
Little of this is reflected in the French press, which cleaves to its diet of America-bashing pur et dur. But Chirac understands that posturing over Iraq has not protected France from Islamofascism. Militant Islamist preachers are active among the nation's 5 million Muslim citizens, many of whom willingly believe that all their problems will get better if they follow Sharia and reject French secularism. Chirac also reacted swiftly when a French Jew was recently tortured to death after being kidnapped by a thuggish gang who believed that, because he was Jewish, his family by definition was rich enough to pay a massive ransom. This vestige of the very worst anti-Semitism shocked France and may serve to wake up intellectuals blinded to the excesses of radical Islamists by their own anti-Americanism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:41 PM

The Bottom Of The Slippery Slope

Here's where a misguided multiculturalism and moral relativism leads--the rape of the unveiled women:

As far as the Western feminists are concerned, they seem to be hovering in other dimensions, in absolute arrogance, learned from ethnologues like Claude Lévy-Strauss. For them, freedom is that each "culture" may it be as inhuman as can be, is entitled to prosper even on our soil, and the next act in this surrealistic piece of stage play is the unlimited understanding the Norwegian Professor Ms. Unni Wikan shows for Muslims raping Western women: Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes, as they are not dressing and behaving according to Muslim understanding. The Norwegian women, in her view, are to realize that they live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it, as Mark Steyn reported already in 2002...
...A friend of mine is a retired chief of police, who used to be in charge of the security of a major city in the south of France. He reported to me that his men had to face an average of 10 rapes a week, 80% made by Muslim young men. 30% being what we call, in French, a “ tournante “, meaning that the victim is being raped by an entire gang, one after the other, often during an entire night. My friend reports that, in many cases, he was able to locate and arrest the rapists, often very young ones, and, as part of the investigation, call the families. He was astonished that, in most cases, the parents not only would back up their rapist children, but also would not even understand why they would be arrested. There is an instant shift in the notion of good and evil as a major component of culture. The only evil those parents would see, genuinely, is the temptation that the male children had to face. Since in most cases the victims were not Muslims, the parents’ answer and rejection was even more genuine: how could their boys be guilty of anything, when normally answering to a provocation by occidental women, known for their unacceptable behavior?

...Inside the Palestinian territories, I collected a lot of different stories involving raping of an innocent girl who later on was slaughtered by her own father or cousin, because she had lost her virginity.

This example to say that, in Muslim culture, values exist, but the line between good and evil is drawn somewhere else, far away from our understanding. Protecting women against themselves is considered a good action, even if this includes death penalty, as long as family's honor - which is paramount - is saved.

When Dr Eussner adds to my previous comments that religion is only half of the explanation, and that we mustn't forget the political aims, I could not agree more. Although I'd like to emphasize that in the Muslim world, religion and politics is one single thing. There is no separation between powers in any Muslim society and the ideal Muslim society accepts the Shari'ah (Muslim law, written in the Koran ) as the basis for any civil society, including its rules of punishment.

In addition, I can see in any raping of a non-Muslim woman by a Muslim male as a racist action, and it is high time for us to acknowledge and condemn it. The level of contempt towards non-Muslim women is the reflection of the level of hatred towards the society which creates equality between men and women. We all know that there is a sexual component in any form of racism. I personally see primitive racism as the expression of a fear connected to the unconscious protection of the genes among the males. Raping women belonging to another cultural, religious group or race is an act of male domination not only against the woman herself, but against the entire group in which she belongs.

It's hard to call this a clash of civilizations, because I don't want to dignify such thinking with the word "civilized." But it's a clash of cultures, and they're clearly incompatible. I don't know how this will end, but it won't be pretty.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:17 AM

"The Prerequisite Of All Criticism"

That's what criticism of religion is:

It took us centuries of battles between dissenters and established religion, and the stages with which it was symbiotically entwined, to win the rights that the short-memoried invertebrate liberals now cravenly surrender!
The secular and social rights we have, the freedom from power-inflated superstitions armed to the teeth with the coercive power of a state, the right to think for ourselves and express our thoughts — all these we owe to the heretics who risked and often lost their lives in the struggle to let non-clerics read what they thought was the word of God, the Bible, and construe it for themselves in their own way.

The translator of the Bible whose work was the main basis of the King James version, William Tyndale, was in the early 16th century part of a free-thinking religious underground: he was kidnapped by Papal agents and burned at the stake. In 1880s Britain Charles Bradlaugh had to win four elections in succession before he gained the right for elected atheists to sit in the House of Commons as MPs without first hypocritically taking a religious oath. There were many many battles in between Tundale and Bradlaugh - and afterwards too. All that is being betrayed and prostituted by those who meekly accept the diktats of medievalist-minded political Islam. So are all those who now fight an equivalent battle for the same rights in Muslim countries.

Just shows that Marx wasn't always wrong. Go and read.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:51 AM

March 03, 2006
She Had A Certain Glow About Her

Maybe we're doing a better job of monitoring for nukes domestically than I thought. A woman was pulled over in her SUV for being radioactive:

"These are very sensitive devices," Seymour said, adding that some officers have reported them going off in buildings "because someone in the next room on the other side of the wall had a stress test."
Doctors said they have heard of radiation sensors going off at nuclear plants after patients have had stress tests, but not along highways...

..."Nobody at my doctor's office warned me this could happen," the woman said she told the officer. "He said, `That's because they don't know.'"

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:03 AM

Watching Claire Berlinski

On Fox News, talking about her new book, on the war that Europe seems to be losing against Islamism. I wonder if any of the other networks will pick her up?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:42 AM

March 02, 2006
WMD Mystery Solved?

This young man thinks so. Of course, here's the key question:

Glazov: So if all this evidence is credible, why wouldn't the Bush Administration take advantage of this information?
Mauro: There are multiple ideas out there. I tend to believe that the foreign policy implications of these revelations explain the Administration’s silence. The politicians don’t want to feel obliged to take strong action against Syria, and certainly don’t want to offend Russia. On several issues, Russian cooperation is a great asset if it can be achieved. There’s a debate as to whether Russia ever really helps us. Every country we seem to have problems with has close ties to Russia. It’s likely part of their strategic plan to counter American dominance. Yes, they’re pressuring Iran through negotiations, but Russia is closely tied to the Iranian regime, so one must ask in light of these revelations, is Russia simply “cooperating” as part of a game to buy time for her allies? Or does Russia genuinely want Iran to end its nuclear program?

I wonder if, at this point, they're counting on the MSM to continue to ignore the story (as they so far have been), and are waiting to roll it out in the summer or fall, just in time for the elections. In any event, it all seems pretty plausible to me. Saddam sure acted like a man who had WMD.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 PM

February 28, 2006
No Hope For Peace

...in the Middle East. At least not until Hamas changes its charter.

Or is no more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:01 AM

February 26, 2006
Dispatch From Bizarro World

United For Peace And Justice (gotta love the names these wackos come up with) plans to install a new US government next month:

For Nat Turner, For Martin and Coretta, For all the Torture and Assassination in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and many others - We will not allow the Slave Holders that Still Prevail in this Country to Rule us any longer.

They need to work on their capitalization--it's not quite random enough to reveal their full kookery.

Imprisonment and torture based on race, religion, resources or region is no different than the slavery we sought to abolish years ago. The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in.

When was the last time they "stormed in" to protest any of the real torture and imprisonment based on race and religion by Middle Eastern governments? No, instead they're going to storm the White House, in protest of a policy that has actually ended much of the imprisonment and torture under Saddam Hussein.

They hope to have allies:

We are calling on all Member Nations of the U.N.,

Even Israel?

All Representatives and Justices in the World Court and International Criminal Courts, all soldiers and CIA agents and government officials who have been blackmailed by the dictators to incarcerate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Ignoring the ambiguous grammar here (government officials were blackmailed by the dictators to incarcerate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld? Which dictators were those? When did this happen? You'd think it would have made the news...) are they proposing to have a trial, or just incarcerate them? Or incarcerate them until trial? I'm confused.

They have a plan for a new government.

The Political Cooperative will put a new government in place that is comprised of people from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all the organizations that have finally made us aware of the truth of the savage practices and illegal policies of our government in assassinating our own officials as well as people throughout the world who oppose their criminal activity.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch? In what way are they qualified to run a government? These people are amazing.

We need all of you to save U.S. citizens and Global Victims from their ongoing criminal activity. We are calling on the military, police, citizens and religious organizations to stand with us and help us to bring democracy back to the United States and by doing so, free the world from the wrath, occupation, theft, torture, blackmail and assassination by the Criminals in the United States Government.

Right. We'll "bring democracy back" (when did it go missing, anyway?) by storming the White House, removing duly elected officials and putting unelected people from Amnesty International in their place.

What they have done all over the world is much worse than what Saddam Hussein has done, so why are they not in jail too?

Note that we're supposed to take all of this lunacy as a given--they feel no need to explain or substantiate it in any way.

They have admitted to international and national crimes, so why have they not been taken to Court too?

Because they haven't admitted to crime of either kind, perhaps? Is this part of what some (laughably) call the "Reality-based Community"? And seriously, isn't this a call for insurrection? I suspect that these people could be jailed for this, particularly during war, if anyone actually took them seriously. But these types are generally harmless, being afraid of guns and all. It should be an amusing show on the Ides of March.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:04 PM

February 25, 2006
More Insanity From Iran

I'll be that you didn't know that Tom and Jerry was a Jewish conspiracy (by that Jewish cartoon company, Disney, which must have secretly bought Hannah Barbara, or perhaps they're both co-owned by the Elders of Zion, or...who knows--it makes my head hurt?).

Yeah, let's let these folks have nukes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:40 AM

February 24, 2006
Just On The Other Side

Victor Davis Hanson just came back from Iraq, and he says that the media can't tell the winners from the losers:

It is an odd war, because the side that I think is losing garners all the press, whether by blowing up the great golden dome of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, or blowing up an American each day. Yet we hear nothing of the other side that is ever so slowly, shrewdly undermining the enemy.

I wonder why that is?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:55 AM

February 23, 2006
Not All Of The American Press Are Wimps

EclectEcon has gathered all of the blasphemy together in one place. Peace Be Unto Him.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:24 PM

February 22, 2006
Cultural Imperialism

Ain't it wonderful?

People looked at me funny when I took these pictures. Why on earth is that guy taking pictures of the Red Bull? He’s American, hasn’t he seen this shit a million times already back home? What I think they don’t understand is that what’s normal in the Middle East somehow amazes (and comforts) people who have never been here. So I took pictures of the grocery store. It’s not all burkhas, camels, and caves out here.
You want a giant plasma screen TV? No problem. You can get whatever you want in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Hit his tip jar.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 AM

February 21, 2006
Can We Call Them Traitors?

Ohio men planning attacks on troops in Iraq. If they're American citizens, why wouldn't this be treasonous?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:09 AM

We Have A Consensus

The leader of Hamas says that negotiations with Israel are a waste of time. Glad to see that he admits it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 AM

Not Turning The Other Cheek

Frustrated Christians in Nigeria have struck back:

Residents and witnesses in the southern, predominantly Christian city of Onitsha said several Muslims with origins in the north were beaten to death by mobs which also burned two mosques there.

Expect the usual mindless platitudes from the usual suspects about the "cycle of violence." But as in Israel, such language indicates a symmetry that doesn't exist. The Islamists were rioting and killing people and burning chuches over cartoons. The Christians are rioting and killing people and burning mosques because they're finally, at long last, tired of the Islamists rioting and killing them, and burning their churches, and aren't going to take it any more.

If the Islamists really seek a war with the west, they should be careful what they wish for. Any time that they've had to seriously engage a motivated western military, they haven't done well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AM

February 17, 2006
Prisoner Abuse Photos From Iraq

Here are some pictures that the MSM doesn't want you to see.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:54 AM

February 16, 2006
Bring On The Fatwah

From "Rusty," a stalwart over at sci.space.history:

Muhammad (((:~{>
Muhammad playing Little Orphan Annie
(((8~{>

Muhammad as a pirate
(((P~{>

Muhammad on a bad turban day
))):~{>

Muhammad with sand in his eye
(((;~{>

Muhammad wearing sunglasses
(((B~{>

Muhammad giving the raspberry.
(((:~{P>

Giving Muhammad the raspberry.

;-P

My great-great-grandfather came to America from Denmark in the 1840's.

[Friday afternoon update]

OK, equal time:

Jehovah.

Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!

(I know, I'm just making it worse for myself...)

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AM

February 15, 2006
Too Late?

Trent Telenko thinks that Iran may already have nukes. It would fit the current pattern of their behavior, unfortunately.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 AM

February 14, 2006
Aliens Having S3x

This is a pretty funny cartoon, and as Professor Volokh points out, it shows how the whole "can't show pictures of Mohammed" thing has descended into self parody.

So now, the perennially offended muslims are offended by a cartoon of which there's no way to tell from the image itself whether it's Mohammed or not--one can only tell from the context of the joke.

It reminds me of the story a few years ago about the bar in Colorado that had to stop selling teeshirts that depicted two aliens having s3x because they were too lewd for the town elders. I (and no doubt others) pointed out that if they were aliens, there was no way to tell whether or not the activity in which they were engaged was s3xu@l (sorry--I don't want to get top-listed on google for the search "aliens s3x"). They could, for example, simply have been feeding each other, or communicating somehow. One occasional commenter here, in fact, emailed me at the time that it reminded him of the old "Life in Hell" strip when Binky (or one of the other one-eared rabbits) is being chastised for smoking, and he says "I'm not smoking--I'm sucking p00p through a straw."

That's the point to which this idiocy has devolved. Eugene is right:

Well, I have to admit: The folks who are offended by this have a First Amendment right to be offended. They should feel entirely free to be offended.
The rest of us should feel entirely free, as a matter of civility as well as of law, to say: Your decision to be offended by this particular cartoon gives you no rights (again, as a matter of civility as well as of law) to tell us to stop printing it.

More on the underlying conceptual issue — the difficult but necessary distinction between (more or less) reasonable taking of offense and unreasonable taking of offense — later; I also hope then to talk in some measure about the distinction between this cartoon and others that I do think can reasonably be found to be offensive, and that probably shouldn't (as a matter of civility) have been published in the first instance, though it is proper to publish them now in order to explain the controversy. For now, it seems to me that this incident does plenty to illustrate the danger of the "it's wrong to publish any cartoons that offend people" attitude.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:33 AM

February 12, 2006
Blow-Up Males

Mark Steyn's latest gem:

Quite how Britain's Muslim Association found out about Mustafa Shag in order to be offended by him is not clear. It may be that there was some confusion: given that "blowup males" are one of Islam's leading exports, perhaps some believers went along expecting to find Ahmed and Walid modeling the new line of Semtex belts. Instead, they were confronted by just another filthy infidel sex gag. The Muslim Association's complaint, needless to say, is that the sex toy "insults the Prophet Muhammad -- who also has the title al-Mustapha.''
In a world in which Danish cartoons insult the prophet and Disney Piglet mugs insult the prophet and Burger King chocolate ice-cream swirl designs insult the prophet, maybe it would just be easier to make a list of things that don't insult him. Nonetheless, the Muslim Association wrote to the Ann Summers sex-shop chain, "We are asking you to have our Most Revered Prophet's name 'Mustafa' and the afflicted word 'shag' removed."

If I were a Muslim, I'd be "hurt" and "humiliated" that the revered prophet's name is given not to latex blowup males but to so many real blowup males: The leader of the 9/11 plotters? Mohammed Atta. The British Muslim who self-detonated in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif. The gunman who shot up the El Al counter at LAX? Heshamed Mohamed Hedayet. The former U.S. Army sergeant who masterminded the slaughter at the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed. The murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh? Mohammed Bouyeri. The notorious Sydney gang rapist? Mohammed Skaf. The Washington sniper? John Allen Muhammed. If I were a Muslim, I would be deeply offended that the prophet's name is the preferred appellation of so many killers and suicide bombers on every corner of the earth.

Yes. Where are all the protests about that?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:38 AM

"Brought Up To Hate"

An Egyptian muslim describes her culture:

Is it any surprise that after decades of indoctrination in a culture of hate, that people actually do hate? Arab society has created a system of relying on fear of a common enemy. It's a system that has brought them much-needed unity, cohesion and compliance in a region ravaged by tribal feuds, instability, violence, and selfish corruption. So Arab leaders blame Jews and Christians rather than provide good schools, roads, hospitals, housing, jobs, or hope to their people.
For 30 years I lived inside this war zone of oppressive dictatorships and police states. Citizens competed to appease and glorify their dictators, but they looked the other way when Muslims tortured and terrorised other Muslims. I witnessed honour killings of girls, oppression of women, female genital mutilation, polygamy and its devastating effect on family relations. All of this is destroying the Muslim faith from within.

There isn't going to be a pretty end to this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:25 AM

February 11, 2006
The Inevitable March Continues

Wretchard says that diplomacy won't prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Not that this is news, but it's useful to continue to point out to the naifs who fantasize otherwise.

This is probably the largest global crisis we've faced since the Cold War, and possibly since 1938, though it wasn't recognized as that serious a crisis at the time. We will either have to accept the reality of a nuclear Iran (and a nuclear Iran run by mullahs, not by the Iranian people) or a war with Iran to prevent that, at whatever the cost. Neither option has a low cost, but at some point, I hope that the nation will recognize that the cost of the latter will be lower.

I've lived through most of the Cold War, when we grew up thinking that our nuclear incineration was almost inevitable, with duck and cover drills in elementary school, but in many ways, I fear the future now more than I have at any previous time in my life of half a century.

We are in for ugly times, not long from now, and the best we can hope for at this point is to minimize the horror, because we've allowed a new totalitarianism to grow, unhampered, for too long. Let us just hope that we can act sooner than Chamberlain did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:16 PM

February 09, 2006
To Increase Demand For Chicken Soup?

Syria accuses Israel of creating the bird flu:

An article published by the newspaper argues that Israel spread the virus in the Far East to mislead the world.

Yes, those Jews are quite tricky that way.

The newspaper backed its suspicions by citing a 1998 report in the Sunday Times that Israel is developing a biological “ethnic bomb” that would kill Arabs and not Jews. According to the Times, Israeli scientists are trying to identify genes characteristic to Arabs and then develop viruses that attack these genes. The newspaper said the program is being carried out at the Institute for Biological Research in Nes Tsiona near Tel Aviv.

I'm sure that the Israelis will be marching in the streets, calling for beheadings, and burning embassies any minute, at this outrageous libel.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:42 PM

Shut Up, He Explained

That's what the head of Hezbollah says that President Bush and SecState Rice should do:

In Beirut, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah urged Muslims worldwide to keep demonstrating until there is an apology over the drawings and Europe passes laws forbidding insults to the prophet.
The head of the guerrilla group, which is backed by Iran and Syria, spoke before a mass Ashoura procession. Whipping up the crowds on the most solemn day for Shiites worldwide, Nasrallah declared:

"Defending the prophet should continue all over the world. Let Condoleezza Rice and Bush and all the tyrants shut up. We are an Islamic nation that cannot tolerate, be silent or be lax when they insult our prophet and sanctities."

"We will uphold the messenger of God not only by our voices but also by our blood," he told the crowds, estimated by organizers at about 700,000. Police had no final estimates but said the figure was likely to be even higher.

You know, people who talk about upholding things with their blood often get an opportunity to do so (and often futilely).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:28 AM

The Roots Of Democracy

A long, but useful and timely (given our attempts to create new ones in seemingly unfertile soil) essay over at Public Review.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:47 AM

February 07, 2006
I Never Imagined

...that I'd live to see (and, well...hear) the day that a news announcer said the words, "...the cartoon death toll is up to nine."

Only in an Islamist world.

[Wednesday morning update]

Judith Weiss says (yes, yes, I know...I was shocked, too) that these demonstrations are not spontaneous. And here's more from the WSJ.

While there are people bleeding and dying in Iraq, this is, more than anything, a propaganda war. And unfortunately, our own press is largely, knowingly or not, working on the side of the enemy.

[Another update about 8:30 AM EST]

The problem is spreading to the strife-torn Midwest. Iowahawk (who's been missing in action since Christmas) has the scoop:

...outside of the Dells and a handful of violent outposts near its western Mississippi River border, Wisconsin remained a relatively calm exception to the Midwestern maelstrom surrounding it -- a fact that experts attribute to subtle differences in culture and religion.
"Unlike the ultra-extreme, radical Lutheran sectarians of Iowa and Minnesota, most ethnic Wisconsinites belong to the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod," said Joseph Killian, a Midwestern Studies professor at Emory University in Atlanta. "And if you add in three Super Bowl titles, easier access to beer, and walleye fishing, and you're going to have a much calmer and more stable culture."

All that would change in November with the publication of four cartoons in a Texas office newsletter -- cartoons that today have brought this once happily beer-goggled society to the precipice of all-out culture war.

[One more update]

Amir Tehari writes about the bonfire of the pieties.

[Update late morning]

Meryl Yourish notes some rhetorical slight of hand and subject changing at AP:

Notice how the AP explains why the cartoons are offensive to Muslims. They do not bother to explain a similarly important fact — the one that Jews had absolutely nothing to do with the publication of the cartoons. The fact that the Iranians plan to hold a Holocaust cartoon contest is utterly irrelevant to the issues at hand. But not to the AP, which will turn itself into pretzels trying to explain how the issues are similar.
They use the phrase “in a new turn” to describe this ridiculous notion. This is not a new turn to the story, it is an attempt by the Iranians to turn Muslim protests of the Western values of freedom of speech into something hateful about Jews.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 PM

February 03, 2006
Surreality

Victor Davis Hanson:

All this lunacy is understood only in a larger surreal landscape. Tibet is swallowed by China. Much of Greek Cyprus is gobbled up by Turkish forces. Germany is 10-percent smaller today than in 1945. Yet only in the Middle East is there even a term "occupied land," one that derived from the military defeat of an aggressive power.
Over a half-million Jews were forcibly cleansed from Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, and other Arab cities after the 1967 war; but only on the West Bank are there still refugees who lost their homes. Over a million people were butchered in Rwanda; thousands die each month in Darfur. The world snoozes. Yet less than 60 are killed in a running battle in Jenin, and suddenly the 1.5 million lost in Stalingrad and Leningrad are evoked as the moral objects of comparison, as the globe is lectured about "Jeningrad."

Now the Islamic world is organizing boycotts of Denmark because one of its newspapers chose to run a cartoon supposedly lampooning the prophet Mohammed. We are supposed to forget that it is de rigueur in raucous Scandinavian popular culture to attack Christianity with impunity. Much less are we to remember that Hamas terrorists occupied and desecrated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in a globally televised charade.

Instead, Danish officials are threatened, boycotts organized, ambassadors recalled — and, yes, Bill Clinton steps forward to offer another lip-biting apology while garnering lecture fees in the oil-rich Gulf, in the manner of his mea culpa last year to the Iranian mullacracy. There is now a pattern to Clintonian apologies — they almost always occur overseas and on someone else's subsidy...

...The only mystery is not how bizarre the news will be from the Middle East, but why the autocratic Middle Easterners feel so confident that any would pay their lunacy such attention.

The answer? Oil and nukes — and sometimes the two in combination.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:06 PM

January 30, 2006
Listen to This

In today's New York Times, Philip Bobbitt says in "Why We Listen":

In the debate over whether the National Security Agency's eavesdropping violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, we must not lose sight of the fact that the world we entered on 9/11 will require rewriting that statute and other laws. The tiresome pas de deux between rigid civil libertarians in denial of reality and an overaggressive executive branch seemingly heedless of the law, while comforting to partisans of both groups, is not in the national interest.

Who watches the watchmen? On one hand, it's tricky to safeguard the data and trust the users of a vast database to stay narrowly focused. On the other hand, users do very little to secure their cordless and cell phone and internet traffic and send out email messages as plain text. Should they enjoy any privacy protection at all?

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 11:44 AM

January 23, 2006
Root Causes

Joe Katzman has a thought-provoking and depressing post on the source of Islamic terrorism.

There was supposedly an old saying in the wild West: "There ain't room in this town for the both of us." Unfortunately, there's not room on this planet for classical liberal western cultures and radical Islamism. This will be a battle to the death of one of those cultures, and Islam itself won't survive without a dramatic reformation, even if some people think that's not possible.

[Update at 9:25 AM PST]

Diane West writes about the silence that speaks volumes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:40 AM

January 22, 2006
Why We Will Ultimately Win

Despite their political differences with the US (most of which are driven by totalitarian government propaganda), Syrians love KFC:

...as the country worries about bird flu, surely KFC "examines its chicken before cooking it ... I trust KFC chicken more than any rotisserie", said Farzat.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:24 PM

January 21, 2006
Minimizing Collateral Damage to Civil Liberties

Rand makes a compelling case in The Scope of Collateral Damage discussed at Collateral Damage for Whom? that good intelligence can save lives. The questions I want to address is, "How much does it cost to save those lives in terms of liberty?" Left unaddressed will be "How do we define 'good intelligence' so the benefits outweigh the cost?"

We decided not too long ago that butter knives and toenail clippers in an airplane have more benefits and costs avoided than the security value of blocking them. The calculus was that the time and annoyance of the security procedures combined with the slight indignities of plastic silverware and long toe nails outweighed the slight increase in security from not having them.

For roving wiretaps on our enemies who may talk to US citizens we may get valuable information to stop an attack. We may abuse the wiretaps to gather information on domestic political opponents. Who gets to designate who is an enemy?

A start to protect civil liberties would be to bar information gathered in warrantless searches from being used as evidence in a criminal prosecution. But it may still be too much power to concentrate into the hands of the executive branch.

Millions of people die in the United States every year. Al Qaeda action is not yet a leading cause of death in the US. Our war was triggered more by the novelty of the attack than its threat to national security. The flu kills 36,000. Heart attack many times more. Those deaths don't rankle as much because they are common and expected.

It is not necessary to use unusual counterespionage techniques in this war to win it. There may be a cost in blood of both US soldiers and the Iraqis and Afghanis we have dragged into our struggle if we insist on keeping to pristine methods of intelligence gathering at home.

The lost liberty in the event we embrace the blurred lines between domestic and foreign spying may be far more costly than the lives that can be saved by prompt intelligence. If we embrace wiretaps, it is a step on the road toward any means necessary.

Patrick Henry said, "Give me Liberty or give me death." The soldiers in the Revolutionary war were prepared to die at a time when life was viewed much more cheaply. Now life is so dear that matters of war and peace turn on atrocities and combat deaths that kill far fewer than infant mortality (62500 or 50% of births at about 50 per thousand) in an America that had less than 1% as many people as it does today (2.5 million vs 300 million).

But let us not elevate the value of life so highly that we empower an unchecked executive to use war powers such as espionage on citizens. That is a step toward the tyranny that eighteenth century Americans died to vanquish. Perhaps we should be willing to give up a few of our much more dear lives as the price to pay for continuing liberty.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 08:58 AM

January 20, 2006
Collateral Damage For Whom?

OK, I don't have much time (or technical ability) to blog, but I do have a new piece up at TCS Daily, on collateral damage of intelligence gathering. The links in it are broken, but I hope they're being fixed.

[Update late on Friday afternoon]

There's a countersuit being filed against the ACLU. You can contribute here.

[Update on Saturday morning]

The problem with FISA.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 AM

January 15, 2006
"The Great Gulf War"

A frightening, and unfortunately plausible (given the inevitable insouciance of Europe, and much of the American electorate itself), future history:

The ideological cocktail that produced 'Islamism' was as potent as either of the extreme ideologies the West had produced in the previous century, communism and fascism. Islamism was anti-Western, anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic. A seminal moment was the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intemperate attack on Israel in December 2005, when he called the Holocaust a 'myth'. The state of Israel was a 'disgraceful blot', he had previously declared, to be wiped 'off the map'.
Prior to 2007, the Islamists had seen no alternative but to wage war against their enemies by means of terrorism. From the Gaza to Manhattan, the hero of 2001 was the suicide bomber. Yet Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War, craved a more serious weapon than strapped-on explosives. His decision to accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons programme was intended to give Iran the kind of power North Korea already wielded in East Asia: the power to defy the United States; the power to obliterate America's closest regional ally.

No, nothing like Munich at all.

As Dennis Miller once quipped (though it wasn't really funny), "To believe the left, Bush is Hitler, Cheney is Hitler, Ashcroft is Hitler, Rumsfeld is Hitler, but the guy with the mustache who gasses people and hates Jews and wants to conquer the world isn't Hitler. Go figure."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AM

January 13, 2006
A Horrible Choice And A Worse One

Victor Davis Hanson has some thoughts on what he views as the inevitable American air strike on Iran.

As I've said, this is our Munich moment. A world in which the mad mullahs have nukes is a frightening one indeed. Our previous totalitarian enemy in the Cold War at least had a keen sense of self preservation, that allowed MAD to work, at least for a while. We can't bet on that from the Iranian government.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:02 AM

January 12, 2006
Just In Case You Had Any Doubts

The goal of the enemy:

He said democracy was crumbling and laid out a two-stage plan to replace it with a Muslim nation.
The first he said meant "bleed them from their sides, their heads, their economy, everything until they surrender."

The preacher went on: "Like you imagine you have only one small knife and you have a big animal in the front of you, the size of the knife you can't slaughter him with this.

"You have to stab him here and there until he bleeds to death, until he die, then you cut his meat the way you like it or leave it for the maggots."

After that he claimed: "The people who called you terrorist before, they will call you khalifas (Muslim rulers) and the scholars who used to call you khawarij (rebels against Islam) yesterday, they will write poems about you."

The second stage involved taking control of the whole world, he added.

"Don't be a shield for the kufr because we will get you," he added. "Even if you are not a target and you are in the target area. If you fear them, you should fear Allah more. It's a bloody way."

Hamza told his followers they would eventually see a Muslim ruler in the White House and added: "The whole earth, it will be for Muslims, this is a promise from Allah.

No, they're nothing like Hitler.

Hitler only had ambitions to rule Eurasia.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:52 PM

Then What?

Europeans leaders say that Iran should go before the UN Security Council. What will they do, send in Hans Blix to wander around for a few months?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:28 AM

January 11, 2006
Hearts And Minds

The New York Times, of all places, reports that Iraqi insurgents are fighting with Al Qaeda:

According to an American and an Iraqi intelligence official, as well as Iraqi insurgents, clashes between Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Iraqi insurgent groups like the Islamic Army and Muhammad's Army have broken out in Ramadi, Husayba, Yusifiya, Dhuluiya and Karmah.
In town after town, Iraqis and Americans say, local Iraqi insurgents and tribal groups have begun trying to expel Al Qaeda's fighters, and, in some cases, kill them. It is unclear how deeply the split pervades Iraqi society. Iraqi leaders say that in some Iraqi cities, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and local insurgent groups continue to cooperate with one another.

American and Iraqi officials believe that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is largely made up of Iraqis, with its highest leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian. Even so, among Iraqis, the group is still perceived as a largely foreign force.

Bad news, for those hoping for bad news from Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 PM

January 06, 2006
A Hero Of My Lai

It's not the best sourcing, but if this post is valid, Hugh Thompson has died.

My Lai means different things to the different people. I still remember the Life magazine cover with Lt. Calley on it. To the left, it was big news, because it was emblematic of the war, and validated their belief that US soldiers were wanton baby killers, and that they'd finally gotten caught in the act. To others, it was big news because it was so anomalous and out of character for American troops. The actions of Hugh, and others, who put an end to it when they discovered what was going on (and the fact that Calley was court martialed) would seem to me to be much stronger evidence for the latter thesis than the former.

But the myths of My Lai continue to permeate thought and discussion of the war that we're in now, almost four decades later, and were a backdrop to John Kerry's despicable 1972 Senate testimony that was in itself part of the context of last year's campaign, even if many wanted to brush it under the carpet.

[Update at 2:50 PM EST]

Here's the story. RIP

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:52 AM

Progress In Iraq

Even the Sunnis are now starting to blame Al-Zarquawi and Al Qaeda for the bombings, in the latest attempt to create a "Tet" offensive:

"Neither the Americans nor the Shiites have any benefit in doing this. It is Zarqawi," said Khalid Saadi, 42, who came to the hospital looking for his brother, Muhammed. Saadi said he hoped that sympathies in the city, considered a hotbed of support for the Sunni Arab insurgency, would turn against al-Zarqawi's faction.

The question I have is, is this really news, or is it just the first time that AP has found it worth reporting?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:57 AM

January 05, 2006
Could Someone Please

...get idiotarian extraordinaire Pat Robertson to take a deep draught of a cup of hot STFU?

Robertson, speaking on the “700 Club” on Thursday, suggested Sharon, who is currently in an induced coma, and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated by an Israeli extremist in 1995, were being treated with enmity by God for dividing Israel.

Jeez...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:56 AM

Supine

Robin Burk has a disturbing story from France. They are at war, from without and within, and don't even realize it. They watch the barbarians violently ravish their women, and they do nothing.

Which somehow brings to mind Lileks' latest screed:

It goes without saying that selling anti-Christian iconography to European fashionistas is a brave an act as reducing the food pellet allotment to your pet hamster; a true act of bravery would be yanking the dead wildebeest out of a lion’s mouth. Or selling jeans that have the international cross-and-bar NO symbol over the crescent of Islam. They don’t dare do that – partly because they are deeply suffused in the very racism they decry, and regard the inhabitants of their tall dead Corbu-inspired concrete ghettos as brown rabble beneath contempt and therefore irrelevant to relevant discussion, and partly because they have a nagging fear of editorials, hate-speech laws, tut-tuts from the thinking class, and the occasional unhinged fellow with a knife. But Christianity? Didn’t that die in a muddy hole in Ypres?
I know, I know: I am a hopeless reactionary. I believe in judging a culture on the liberties and prosperity it affords to its people. I believe that the West is an anomaly in human history, and that it is a rare thing to have what we have: information without boundaries, freedom unimagined by those who have gone before, women’s equality instead of the black Hefty-trash-bag dress, respect for gays instead of death-by-stone-walls, and all the other remarkable accomplishments like space probes and plumbing and overnight delivery of Omaha Steaks (track the UPS code in your browser, if you wish.) But it didn’t just happen. As Felix Unger said to Oscar Madison: you have to make gravy. It doesn’t just come.

[Afternoon update]

No-pasaran has more. Read the comments, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:50 AM

January 04, 2006
A Gruesome Find

...but an interesting one. A mass graveyard from one of history's most famous and monumental military disasters.

The stunned, frozen and starving spectres who had managed to stagger to Vilnius, many of them to end their days there, had come from all over French-occupied Europe. Eventually, at most some 20,000 soldiers - of the 400,000 who'd marched into Russia at midsummer - finally recrossed the Niemen into Poland. They were meant to rejoin Napoleon, but he'd already gone ahead to Paris to give the news of the catastrophe, and to raise new armies. Men could easily be replaced, but not horses. Tens of thousands of soldiers had died in Russia, but it was because of his lack of cavalry that Napoleon was eventually defeated by Austria, Prussia, Sweden and Russia, in 1813.

It's grisly, and sobering reading for those who act as though our casualties in Iraq are anything but trivial on any rational historical scale (though of course devastating, as are all such, to the affected families and loved ones). By any historical measure, Iraq is in fact a dramatic success, considering the accomplishments and relative loss of life of both our own troops and innocent civilians.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:01 AM

December 30, 2005
The Case For Surveillance

Charles Fried makes it:

The president claims that congressional authorization for military action against Al Qaeda, together with his inherent constitutional powers, make such action lawful. There is some plausibility to that claim but until tested in the courts it is impossible to give a definitive opinion about it...
...it is likely that at the first, broadest stages of the scan no human being is involved -- only computers. Finally, it is also possible that the disclosure of any details about the search and scan strategies and the algorithms used to sift through them would immediately allow countermeasures by our enemies to evade or defeat them.

If such impersonal surveillance on the orders of the president for genuine national security purposes without court or other explicit authorization does violate some constitutional norm, then we are faced with a genuine dilemma and not an occasion for finger-pointing and political posturing.

If the situation is as I hypothesize and leads to important information that saves lives and property, would any reasonable citizen want it stopped? But if it violates the Constitution can we accept the proposition that such violations must be tolerated?

RTWT

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:35 PM

That Didn't Take Long

The ACLU is defending the "whistleblowers." What a shock.

Where were they when administration officials were blowing the whistle on Joe Wilson's lies, and being investigated for it?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:48 PM

Let's Give Them A Country! Part III

As part of the continuing saga, Gaza is "dissolving into anarchy":

Television scenes reminiscent of those from Beirut’s civil war period showed vanloads of rifle-waving, masked men racing through Rafiah’s streets, while PA police threw up roadblocks and rummaged through taxis and car trunks apparently in search of the hostages.
Hamas and Fatah terrorist leaders appealed over radio and television for those holding the Burtons to release them. Groups holding signs demonstrated in support of Kate Burton and pleaded with her kidnappers to let her go.

No group has claimed responsibility for this abduction which differs from those that occurred before in that no demands have been made for the Burtons’ release.

The meltdown of what law and order did exist as long as Israel administered Gaza is seen by many regional watchers as a harbinger of what will happen in the “West Bank” when Israel deserts that territory too.

Unfortunately, that sounds right to me.

[Update at 1 PM Central]

Here's more:

After the compound was stormed, the EU's observers stationed at the crossing quickly fled the scene in panic while the gunmen prevented vehicles from reaching the crossing. The observers are responsible for monitoring the crossing and enforcing the agreement between Israel and the PA on live camera transmissions of border activity.
The armed men refused to heed demands by PA officials to leave the compound, and the EU workers left out of fear for their lives. "Our monitors are now in the Kerem Shalom military base [in Israel]. When the situation is clear, and these people leave, we will go back to our work," said EU spokesman Julio De La Guardia. He said the PA police advised the observers to leave the crossing.

They bravely ran away. And you mean they fled to that "shi**y little country Israel"?

Do tell.

Why didn't they go to that well-known bastion of democracy, freedom and security, Egypt?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:56 AM

December 29, 2005
Adventures On The Great Plains

For those interested in American history (and interesting parallels between the nineteenth-century frontier and our current projects in the Middle East), here's a very interesting book review, of an old and obscure book, over at Albion's Seedlings.

[Update on Friday morning]

Sorry, link was wrong, but it's fixed now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:35 PM

Read The Professor

I should note, for those who are still arguing about whether or not the president broke the law when he intercepted enemy communications, they should go read that notorious neocon (note: I'm being sarcastic) Cass Sunstein's take on it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:28 PM

Let's Give Them A Country! Part II

Sixty five percent of Palestinians support attacks on America and Europe:

According to PMW, prayers to annihilate all “infidels” have been included in Friday prayers on PA TV at least six times in recent months. Two such sermons were delivered by Yusuf Jum'a Salamah, PA Minister of the Waqf Religious Authority - the most important religious office in the PA. Even though PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas was present on at least one of these occasions, similar prayers for genocide continued on the PA-owned and controlled TV in subsequent weeks.

And we foolishly continue to fund them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:56 AM

Let's Give Them A Country!

Al Qaeda is establishing a base in Gaza.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:53 AM

December 28, 2005
Pretty Robust

The next time someone tells you it's a bad idea to allow firearms in an aircraft, because firing a bullet through the fuselage will bring it down (one of the many bogus arguments against allowing flight crew to be armed), point this out.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:43 PM

December 26, 2005
Shifting Alliances?

This seems like good news:

...some Iraqis are warming to a stronger relationship with Israel, in part because they are frightened of Iran's influence.
"They are afraid of Iran's extremist political system. If Iran were a democracy, they wouldn't be afraid," Alusi said. "We don't have border problems with Israel. We don't have historical problems with Israel," just Iran.

At last a glimmer of common sense on the issue. Of course, it's important to not let this grow into a civil war, with Israel and the Sunni Iraqis on one side, and the Shia and Iranians on the other.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:24 AM

Getting Real

I haven't said much about the NSA spying "scandal," or the whining about monitoring mosques for radiation, but Jay Manifold has useful posts on both. As he points out, much of the discussion in the press on both these subjects (related mostly by the fact that they're both largely symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome) has been appallingly illiterate and innumerate, from a technical standpoint.

On the mosque thing, I'm having trouble working up much sympathy here. I suppose that the complaint is the usual one--that we're "discriminating" and "profiling" by not looking for evidence of nuclear materials in churches, synagogues and covens. This is a charge to which I heartily plead guilty.

The word "discrimination" has gotten a bad rap, but in fact, people who don't or won't discriminate, won't last long in this world. Of course, irrational discrimination is a bad thing, but when we have limited investigatory resources, and there's a long history (and recent and current one, in Iraq and Israel and the territories) of mosques being used as weapons depots, it makes all the sense in the world to keep a close eye on them. When it comes to nuclear materials, it's pretty hard to justify a "right to privacy."

[Update at noon eastern]

Michael Barone has some common sense (something that seems to be in short supply in the MSM and, as he points out, the New York Times) on the wiretap issue:

Let's put the issue very simply. The president has the power as commander in chief under the Constitution to intercept and monitor the communications of America's enemies. Indeed, it would be a very weird interpretation of the Constitution to say that the commander in chief could order U.S. forces to kill America's enemies but not to wiretap -- or, more likely these days, electronically intercept -- their communications. Presidents have asserted and exercised this power repeatedly and consistently over the last quarter-century.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:18 AM

December 24, 2005
There's No Way We Can Win This War

Lileks has a depressing Christmas radio newscast from sixty-one years ago. The cause was clearly hopeless. Why didn't we just give up?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:17 PM

December 22, 2005
Axis Of Evil Update

If this is true, Syria has made her bet, and is going to stand or fall with Iran.

Is there any reason that we shouldn't simply declare war on both of them? We don't necessarily have to do anything about it immediately, but it would certainly bring diplomacy in synch with reality, and open up a lot more options in dealing with them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:57 PM

The Gangs Rule

Miranda Devine says that many of the problems in Sydney are a result of years of lax law enforcement against the Lebanese Muslim gangs. I disagree with this, though:

Rather than a problem of race, religion or multiculturalism, Sydney is suffering from a longstanding crime problem. It is a textbook case of how soft policing and lenient magistrates embolden successive waves of criminals, infecting other people who might otherwise have been law-abiding.

But that begs the question of why the policing was soft, and the magistrates lenient. Ultimately, I think it still comes back to a misplaced multiculturalism, and an unwillingness to crack down on religious minorities, even when they were breeding a culture of intolerance and criminality.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AM

December 21, 2005
When Does The War End?

There's quite a bit of discussion in Sam's post, some of which expresses appropriate concern about how long we have to put up with a modest (and sorry, that's all it is, despite all the nonsense about living in a police state under Bushitler) suspension of some of the civil liberties that many of us had taken for granted, given that we don't have a declared war, and that it's not clear when it will be over. Tigerhawk has an excellent essay on that subject.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:27 PM

If Only...

I doubt if this is true, but if there's anyone on earth who deserves to be beaten in detention, it's surely Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:09 AM

December 19, 2005
"The Unholiest Of Marriages"

People (unconvincingly, to me, and probably to anyone who's not suffering selective amnesia about the runup to the war) accuse George W. Bush of shifting justifications after 911, but how about shifting justification for 911?

...bin Laden's justifications for 9/11 are continually moulded and shaped by Western media coverage. At first - on 28 September 2001 - he disavows responsibility for the attacks, instead trying to pin the blame on some dastardly conspiracy within America itself: 'The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself….persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilisation, nation, country or ideology could survive…. Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem [with] the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy…. Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.'

The denial of the left that they are in the tank for America's enemies, regardless of how much they are in opposition to traditional "liberal" or "progressive" goals, is growing (has grown?) completely indefensible.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 PM

December 16, 2005
The New Five-Year Plan

Tony Snow makes an excellent point about the Democrats' position--that long-term central planning doesn't work much better in war than in agriculture or industry:

The only flaw in the Orderliness Hypothesis is that it doesn't work if people are present. The war on poverty looked great on paper. It failed miserably in real life. Air-cleansing regulatory schemes looked great in computer models, but failed abysmally in reality. Centralized health care boasted of chalkboard elegance, but is breaking the bank right here, right now. The myth of managed affluence collapsed with the Berlin Wall.
And yet, failure has not altered Democratic thinking an iota. John Kerry boasted dozens of times in his debates with George W. Bush that he had a plan -- for everything: dental care, tree planting, street paving, book binding, teen rutting, mass transit, air circulation, steel production ... you name it. He announced these schemes with a sense of triumph, as if having a plan were superior to having a clue.

In resisting President Bush's infinitely variable approach to the ever-shifting situation in Iraq, Democrats have reverted to form. The cries for benchmarks and deadlines merely embody their weird faith in plans. Howard Dean unwittingly captured the absurdity of it all when he announced this week the precise number of National Guard units required to subdue Al-Qaida.

[Update at 11:30 AM]

Rich Lowry says that the Dems are dazed and confused:

The sight of Murtha denouncing (even incoherently) the war was too much temptation for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). The House Democrats’ strategy was to let Murtha take the lead with his surrender proposal, and otherwise get out of the way. But Pelosi couldn’t resist blurting out that she agreed with Murtha’s call and so did most House Democrats. As the political damage of that outburst sank in, Democrats — including Pelosi — began to backpedal. She explained that she would lobby her House colleagues to keep them from officially adopting her position and, apparently, their own position.
Elsewhere, in the spirit of the moment, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean declared the war lost — until a furor prompted him to explain what he really meant to say was that we could still win, and that it’s imperative that we do so.

The Democrats can’t help themselves. The party’s attitudes about matters of war and peace were forged during Vietnam, and so defeat is stamped in its DNA. Learning what they consider the lesson from Vietnam — that the war dragged on too long when it was a lost cause — they consider declaring defeat the height of geopolitical wisdom in almost any circumstance.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AM

The Two Wars

Stephen Schwartz writes about the real wars in which we have been, and remain engaged, and the fantasy ones in the minds of the left, and much of the media:

The degree to which the MSM, academia, and other members of the Western intelligentsia live in a fantasy world of narcissistic self-righteousness is extraordinary. But the phenomenon is not new. It first became visible during the Spanish civil war of 1936-39, the original exemplar of what I call a theory of “two wars, two worlds.” The Spanish war as experienced by the people of that tormented country, involving deep-going social issues, unresolved history, and the impact of what we now call globalization, was entirely different from the war as it was experienced by intellectuals -- mainly leftists -- in place s like London and Manhattan. For this reason, when George Orwell published a veridical account of the war, Homage to Catalonia, it sold few copies in Britain, although it is now considered one of the greatest political works of the 20th century...
...In Spain, the foreign left, and such avant-la-lettre paragons of the MSM as Herbert Matthews of The New York Times, presented Stalin as the best friend of the antifascists when in reality, as immortally chronicled by Orwell, the Muscovite tyrant’s secret police minions worked to undermine their Iberian allies. When the Spanish war became a conflict between Franco and Stalin, it was lost for the left, since the Spanish workers and peasants would not risk their lives for the Kremlin dictator. But a legend about Spain had grown up among the Communists of Brooklyn, who were then numerous, and it remains the dominant narrative about the Spanish war for non-Spanish intellectuals. It is a “second Spanish civil war” that has almost nothing in common with the real war in which real people were killed...

...the MSM, after getting several major chapters in modern history wrong, from Spain through Central America and the Balkans, have now gotten Iraq wrong. They have developed an apparently incurable weakness for totalitarianism: for Stalinism, Sandinismo, Serbianism, and now for the “slaughterers,” as Zarqawi’s fanatics style themselves.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 AM

December 15, 2005
Counter Insurgency Training

Economist looks at counter insurgengency training and hopes a volunteer army will remember them longer than a conscript army remembered lessons from Viet Nam.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 03:27 PM

Marching Toward Freedom

Gateway Pundit has a roundup on the Iraqi elections, which are reportedly going smoothly, with little violence, despite Zarqawi's threats. Even the BBC is impressed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:28 AM

Religion Of Gang Rape

The part of multi-culturalism that the left doesn't want to talk about:

Four days after he set foot in Australia, the rape spree began. And during his sexual assault trial in a New South Wales courtroom, the Pakistani man began to berate one of his tearful 14-year-old victims because she had the temerity to shake her head at his testimony.
But she had every reason to express her disgust. After taking an oath on the Qur’an, the man – known only as MSK – told the court he had committed four attacks on girls as young as 13 because they had no right to say “no.” They were not covering their face or wearing a headscarf, and therefore, the rapist proclaimed: “I’m not doing anything wrong.”

MSK is already serving a 22-year jail term for leading his three younger brothers in a gang rape of two other young Sydney girls in 2002. In his own defence, he argued that his cultural background, was responsible for his crimes.

And he is right.

[Update at 10:40 AM EST]

It's not just Australia. It's a big problem in Sweden as well (warning: graphic image of beaten woman).

The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as "their women," the women who "belong" to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hand. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men -- his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us -- our future booty. No wonder there is a deep and increasing suspicion against Muslims in the Swedish and European public.

"Democracy, immigration, multi-culturalism--pick any two"...

[Update at 11:25]

Not directly related, but it's nice to see that Sweden is finally cutting parliamentary ties with Iran, though it's over the nuclear issue, not Islamic rape.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 AM

Space Jam

Russell Seitz says that Khaddafi, despite his seeming change of heart a couple years ago after he saw Saddam being pulled out of his rat hole, continues to cause problems.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 AM

December 14, 2005
Theocratic Totalitarian Dreams

James Woolsey warns us not to underestimate the power of the Salafist vision:

...the Salafists' theocratic totalitarian dream has some features in common with the secular totalitarian dreams of the twentieth century, e.g., the Nazis' Thousand Year Reich, or the Communists' World Communism. The latter two movements produced tens of millions of deaths in the 20th century in part because, at least in their early stages, they engendered "fire in the minds of men" in Germany, Russia, and China and were able to establish national bases. Salafists had such a national base for the better part of a decade in Afghanistan and have had one controlling the Arabian Peninsula for some eight decades. They haven't attained the Nazis' and Communists' death totals yet, but this is only due to lack of power, not to less murderous or less totalitarian objectives...(The president's "Islamofascist" term is thus perhaps understated — the Italian fascists were horrible, but not genocidal. "IslamoNazi" would be more accurate.)

Take note, Mr. Simon.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:36 AM

Murtha Is Full Of It

That's what this Marine major says, though more politely than my post title does:

Most of the violent news is true; the death and destruction are very real. But experienced military officers know that the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.
It is this false impression that has led us to a moment of national truth. The proponents of the quagmire vision argue that the very presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is the cause of the insurgency and that our withdrawal would give the Iraqis their only true chance for stability. Most military officers and NCOs with ground experience in Iraq know that this vision is patently false. Although the presence of U.S. forces certainly inflames sentiment and provides the insurgents with targets, the anti-coalition insurgency is mostly a symptom of the underlying conditions in Iraq. It may seem paradoxical, but only our presence can buffer the violence enough to allow for eventual stability.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:26 AM

ITAR And The Anglosphere

Joe Katzman has some thoughts on the nature of true allies.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:23 AM

December 13, 2005
I Like It

Let's call it the "McCain Treaty With Al Qaeda."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:23 PM

Emphasizing The Negative

Tom Sowell writes about one of my own favorite themes: The Media's War:

The Marines lost more than 5,000 men taking one island in the Pacific during a three-month period in World War II. In the Civil War, the Confederates lost 5,000 men in one battle in one day.
Yet there was Jim Lehrer on the "News Hour" last week earnestly asking Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the ten Americans killed that day. It is hard to imagine anybody in any previous war asking any such question of anyone responsible for fighting a war.

We have lost more men than that in our most overwhelming and one-sided victories in previous wars. During an aerial battle over the Mariannas islands in World War II, Americans shot down hundreds of Japanese planes while losing about 30 of their own.

If the media of that era had been reporting the way the media report today, all we would have heard about would have been that more than two dozen Americans were killed that day.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:37 AM

Happy Anniversary

It's been two years since Saddam was pulled out of his rat hole. And the trial continues.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 AM

December 09, 2005
With Friends Like These

Paul Sperry and Debbie Schlussel describe why Sami Al-Arian walked.

The amount of incompetence at the FBI and the Justice Department remains staggering and, during wartime, frightening.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:21 PM

December 08, 2005
This Seems Like Good News

Of course, talk is cheap. We'll see if anything actually comes of this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:43 PM

Their (Not So) Secret Dream

A Middle East without Israel. At the UN.

I hope that John Bolton has something to say about this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:44 AM

Big News

I know that those of you who've been getting all of your Iraq news from the MSM will find this shocking, but there is political progress there. I'm actually shocked that the WaPo finally finds it newsworthy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:41 AM

Hey, When In Rome

I occasionally get grief for my World War II comparisons and satires, but now the DNC is doing it:

"Today, as we reflect on that victory, it is hard to ignore the stark contrast between President Roosevelt’s leadership of the Second World War and President Bush’s failed leadership on Iraq. Even today, President Bush delivered yet another speech in which he failed to present a clear plan for victory in Iraq. Americans understand that the President’s current strategy has made us less safe, and that we need to change course. We need a plan for victory that includes clear benchmarks for success.

But, but...I thought that this war was nothing like that one...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AM

December 07, 2005
A Long War

Sixty years ago today, the fourth anniversary of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor by Shinto extremists, the war (or at least America's entry into it) that was set off by that event had been over for months. We had just celebrated our first Thanksgiving at (what we perceived to be--the Cold War still lay ahead) peace. The nation was looking forward to the first Christmas in four years in which many men (and women) who had been fighting and dying overseas would finally get to spend it at home with their families.

But today, over four years after the events of September 11, as we approach another holiday season here, the war between democracy, and Islamic fanaticism and totalitarianism continues, with no clear end in sight. This is not a criticism of the administration (though there is much to criticize) so much as a recognition of the reality that this is a much different, and in some ways, more difficult conflict than was that one.

One of the crucial differences is the lack of clarity about the identity, and nature of the enemy, at least to many. While I think that the parallels to the fascists that we fought then are in many ways valid, clearly others do not, and do not take our enemy seriously, preferring instead to treat this war as a criminal prosecution (the lack of efficacy of which was just demonstrated yesterday, to the dismay of many, including me).

But the other difference is not just the nature of our enemy, but the nebulous nature of our so-called allies, compounded by the tendency of State Department diplomats to confuse the interests of the governments with which they deal with those of the people that they (often, too often, illegitimately) represent. Moreover, based on the behavior of the opposition party over the past few years, we apparently no longer live in a polity in which politics "stops at the waters' edge."

There may have been some Republicans who publicly declared that "Roosevelt's war" was "unwinnable," but I'm not aware of any Republican leaders who did so. In fact, neither Wendell Wilkie or Tom Dewey ever used the war as one of their presidential campaign planks, though it might have been politically advantageous for them to do so, because they saw themselves as Americans first, and Republicans second.

How long will this war go on? There's no way to know, of course, but surely when one of the major parties is in political denial that it even exists or that it can be won, and when some (too many) in that party seem almost concerned that, unlike Vietnam (their template for all wars) we might win it, it can't accelerate the victory.

In another context, when asked when a technological achievement would be accomplished, Arthur Clarke responded, "five years after people stop laughing at it." I can't put a number on how long it will take to victory, and I'm confident that it will be longer than five years (at least from September 11, 2001), but I'd say that however long it is, it will be that long from the point at which the whole nation, and not just the half that voted for George Bush, starts to take the war seriously.

[Late morning update]

Michelle Malkin and LaShawn Barber have link roundups on the anniversary.

[Update after noon]

Jay Dyson has an appropriate cartoon.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:51 AM

December 06, 2005
Why Do They Hate Us?

The Swedes obviously need to rethink their foreign policy. After all, we know that's always the reason that Muslims are angry, right?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AM

The Third Hundred Years' War

An interesting historical perspective.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:45 AM

December 04, 2005
"...One Of The Worst Tyrants In History..."

Rebecca Weisser has a sobering article about the real atrocities and crimes in Iraq.

Le Livre Noir de Saddam Hussein (The Black Book of Saddam Hussein) is a robust denunciation of Saddam's regime that does not fall into the trap of viewing everything in Iraq through a US-centric prism...
...The obsession of many journalists and commentators with the fruitless hunt for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons has meant much of the evidence of Saddam's atrocities in liberated Iraq has been under-reported. Sinje Caren Stoyke, a German archeologist and president of Archeologists for Human Rights, catalogues 288 mass graves, a list that is already out of date with the discovery of fresh sites every week.

"There is no secret about these mass graves," Stoyke writes. "Military convoys crossed towns, full of civilian prisoners, and returned empty. People living near execution sites heard the cries of men, women and children. They heard shots followed by silence."

Stoyke estimates one million people are missing in Iraq, presumed dead, leaving families with the dreadful task of finding and identifying the remains of their loved ones.

Why can the anti-war left not speak for those victims?

[Via Norm Geras]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 AM

December 02, 2005
Let's Get Real

This is a few weeks old, but I hadn't seen it before: "I want a realistic wargame."

Speaking of innocents, I want a War Sim where native townsfolk stand shoulder-to-shoulder on every inch of the map and not a single bomb can be dropped without blowing 200 of them into chunks. Forget about the abandoned building wallpaper in Red Alert 2. I want to have to choose between sending marines door-to-door to be killed in the streets or leveling the block from afar, Nuns and all, with 30 carriers. I want to have to choose between 40 dead troops or 400 dead children, and be damned to Hell by chubby pundits from the safety of their studios regardless of which way I go.

[Via Jim Oberg, who adds,"I would have added, however, an accounting corps who hounded me every few days to provide precise costs of each engagement, including ammo expended.")

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:16 AM

Costs Higher Than Benefits?

We in the space community (and particularly in the alt-space community, though it affects the traditional players as well) have long been concerned about ITAR. Joe Katzman has an in-depth story about its deleterious effects on our defense, and on our relationship with critical allies (i.e., those in the Anglosphere, not France).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:29 AM

December 01, 2005
Churchill's Crisis Of Confidence

No, this isn't a Routers parody.

Churchill is remembered in the popular imagination as someone who rallied a nation, vowed never to give up, and took his country to victory. Few remember that Churchill faced a crisis of confidence two-and-a-half years into the war, exploited by those “with lesser burdens to carry.”
And fewer still remember the names of the politicians and media critics who created a crisis of confidence in the midst of a war.

And those few who do don't recall them with admiration.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:03 AM

November 30, 2005
Uncommon Sense From The TSA

They may have decided to let us keep our nail clippers.

Officials want screeners to focus more on finding things that can explode rather than things that are sharp.

Gosh, what a concept.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:07 AM

If We Lose The War

...nonsense like this will be one of the reasons:

Is this what the U.S. State Department thinks America is really like? How many men, outside a tiny subset in major cities, are the primping, feminized "metrosexuals" the article lauds? Not many. You cannot enhance understanding between one people and another by presenting a false version of one side.
But more importantly, is this the way to "build bridges" between the Arab world and ourselves? Does the State Department believe that Arab males — some of whom do not permit their wives and daughters to go out in public without a male family member as escort, others of whom think nothing of killing a daughter who dishonors the family by fraternizing with a boy — are going to be impressed with a vision of America in which males are feminized "exfoliated," smooth-skinned eunuchs?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 AM

November 28, 2005
More Iraq Urban Legends

The civilian casualty fable.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:24 AM

November 27, 2005
Her Fifteen Minutes Are Sooooo Up

What if they gave a peace rally, and no one came?

Momma Moonbat couldn't agitate up a crowd at her "book" signing.

The pictures of Mother "Sadsack" Sheehan are priceless. Also note the Reuters spin.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here's the story from the WaPo. To their credit, they don't sugar coat it.

Admittedly, it's a lot easier to draw a crowd in August, when the media (and a lot of students) have nothing better to do, than on Thanksgiving weekend. But in the face of the latest vigorous defense of the administration, and the resulting polls, her time has definitely passed, and the media will no longer even attempt to prop her up. Well, other than Reuters...

[Update on Monday morning]

Here's another pic from AP, with story that is less than genuous:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan waits for people to show up at her book signing near President Bush's ranch on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005 in Crawford, Texas.

Note that the wording allows (even encourages) the interpretation that she's just a little early--that the adoring throngs are simply delayed, and on their way. Of course, it also allows the interpretation that she will be waiting forever, but I think that there would have been clearer ways to state that, if it was intended to be the (accurate) implication...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:37 PM

November 23, 2005
Urban Legends

...about Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:21 AM

At Least One Way

...that Iraq isn't like Vietnam. We have no POWs there.

It's not the only one, of course. In fact, the only similarity that I can see is that, for varying reasons, the left (including many of the Dems and the media) want us to lose, and will continue to pretend that we are, despite all the evidence on the ground.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:37 AM

November 20, 2005
Al-Zarqawi Dead?

That seems to be the rumor in the Arab press:

A fitting end, if true (though it might actually be better for him to live a long time with nails and ball bearings buried in every pore). Let's hope it's true, and that they can find DNA evidence to verify, and if it is, good riddance to rotten rubbish.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:49 AM

Saving Lives With Bullets

A small victory:

As the terrorists entered the street, a volley of shots rang out and the three insurgents slumped to the ground.
Each terrorist had been killed by a single head shot - the snipers having spent the past few days rehearsing the ambush in minute detail.

The SAS troopers had been warned that only a direct head shot would guarantee that bombs would not be detonated.

I suspect that as time goes on, and the Iraqis get ever more disgusted by the "insurgents," and less fearful that the Americans will abandon them, the intelligence needed to do more of this will get better and better. Of course, calls like Murtha's latest one do nothing to help.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AM

November 18, 2005
Sorry!

This war continues to resemble something out of Monty Python:

The speaker on the tape, identified as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also said the group's suicide bombers did not intend to bomb a Jordanian wedding party at an Amman hotel last week, killing about 30 people...
...Al-Zarqawi accused the Jordanian government of hiding casualties among Israeli and American intelligence agents, and he insisted al-Qaida in Iraq was not targeting fellow Muslims.

"We want to assure you that ... you are more beloved to us than ourselves," al-Zarqawi said, addressing Jordanians.

See, he's right. This was supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue about 'oo killed 'oo.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:46 PM

November 17, 2005
Roosevelt Lied...

...people died.

No, really.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 AM

Time For A Google Campaign

Remember (hey, they won't let you forget!) the standard anti-Bush^H^H^H^Hwar talking point--that Saddam Hussein never cooperated (and never would have cooperated) with bin Laden or Al Qaeda? Well, let's make "boogie to Baghdad" a phrase known across the web.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AM

November 13, 2005
Weird Headline

Saddam Hussein's defense team has lost 1100 lawyers. Like the old joke of what you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, it's a good start.

I was some combination of amused and befuddled by this. I had no idea that he had so much legal ballast that could be tossed. It would seem that the trial will require a soccer stadium just to hold the defense team. How many lawyers are left?

I suppose the next step is for his remaining lawyers to move for a mistrial on the basis of lack of adequate legal representation.

[Update an hour or so later]

The more I read this story, the stranger it seems, and I have to wonder at the reporter who passed it on without asking the obvious questions.

How did these people become Saddam's "lawyers"? Why so many of them? Who is paying for them? I don't know what percentage of the population of Iraq is lawyers, but don't they have something better to do, anyway? Has there been a lot of lawyering not going on because of the large contingent on Saddam's defense team?

And if so, is this not actually bad news for the Iraqis, since they'll now, being relieved of the burden of defending the former predator-in-chief, return to their own predation on the wealth and welfare of the country?

[Update at 10:15 AM PST]

Fox is reporting on the story now. No answers to my questions, but they do say that the presiding judge claims that "...the withdrawals will have no effect on the work of the court."

Heh.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:31 AM

November 12, 2005
Not Just The Suburbs Any More

Rioting has broken out in the city center of Lyon.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:19 PM

November 09, 2005
One More Reprise

Norman Podhoretz completely dismantles the ongoing Democrat (and anti-war) big lie that Bush "lied us into war."

As he says, it's sad, indeed frightening that they continue to get away with this:

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

Joe Wilson's ongoing duplicity is chronicled in detail, but everyone in the Democrat establishment is clearly shown to be the hypocritical political hacks that they are, to anyone who cares to examine the evidence, and the actual history, going back to the Clinton administration.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:05 AM

The Need For Regime Change

Helen Szamuely says that it's come time to roll up our sleeves, and go liberate France again.

The country in question and its corrupt political leadership have an extensive track record of supporting tyrannical regimes and terrorists as well as terror masters. Remember who gave all possible help and support to Chairman Yasser Arafat, to the detriment of the peace process in the Middle East? Remember who had close and mutually beneficial relations with Saddam Hussein? I could go on.
It is not only political and financial support that anti-American dictators and various terror masters can hope for. The country in question has provided ideological training to an even greater extent than the Soviet Union had done in the past. Several of the world’s worst, most bloodthirsty dictators and mass murderers were radicalized not in their own countries but in the one I am describing.

Maybe one of these times, it will take.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 AM

November 08, 2005
Why Should It Be?

Iran says it's not afraid of the UN Security Council.:

"Iran cannot be intimidated by the Security Council. We do not take such threats seriously," Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told reporters.

Thanks, again, M. Chirac!

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:37 AM

November 07, 2005
Circles Inside Circles

Michael Ledeen writes about the French connection.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:58 PM

November 06, 2005
Sauce For The Gander

Steven Plaut says that France should offer "land for peace."

First, until this plan is implemented in full, we must insist that the French government acknowledge that there is no military or police solution to the problems of violence in its suburbs, and only through recognizing the legitimacy of the demands of the murderers and rioters outside Paris can the problems be resolved.

Heh.

And not just to the rioters:

...we all agree that territory must not be annexed by force. Therefore, we can also agree that Germany has a moral right to demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine, for the French aggression in 1945 and its consequent occupation must not be rewarded. ''A full withdrawal for full peace'' should operate here. Further, France must agree to the return and rehabilitation of all ethnic Germans expelled from Alsace-Lorraine after World Wars I and II, as well as all those they define as their descendents.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:50 AM

The New Dark Ages

Mark Steyn says that the Eurabian war has started ahead of schedule, and that Charles Martel's long-ago victory at Poitiers is in danger of being reversed:

''There's a civil war under way in Clichy-sous-Bois at the moment,'' said Michel Thooris of the gendarmes' trade union Action Police CFTC. ''We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.''

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:33 AM

November 02, 2005
It's Not Just Paris

There are Islamic riots in Denmark as well, if Viking Observer's translation is reliable. And the Danish press, no hostage to political correctness (unlike much of the western media), isn't afraid to call it what it is:

Saturday morning a 16-year-old Somali boy was incarcerated, accused of aggravated assault, as he friday evening threw a cobblestone through a window in the bakery. The stone passed closely by baker Børge Svaløs face. ..
He calls himself 100 percent Palestinian, born in a refugee camp in Lebanon 19 years ago, and now out of work in Denmark.

"The police has to stay away. This is our area. We decide what goes down here".

And then the bit with the drawings of the prophet Muhammed comes around:

We are tired of what we see happening with our prophet. We are tired of Jyllands-Posten. I know it isnt you, but we wont accept what Jyllands-Posten has done to the prophet", he says aggressively, and the others nod approvingly.

"Planned for three weeks."

Good way to kick off Ramadan.

Though I have to ask Henrik, or the Danish paper, how a sixteen year old was born nineteen years ago. The number 19 clearly occurs in the original article, but I'm pretty innocent of Danish, and can't tell from the previous graf whether or not it's really sixteen, and Babelfish doesn't do Danish. I certainly don't see anything like the word "seksten," which a Danish-English dictionary informs me is the Danish word for sixteen (and it seem eminently plausible, given that Danish is a Germanic language).

[Update a little later]

You know, despite the reluctance of the media to use the "I" or "M" word, I can't help but believe that this (long but insightful) essay by Theodore Dalrymple is related to this story.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:55 PM

October 31, 2005
Iran Against The Anglosphere

The foreign policy advisor to the Iranian president recognizes who his adversary is, but not its nature:

But it is not only the US that Abbasi wants to take on and humiliate. He has described Britain as “the mother of all evils”. In his lecture he claimed that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Gulf states were all “children of the same mother: the British Empire.” As for France and Germany, they are “countries in terminal decline”, according to Abbasi.
“Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover,” he told his audience.

Bring it on. You won't even be able to count on your own people in that battle. At least not the young ones. I think they've had just about enough of being ruled by tyrannical creeps like you.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:51 PM

October 30, 2005
Is It Easier?

...or harder to argue for regime change of a country that has been drummed out of the UN?

For those slow on the uptake, I'm asking whether it's a good idea to toss Iran, given the circumstances.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 PM

Prescience

I just noticed a comment I made in this year-old post (a good read for those new to this site who enjoyed my other WW II reportage satires):

I should add that things are going to get worse in Iraq before they get better. The enemy is going to do everything he can to prevent the elections from occurring. I have confidence that he will fail, and that the Iraqi people, like the brave Afghans, will go to the polls in the face of the totalitarian monsters who wish to thwart their freedom.

Looks like it's holding up pretty well so far.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 PM

What's The Big Deal?

The Iranians can't understand why everyone is getting bent out of shape about their threats to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. After all, it's nothing new:

"Our respected president has not said anything new or unprecedented about Israel to justify such a huge political tumult," wrote Hossein Shariatmadari, who was appointed to his post as editor of the Kayhan daily by Iran's Supreme Leader.
"Iran's nuclear case ... could be a reason for the recent clamour," he said.

Gee, ya think?

Actually, they're right. For years, it's been just fine with many in the west for Iran roust people out in the streets to chant "Death to America, Death to the Zionists, Death to the Great Satans," as long as they couldn't actually do anything about it.

[Update at 9 AM PDT]

The Iranian president has an innovative solution to stock market woes, too:

Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the latest cabinet meeting in the Iranian capital that “if we were permitted to hang two or three persons, the problems with the stock exchange would be solved for ever...”

Given that they are "political soul mates" (at least according to Juan Cole), it's surprising that Bush didn't select this guy for new Fed Chief.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AM

October 29, 2005
An Act Of War

That's what this looks like to me:

Iran has promised a reward of $10,000 (5600 pounds) to Islamic Jihad if the militant group launches rockets from the West Bank towards Tel Aviv, a senior Palestinian intelligence official said last week.

After the threats to destroy them recently, how much more of this is Israel supposed to take? This is literally state-sponsored terrorism. If the rockets are launched, there's a clear address at which Israel can respond.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 PM

October 24, 2005
A Notable Tenth Anniversary

And one that the mainstream press won't even bother to mention, let alone celebrate, because he'd know that most people would cheer the event (to their dismay). Ten years ago, Rudy Giuliani tossed Yasser Arafat out of a concert at the Lincoln Center. For that alone, he'd get my vote if he runs for president.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:10 PM

October 18, 2005
Winning The War

From today's WSJ:

When people fear for their future, they invest in gold; jewelry and coins can be sewn into clothes and smuggled out of the country. When people feel confident about the future, they buy real estate.

Guess which is happening in Iraq?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:02 AM

October 06, 2005
"Please Send Money"

Read about this letter from Al Zawahiri to Al Zarqawi:

Zawahiri also complains about Zarqawi's all-out war against the Shiites of Iraq, saying the Arab man in the street doesn't understand why suicide bombings are killing so many fellow Muslims.
The letter also indicates Zawahiri's life in hiding has left him cut off from news and financial support. He asks Zarqawi to provide him more information about operations in Iraq, saying he should know at least as much as the enemy knows, and he even asks Zarqawi to send money.

Well, maybe Zarqawi is losing Zawahiri's support, but he's still got Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy in his camp...

I have to say, though, I don't know what it is that CBS finds "chilling" about the letter.

Then read this (long but worthwhile) report from Mosul by Michael Yon, if you want to know who's winning, and who's losing, this war.

[Update on Friday morning]

Dan Darling has further thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:32 PM

Somebody Has To Cover It

Michelle Malkin has a roundup of links on what's increasing looking like Islamic terrorism in Oklahoma. This seems to be a story where the blogs are way ahead of the MSM. It would also be interesting to see if Jayna Davis comes up with any ties to the events of ten years ago.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Here's more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:52 PM

Straight Talk

For the first time in a long time, from the president about the war, and the enemy:

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

Well, that's not quite true. Maybe if we all converted and instituted Sharia, they might stop trying to murder us. At least not as quickly. Under those circumstances, of course, they could do it at their leisure, and whim.

Now if only the administration would stop calling it a War on "Terrorism," and give it its true name.

[Update on a rainy south Florida afternoon]

A bleg: what did people, including the press, call World War II during World War II? Did they call it that? Or just "the war"? Or something else? I always thought that the terms World War I (the Great War) and World War II were terms that arose after the war, in the context of both of them. After all, it would have made no sense to call WW I WW I before WW II, because that would imply knowledge that there would be more to come (not necessarily a tough prediction, given world history, but still). And anyway, WW I was the "war to end all wars." Woodrow Wilson said so himself...

But now, in the context of past century, why can't we just call this one World War IV (and the third one straight against a form of totalitarianism)?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:08 AM

October 04, 2005
Gee, They Finally Noticed

Human Rights Watch says that Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan's freedom fighters are committing war crimes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:45 PM

October 03, 2005
Holy Month Of Murder

Apparently, many of the Islamokazis think that murdering your fellow Muslims during Ramadan gets you even more virgins. Or raisins. Or something:

Egyptian police planned increased watchfulness throughout the month, while insisting no specific threats had been received. But Israel warned its citizens to stay away from Egypt‘s beach resorts in the Sinai peninsula, calling the threat of attacks substantial.
One possible reason is the belief by some Islamic extremists that those who die in combat for a holy cause during Ramadan are especially blessed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:23 PM

Their Way Or The Highway

Mark Steyn writes about the "religion of peace":

I found myself behind a car in Vermont, in the US, the other day; it had a one-word bumper sticker with the injunction "COEXIST". It's one of those sentiments beloved of Western progressives, one designed principally to flatter their sense of moral superiority. The C was the Islamic crescent, the O was the hippie peace sign, the X was the Star of David and the T was the Christian cross. Very nice, hard to argue with. But the reality is, it's the first of those symbols that has a problem with coexistence. Take the crescent out of the equation and you wouldn't need a bumper sticker at all. Indeed, coexistence is what the Islamists are at war with; or, if you prefer, pluralism, the idea that different groups can rub along together within the same general neighbourhood. There are many trouble spots across the world but, as a general rule, even if one gives no more than a cursory glance at the foreign pages, it's easy to guess at least one of the sides: Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PM

October 02, 2005
Taking The Show On The Road

Cindy "Jihadi" Sheehan is going to take her US-bashing tour to the UK, so that she can provide aid and comfort to the enemy from there as well. This was the part I found hilarious, to show how out of touch many over there and in Europe are:

Despite the media battering she has received in the US, Sheehan has carried on with her campaign.

"Despite the media battering"? The media couldn't get enough of her, until they got distracted by bad weather on the Gulf Coast. She got more than her fifteen minutes, because the media loved to cover someone "battering" George Bush on a daily basis, who could give them an excuse to cover her via her "absolute moral authority." If it weren't for the love-fest from the American media, she would have packed up her tent and shut down her Fabulous Flying Barking Moonbat Circus weeks ago.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:26 PM

October 01, 2005
Why Does The World Hate Bali?

Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan's "freedom fighters" have murdered tourists (and no doubt damaged the tourism industry) in Bali again.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:43 PM

September 28, 2005
No Dumb Deed Goes Unpunished

I don't know what John McCain thought he would accomplish by agreeing to meet with Momma Moonbat, but I doubt if it was this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:23 AM

They're On The Other Side

Including some photo editors in the media, apparently. Zombietime provides some context for a photograph of a "peace" rally.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:35 AM

September 26, 2005
They're Not Against War

They're just on the other side. Christopher Hitchens, who knows these creatures as well as anyone who's no longer one of them, explains:

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.
Some of the leading figures in this "movement," such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what's going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation—these thugs were cloned by the American empire for God's sake—would lead to instant condemnation. But if you thought that, gentle reader, you would be wrong.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:54 PM

Well, It's About Time

The Dalai Lama says that war is outdated. What took it so long, anyway?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:39 PM

September 25, 2005
Maybe They've Got Real Jobs, And Lives?

CNN thinks that the lead of the story is the low turnout for the anti-anti-America protestors.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:31 PM

The Nutty Left

Zombietime has some first-hand reporting of a moonbat conclave in San Francisco featuring the odious propagandist, and fascist lover, George Galloway.

Without commenting on all the other insane things that he spouted, I would just note that he seems to be historically ignorant:

Nixon was impeached for far less than George W. Bush is guilty of ...

Problem being, of course, that Nixon wasn't impeached.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:20 AM

September 21, 2005
Recruiting Problems

Say what you want about current recruitment rates for the US forces--Zarqawi's are apparently much worse.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 AM

September 19, 2005
"Effective" And "Successful"?

Diana West asks what we've got to show for all our handouts to the "Palestinians."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:55 AM

September 18, 2005
What The MSM Doesn't Want You To Read

Able becoming dangerous?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 PM

September 12, 2005
Just Coincidence, I'm Sure

The crescent in the proposed Flight 93 memorial points toward Mecca. But we're assured by the designers that it's not about any particular religion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AM

September 11, 2005
You Know The Islamacists Are Completely Delusional When

...they take credit for hurricanes in the US.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:59 PM

The "Tragedy" Of 911

Mark Steyn asks the same question (more directly) that I did earlier today. Do the media and the American people understand that we are at war?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:50 PM

A History Of Two Wars

On the fourth anniversary of Pearl Harbor, the war was over.

It had ended in Europe in May of 1945, and in the Pacific almost exactly sixty years ago, with the signing of the surrender treaty with the Japanese on the deck of the Missouri in Tokyo Harbor. There were storm clouds on the horizon, due to Stalin's perfidy, but a relieved nation had fought off what was perceived to be an existential threat, with many military casualties (though nowhere near as many as other participants), and virtually unscathed on the home front (unlike much of Europe and Asia, in which many millions of civilians died, many brutally), and wanted to get back to normal life.

But four years after September 11th, we remain at war with another totalitarian ideology (and one that is in some ways an offspring of the Nazis, in both its hatred of those unlike the holders of it, and particularly of the Jews). And we've never been compelled, as a nation, to take this war as seriously as we were that one. There has been no draft, and despite daily death counts from the media, and parading bereaved mothers as proxies for their own war against the administration, there have not been thousands of gold stars in windows across the nation--the US casualties in the entire war to date would be dwarfed by those of any number of single battles in the second world war. As Lileks wrote two years ago, this war has a much different feel to it:

The old wars were simple: the other side had accents, uniforms, nations, cruel habits and urbane sneers. The old wars took years. The old wars were in black and white. The old wars were monophonic, scored by Max Steiner, released by Warner Brothers, and the only proof they really happened at all was the small battered box in the back of Dad’s sock drawer, the box that held some oddly colored metal bars.

Out of political correctness, the president continues to misname this war as one against a tactic--"terror," instead of one against an ideology that wants to ultimately impose itself on the entire world. Such, in fact, is the political correctness of the times that we can actually contemplate honoring the first Americans to fight back against this new form of fascism, four years ago, with a memorial that looks like this. Can anyone imagine the equivalent sixty years ago--a memorial to the USS Arizona stylized to look like a rising sun?

Four years ago, the big news was shark attacks, and a missing woman. We were at war, but didn't know it. It took a sudden enemy attack, on a cloudless morning, to (at least momentarily) wake us from our national lethargy. This year, the sharks and missing girl were knocked out of the news not by an enemy attack, but by a natural disaster, nature and entropy being entities with which we have warred since the dawn of history and before, and ones over which we only gradually gain the upper hand, and will probably never completely conquer.

[Late afternoon update]

Mr. Snitch says that President Bush can take comfort from another president's contemporary bad press coverage.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:28 AM

August 30, 2005
"Necessary" and "Unnecessary" Wars

Some interesting discussion (and fodder for potential new "Routers" pieces) over at Winds of Change.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:53 AM

August 25, 2005
It Doesn't Get Much More Cynical Than This

The Muslim extremists (and yes, I don't need scare quotes around that word) that Britain is threatening to deport are taunting them with lawyers:

Al-Siri, who faces execution in Egypt for the murder of a six-year-old girl in a terror bomb blast, said: 'I don't think any British judge can accept any agreement between the UK and any Middle East country like Egypt.'
The 42-year-old, who denies involvement in terrorism, added: 'Any judge here can take this agreement and throw it in the rubbish basket.

'I still trust the UK with human rights and, while Tony Blair may want to change the laws, there is still the Magna Carta.'

Saudi dissident Dr Saad Al-Fagih, who has been described as 'global terrorist' by the U.S., also said he was not worried by Mr Clarke's threat.

He said: 'There is no reason why I should go, none whatsoever. I am doing nothing wrong. If any attempts are made I will contact my lawyer and go through the due process.'

These are people who have utter contempt for human rights (or for that matter, human life) as we understand them, and given the chance, would institute a regime in which they were non-existent. Yet they are sufficiently confident in our own belief in them that they will cheerfully use that against us. They may be misunderestimating the patience of the British people, though:

The Government has also signalled it is prepared to amend the Human Rights Act to achieve its aims.

We'll see if July 7th had the same impact on Britain as September 11th did on us. Now, perhaps they, like we, now understand that when people say they want to kill us, we should take them seriously.

I do wonder, though, if Cherie Blair will be one of the lawyers fighting their extradition? That would make for some interesting bedroom conversation at 10 Downing Street.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AM

August 24, 2005
More Of This, Please

Australia has told extremist Muslims to love it or leave it:

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament.
"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false.

"If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.

Sounds reasonable to me. Let's hope that Britain, and even the US, take a hint.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:26 AM

August 23, 2005
Evisceration

As a grieving widow, I wonder if Lisa Ramaci-Vincent has absolute moral authority? Maybe she should camp out in front of Tisch Hall in Ann Arbor until Professor Cole meets with her. I'm sure that the media would give it big coverage...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:39 AM

August 18, 2005
Not In My Name

Apparently, many families with members serving in Iraq aren't as impressed with Mother Sheehan as the MSM seems to be. And seems to want us to be.

[9 AM EDT Update]

Here's a specific grieving father who says that Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for him. Does he (in defiance of the meaning of the word "absolute") have less "absolute moral authority" than she does, Maureen? Or is it only grieving parents who are opposed to the war, and think that Bush did it for oil and imperialism, and is waging a nuclear war in Iraq, and should be impeached, who have that quality?

And he makes an excellent point. If, as she says, the moral authority of parents whose offspring (and no, they're not children, despite your and others' attempt to infantilize them for political purposes) are killed in Iraq is truly absolute, how does she reconcile these apparently conflicting views?

[Update at 11:40 AM EDT]

Mark Steyn has further related thoughts at The Spectator (registration required).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:27 AM

August 17, 2005
Huh?

Apparently, Senator Feingold is going to call for a fixed date to remove troops from Iraq. This idea has been amply discussed in the blogosphere (short version of the criticism--it allows the "insurgents" to run out the clock, after which they can have their way with the Iraqis). But I need this explained to me:

“The president’s policy in Iraq has played into the hands of the terrorists,” he said. “Iraq is now the principal training ground for terrorists.”

Assuming (only for the sake of argument) that this is true, can he, or someone, explain to me how this will become less the case after we pull out before the war is won? Why wouldn't Iraq simply become another Taliban-run Afghanistan (given the nature of the people who are doing most of the murdering, and they're mostly not Iraqis, who would like to impose a similar fascistic Islamic state)?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:55 PM

Next Year In Jerusalem

Lileks has some thoughts on the Gaza pullout, and Cindy Sheehan.

I think many on the progressive left would not be troubled much if Israel just “went away,” somehow. If anything it would save them the trouble of defending a culture that got the West Bank and Gaza and continued to wage war. One suspects that they know that the militant elements of the Palestinian society will not be placated by anything less than a Jew-free Middle East, but that messy fact can be filed away with the many uncomfortable truths one absorbs to achieve the greater good....
... Incidentally, the speech where [Sheehan] complained about teaching her son that America was a good thing? It was taken from a rally for a lawyer convicted of helping the blank-eyed imp who helped engineer the first bombing of the WTC. The next guy who got up to speak was a defender of cop-killer St. Mumia. Then came the blind sheik’s lawyer. Lovely people. I’ve no doubt they all watched the TV footage of IDF soldiers removing settlers from Gaza, heard about the rocket attacks – unhelpful, really – and shrugged. It’s a start.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AM

August 16, 2005
"Nice Little Country You Have Here...

...it would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

The so-called "moderate Muslim leadership" in Britain is blackmailing the British government again:

The closure of mosques accused of "fomenting extremism" would amount to a collective punishment of the community, the statement warned.
It may "create fear" which could lead to "the very radical sub-culture which we all seek to prevent".

Finally, the Muslim leaders said plans to deport foreign nationals to countries known for human rights abuses was "abhorrent".

In other words, Britain had better continue to allow people to foment insurrection and religious hatred against non-Muslims, or there might be even more insurrection and religious hatred against non-Muslims. And Britain is apparently obliged to provide asylum to people who abuse that privilege to preach hatred against her.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:52 AM

August 15, 2005
Chickenhawkettes?

Here's a stupid question:

"President Bush, if your own two daughters won't enlist, how can you expect anyone else's children to join the military?"

This is like the idiocy of Michael Moore demanding the same thing of Bill O'Reilly. It presupposes that "children" join the military, and fantasizes that this happens because parents "send" them. Surely this formulation helps play into the little passion play we're seeing down in Crawford right now, but it has no correspondence to reality. In this country, adults join the military, and they do so voluntarily. Many (indeed, most) of them have parents, but this is presumably a choice made by those adults, and not the parents, so this whole notion of "sending our children to war" is nonsensical.

Does he really expect the president to order Jenna and Barbara to enlist? If not, what's his point? This isn't about "people's children" joining the military--it's about people joining the military who happen (on occasion) to have parents. But that reality apparently doesn't jerk the heartstrings as much.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:08 PM

August 14, 2005
Overhype From Weldon?

John Podhoretz says that there may be much less to the "Able Danger" issue than meets the eye. This doesn't, of course, relieve the commission of its (what I consider) disgraceful behavior in whitewashing Jamie Gorelick's role, and allowing her to remain on the commission, instead of what she properly should have been--a witness.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:09 AM

August 13, 2005
A New Humiliation

Andrew McCarthy writes about hypocrisy in Turtle Bay.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:13 AM

August 12, 2005
It's Not All About Us

Michael Totten writes about who we are at war with, and who they are at war with:

The overwhelming majority of Islamist killers aren't terrorists. They are soldiers and members of state-sanctioned death squads. Most victims of Islamists violence aren't Westerners...they're the Islamists' fellow Muslims. It's easy to forget this -- or not even be aware of it -- if you aren't interested in what happens inside the Muslim world when George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the rest in the West aren't involved.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:10 PM

What Was Sandy Up To?

Andrew McCarthy has some more good questions about Able Danger and Sandy Berger that the press doesn't seem very curious about. He finishes with this one:

Why has the public not been told at this point what was in the classified documents that Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger illegally pilfered from the archives during preparation for his Commission testimony (as well as President Clinton’s) – some of which he destroyed (although there are said to be other copies)? The 9/11 inquiry was said to be so significant to the public’s understanding of intelligence failure that the Commissioners famously forced a Presidential Daily Briefing from the CIA (one of the most sensitive documents generated by government) to be declassified and unsealed so that Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condi Rice, could be asked about it publicly. Why haven’t we been able to see for ourselves what Berger took?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:27 AM

Does This Explain Berger's Behavior?

Well, here's a huge story that the MSM won't want to touch. At least not until they can conjure up some insane angle on it that will somehow make it Bush's fault.

I never cease to be amazed that the same media that continues to give Cindy Sheehan wall-to-wall coverage, and help her promulgate the lie that the president hasn't met with her, is so incurious about the fecklessness of the Clinton administration, and Sandy Burglar's reckless acts.

I should add that I've never been able to be as impressed with the "bipartisan" 911 Commission as the press wanted me to be. When Jamie Gorelick wasn't required to recuse herself on those things being investigated in which she was directly involved, it lost all credibility with me. The sad thing is all of the legislation that was rushed through on its flawed (and perhaps, as we see now, duplicitous) advice.

[Update at 9:37 AM EDT]

John Podhoretz isn't impressed with the commission, either:

The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta -- in 1999 -- and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.
And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.

And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.

And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq -- that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AM

August 11, 2005
A New Find

(Former?) Democrat and radio ventriloquist Phil Hendrie has a blog. With a surprising name. He's not impressed with Cindy Sheehan.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 AM

Bipartisan Stupidity

James Lileks has some suitably arch commentary about the moral obtuseness of certain Presbyterian church leaders:

The Presbyterian church - not the members, but the learned elders - has announced it will use the church’s stock holdings to target Israel for being mean to the Palestinians. But they’re not anti-Semites. Heavens, nay. Don’t you dare question their philosemitism! No, they looked at the entire world, including countries that lop off your skull if you convert to Presbyterianism, and what did they chose as the object of their ire? A country the size of a potato chip hanging on the edge of a region noted for despotism and barbarity. By some peculiar coincidence, it just happens to be full of Jews.
The right and the left take turns deciding who’s going to be anti-semitic this century. For some time now the hard left in the West has led the charge against the Jews – or, as the sleight-of-hand term has it, the Zionists. The adolescent spirits of the left love nothing more than a revolution, a story of a scrappy underdog rising up against a colonizing power, and the Palestinians, with their romantically-masked fighters and thrilling weapon-brandishing, fit the bill. Plus, there’s something so deliciously naughty and transgressive about calling Jews the new Nazis – if it feels that good, it must be right.

And speaking of the idiocies of the left and right converging, here's a provocative post by Harry Hatchett on that subject.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:25 AM

August 10, 2005
Well, At Least It Makes It Hard To Hide A Bomb

I'd like to see this woman try this trick in her homeland, say, protesting Syrian support for the Iraqi "insurgents."

And I wonder why these nutballs think that watching mental defectives do a strip tease and covering their naked selves with dumb graffitti is somehow going to make us hit ourselves in the forehead, forget all of the logic and facts that got us to our positions, and say "Of course! The war is Iraq is wrong!"

Only in America.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:15 AM

August 06, 2005
Sixty Years

...ago we employed the first nuclear weapon ever used in war on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. A few days later, we dropped another on Nagasaki. Neither we, nor anyone else has done so since. Let's hope that it remains that way.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AM

"I Have Rights"

Jonah Goldberg writes about the hypocrisy of the morons who are trying to kill us (occasionally, sadly, successfully), and how they're aided and abetted by the victimologists among us:

... idiots are often very useful in illustrating the appeal of fascistic cults. Intellectuals are too good at covering their real psychological motivations with verbiage. It turns out that the famously "homegrown" terrorists of the London bombings were much more like John Walker Lindh or even the Patty Hearst types of the 1960s and '70s. Radical chic may be as a big a part of the story as radical Islam.
We've always understood this was the case to a certain extent. Osama bin Laden's prattling about the Crusades, for instance, merely shows how poisoned Islamism is by Western Marxism and anti-imperialism. Muslims used to brag about winning the Crusades. It was only after the West started exporting victimology that Islamic and Arab intellectuals started to whine about how poorly they'd been treated.

To a certain extent, radical Islam in Europe has taken the place of third-world Marxism — hardly a big leap when you think about how many Vietnamese "revolutionaries" were trained in Parisian salons. It's all about fighting capitalism, American "imperialism," modernism, etc. Marxism no longer provides a workable model, but the Islamists think sharia might. At the same time, like fascism and Communism before it, radical Islam provides a sense of purpose and meaning for losers and misfits who blame their misfortunes on "the system" (variously defined as the ruling class, the Jews, the capitalists, Col. Sanders, etc.). In this sense, Islamism is less about religion than ideology, and less about ideology than it is about alienation and low self-esteem.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 AM

August 05, 2005
Blowing Off Steam

I'm working under several deadlines, so posting is likely to remain light for now, but Jonathan Adler points out that Canadian airport security is either more lax, or more rational, than that of TSA:

...if the shoe x-rays were really all that necessary -- and I do not believe they are -- this would create a security risk. More likely, it's just another example of TSA irrationality.

Personally, I think that our entire airline security policy is flawed. I'd prefer knowing that my fellow passengers are armed, to ensure that there will never be another successful hijacking, and this would also result in huge productivity increases for travelers by not having our nose-hair trimmers and lighters confiscated. I do worry about bombs, though, so in a sense, Richard Reid did us a favor by being such a moron--if he'd succeeded in lighting his shoes over the Atlantic, there may not have been any evidence of how the aircraft was destroyed. Still, I think that those of us who have to undergo the inconvenience and indignity of padding through the machine in socks or barefoot, should at least have an opportunity to throw darts at a picture of him after we've gotten through the gauntlet and reshod ourselves. It could hang just below a picture of Osama.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:58 AM

July 24, 2005
A Political Rorschach Test

One of the reasons that our nation, and indeed the world, is so divided on the so-called War on Terror (which, I remind once again, is really a war on a new form of totalitarian fascism wearing the not-that-much-less malign face of Islamic fundamentalism), is that we have major divisions over what motivates the people who make war on us.

In one sense, it's like the old fable of the blind men and the elephant. If you're a traditional leftist, you see everything through the lens of capitalist, colonialist oppression, and suicide bombers look like stalwart and admirable fighters against The Man. To people like Michael Moore, they are simply freedom fighters, just like the Minute Men of our own revolution. (Of course, they only use this comparison when they're trying to make the enemy look appealing to those who disagree with them because, in fact, some of the time they're actually instead denigrating George Washington and his troops, and comparing them to terrorists, which is apparently only a bad thing when they're Americans.)

If you're a multi-culturalist, you see them as misunderstood, their culture under daily siege from an unrelenting barrage of western music, and sexual images, and women with flesh exposed to the world. It's only understandable that they would want to strike out, and even end their lives when they hear about their holy book being defiled:

He said Tanweer had never mentioned links with any militant group.
“He knew that excesses are being done to Muslims. Incidents like desecration of the Koran have always been in his mind,” Mr Saleem said, referring to US guards at Guantanamo allegedly throwing a copy of Islam’s holy book in a toilet.

(Thanks, Newsweek!)

To others, of a transnational progressivist international-law bent, their behavior can't necessarily be so easily excused, but they're still just a criminal gang, a problem to be solved by international cooperation among police agencies. Whenever they commit one of these crimes, they are to be infiltrated, arrested, indicted, tried, and imprisoned (though never executed--that's so barbarian and...American) for life, or until they can be rehabilitated, and see the error of their ways. It might even be acceptable to infiltrate them before the crime is committed, if there's some chance that it might actually prevent one of these crimes from occurring, as long as we don't go too far, and violate their civil rights in any way.

If you're like me, you see them as I earlier described them--as just the next group of vicious thugs, like the Nazis, and the Stalinists, and Maoists, and their spinoffs the Khmer Rouge and Shining Path and others, who want to make the world conform to their will, and are not only willing to murder innocents to accomplish their vile goals, but revel in doing so. And if that's the case, the only ultimate solution is to defeat them militarily, however long it takes, which sadly, in many cases, cannot be done without killing large numbers of them, because it may well prove impossible to change their minds.

Each of us is groping at one or another part of the pachyderm, and thinking that it's the whole animal: an elephant is like a tree, an elephant is like a snake, an elephant is like a rope.

And of course, if you're of a mind to seek some "root cause" for their actions, you will see what you wish as well. If your focus is the Arab-Israeli conflict, then that's a general-purpose explanation for these attacks, whereever and whenever they occur. If you think that we've desecrated holy places with the presence of our infidel troops (particularly our female troops), then that's the explanation. If you believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power was wrong, then you're pleased (though it should actually give you pause) to find Islamists agreeing with you.

I think that that's part of the explanation of a disturbing poll, in which a dismayingly large number (in absolute terms, if not percentagewise) of British Muslims supposedly agree or sympathize with the motives of the London bombers.

But how can this be? The bombers are no longer with us to even tell us what their motives were. How can they agree with motives when they don't know what they are?

There's an old diagnostic tool in psychology--the ink-blot test, named the Rorschach test for the man who invented it. In it, the test subject is asked to look at a series of randomly produced ink splotches (usually made on a folded paper for symmetry) and describe what he or she sees--a mother cradling a baby, a man stabbing a woman, or perhaps nothing at all. The answer tells us nothing, of course, of the actual nature of the ink blot (the same could be done with clouds), but does provide some insight into what's going on in the person's mind.

Similarly, many seemingly seek to look into the mind of a terrorist and his actions, and see what they want to see: anger at Israel, anger at the apparent impotence of the Arab world against the west, frustration at the inability to raise your children as properly Islamic in a secular West, even the desire for the reestablishment of the Caliphate.

Sadly, I agree that all of the above are motivating the bombers, and many of the people who agree with them. But if these are the grievances, they cannot be assuaged, they cannot be appeased. They are what we call in American divorce courts, "irreconcilable differences."

Yes, we could withdraw from Iraq, but as has been pointed out, they were doing this before we were in Iraq, and Egypt, last time I checked, had no troops in Iraq. Withdrawing from Iraq won't change the desire of many British Muslims to swaddle their women from head to toe, to force adolescent girls to marry old men they've never met, to call down Fatwas on homosexuals. Yielding to demands to allow Arabs to flood into Israel won't bring about peace in the Middle East. Once we've sacrificed the Iraqi people, struggling for democracy, once we've sacrificed the Jews to them, they'll only hunger for further expansion of their Caliphate. There cannot be peaceful coexistence with a people whose ultimate goal is to compel everyone to live under a single religion, one that is not just a religion but a way of life.

Some look at the Rorschach of the terrorists and see a people struggling for justice. I look at it and see one struggling for injustice, with a desire to spread it throughout the world, and to return us to a medievel dreamworld of their imagination that is centuries old.

There's an old joke about the Rorschach test, in which it's administered to an obstreperous teenage boy, which seems sadly appropriate (and, yes, I recognize it can be taken two ways, perhaps more than two).

What do you see in this one?
A man having sex with a woman.

How about this one?

A man having sex with two women

Do you see anything here?

A woman having sex with a man.

OK, son, that's enough. You can go now.

Hey, Doc!

Yes?

Can I have those dirty pictures you drew?

[Update at 1 PM EDT]

Mark Steyn has a related column--Mugged By Reality:

For four years, much of the western world behaved like [Florida Department of Agriculture official Johnelle] Bryant. Bomb us, and we agonise over the "root causes" (that is, what we did wrong). Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that "Islam is a religion of peace". Issue bloodcurdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodomites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can't wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush, Blair and Howard. Murder a schoolful of children, and our scholars explain that to the "vast majority" of Muslims "jihad" is a harmless concept meaning "decaf latte with skimmed milk and cinnamon sprinkles"...
...Usually it's the hostage who gets Stockholm Syndrome, but the newly liberated [Douglas] Wood must occasionally reflect that in this instance the entire culture seems to have caught a dose. And, in a sense, we have: multiculturalism is a kind of societal Stockholm Syndrome. Atta's meetings with Bryant are emblematic: He wasn't a genius, a master of disguise in deep cover; indeed, he was barely covered at all, he was the Leslie Nielsen of terrorist masterminds - but the more he stuck out, the more Bryant was trained not to notice, or to put it all down to his vibrant cultural tradition.

[Another update at 1:40]

Michael Portillo has further thoughts--he says that we foolishly let Londonistan rise against us:

It is easy to explain how the Londonistan phenomenon (the concentration of Muslim political activists in the capital) has come about. For years foreign governments have complained that dissidents settled in Britain were using the fax and the internet to foment discontent in their countries. Our response has been dilatory. Under our asylum rules we have made no distinction between the innocent victims of persecution and others intent on bringing down states.
As democrats we feel some sympathy for those who voice opposition to autocratic regimes. Maybe our response has been coloured by memories of the brave French resistance sabotaging the Nazis under control from London. It has taken us a long time to accept that not all enemies of dictatorships are either democrats or patriots.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:36 AM

July 23, 2005
An Army Of Dolts Or Geniuses?

Following a link from Instapundit, I've been perusing Noah Shachtman's diary from Iraq. I recommend it--it's quite fascinating, and not the kind of reporting that you'll find that much of in the MSM. I found the entry about the Armed Forces Network quite amusing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:15 PM

July 22, 2005
They Make Their Demands

So much for help from the British Muslim community. Their supposed leadership has essentially told us to surrender if we want the bombs to stop:

"7/7, 21/7, and God knows what will happen afterwards, our lives are in real danger and it would seem, so long as we are in Iraq and so long as we are contributing to injustices around the world, we will continue to be in real danger."

It was "contributing to injustices around the world" to remove a brutal dictator who murdered Muslims by the villageload?

"Tony Blair has to come out of his state of denial and listen to what the experts have been saying, that our involvement in Iraq is stupid." His comments were echoed by the marketing manager for The Muslim Weekly newspaper.
Shahid Butt said he believed the threat to Britain would reduce if it pulled its troops out of Iraq. He said: "At the end of the day, these things [violent incidents] are going to happen if current British foreign policy continues. There's a lot of rage, there's a lot of anger in the Muslim community.

"Yes," said Mr. Hitler, "those German bombers are going to continue to happen. There's a lot of rage, a lot of anger in Germany. You need to change your foreign policy, and stop supporting efforts to overthrow the legitimate Petain regime in Paris."

"We have got to get out of Iraq, it is the crux of the matter. I believe if Tony Blair and George Bush left Iraq and stopped propping up dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world, the threat rate to Britain would come down to nearly zero."

You mean dictatorial regimes like the one in Afghanistan, one of the few democracies in the Muslim world, that became that way only because of British and American arms? Or the new democratic government in Iraq (again a result of British and American "foreign policy"), one that is being undermined by people who apparently love killing Muslims, for whom this man is making apologies and excuses?

Which specific "dictatorial regimes does he have in mind"? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? I'm all ears as to any suggestions he has to reform those places.

But sorry. John Howard had it exactly right. I'd suggest you listen to what he has to say, Dr. Tamimi.

[Update at 1 PM PDT]

It strikes me that this is classic good cop/bad cop, with Dr. Tanimi and his confederates playing good cop, and the thugs being the bad one. "You know, maybe you should listen to us and do what we say, wouldn't want that other guy to get a hold of you--no telling what he might do."

[Update at 1:55 PM PDT]

Here's another one:

Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city's transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.
"What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there ... we will see the same effect we saw on July 7," Bakri said.

"If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again," he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts with people planning to carry out attacks.

Yeah, I'll bet he has no information...

[One more update]

It occurred to me when discussing this on the phone with someone just now that of the three Anglosphere leaders, Bush is a straight (albeit occasionally stumbling over words) talker, Blair is eloquent and articulate (albeit slippery, which really stands out when he appears next to someone like John Howard), but what's great about John Howard is that he combines these traits--eloquent, articulate, and straightforward. I occasionally wish that we could trade leaders with folks Down Under.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:07 AM

A Long Hot British Summer?

Fox News is now reporting that the police have cleared the streets in a London neighborhood and telling everyone to stay inside. There's reportedly a remote-controlled vehicle looking for a bomb.

It sounds like they may be getting some good G2 from the guy they arrested, and the evidence that didn't explode yesterday. I'd like to think that some of the British Muslim community may be coming forward, too, but I haven't heard any specific evidence of it yet.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Via Instapundit, here's more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:15 AM

Hit Me Again, I Deserve It

Ted Lapkin says that the anti-war left is acting like a battered wife. It looks like a pretty good analogy to me.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:13 AM

July 18, 2005
"Their Finest Hour"

Today, it's been sixty-five years since Winston Churchill made the insensitive and bellicose speech to the House of Commons to which I referred in this parody:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

A "Christian civilization"? We can't have hate talk like that--string him up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 AM

July 17, 2005
Maybe Brits Don't Make Suicide Bombers After All

The people who set off the bombs in London may have expected to get away:

one police hypothesis is that the bombers were tricked by a "master" who told them they would have time to escape - when in fact the devices were set to go off immediately.
"The bombers' masters might have thought that they couldn't risk the four men being caught and spilling everything to British interrogators," an unnamed security official told the Telegraph.

Lending weight to the theory is the fact that all four men had paid up their parking tickets before boarding a train at Luton for King's Cross, and that they all bought return tickets to the capital.

Moreover, the paper said, the men were carrying their explosives inside rucksacks, as opposed to strapped to their bodies as is common practice among suicide bombers.

None were reported to have cried "Allah Akbar" (God is Greatest) before setting off their charge - something which most Middle Eastern suicide bombers do.

If they were duped into it, as it looks like might be the case, it will make it harder for future recruitment, because bombers unwilling to sacrifice themselves may not trust their masters. Of course, this isn't unprecedented. Bin Laden joked on the videotape about many of the September 11 hijackers having no idea why they were hijacking the planes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:24 AM

July 12, 2005
A Long Way To Go

Melanie Phillips has a disturbing letter from a British Muslim. As she says:

Truth and lies are at the very heart of this terrible problem facing us all. The sense of grievance and injustice to which this reader refers is indeed very real. But it is the grievance of a people who turn their own misdeeds into their own victimology, thus making rational discourse all but impossible. The tragedy is that this reader and I undoubtedly have much in common — but what divides us is unbridgeable, unless the Muslim community starts to unpick the truth from the lies they have been told for so long.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:51 PM

Don't Know Much About History

As an alumnus of the University of Michigan, I'm embarrassed that Juan Cole is a tenured professor there, and apparently a respected one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:42 AM

July 11, 2005
Hearts And Minds

The SEAL who escaped was sheltered from the Taliban by local Afghan villagers.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:12 PM

A Win For The Terrorists

I had my Swiss Army knife confiscated at airport security a couple years ago, when I made the mistake of having it in my pocket. It didn't occur to me, but all this nonsense is probably bad for the SAK business, perhaps to the point of putting them out of business.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 AM

July 10, 2005
Poverty Causes Terrorism

That's one of the bedrock assumptions of the left, or at least so they tell us. And it must be true, right, because after all:

LORD STEVENS, the former Metropolitan police chief who retired earlier this year, said last night that the London bombings were almost certainly masterminded by British-born terrorists.
He said last week’s bombers would not fit the stereotype of a fanatic from a village in Afghanistan or Algeria.

“They will be apparently ordinary British citizens; young men conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably with some higher education. Highly computer literate, they will have used the internet to research explosives. They are painstaking, cautious, clever and very sophisticated.”

Yup, destitute. No wonder they turned to violence.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:51 PM

Unknown Unknown

Mark Steyn says that Britain doesn't even seem to understand how big a problem it's got:

The choice for Britons now is whether they wish to be Australians post-Bali or Spaniards post-Madrid. That shouldn't be a tough call. But it's easy to stand before a news camera and sonorously declare that "the British people will never surrender to terrorism.'' In reality, unless it's clear a threat is primal, most democratic peoples and their political leaders prefer to regard bad news as a peripheral nuisance which can be negotiated away to the fringe of their concerns.
That's what Britain thought in the 1930s -- back when Hitler was slavering over Czechoslovakia, and Neville Chamberlain dismissed it as "a faraway country of which we know little." Today, the faraway country of which the British know little is Britain itself. Traditional terrorists -- the IRA, the Basque separatists -- operate close to home. Islamism projects itself long-range to any point of the planet with an ease most G-8 militaries can't manage. Small cells operate in the nooks and crannies of a free society while the political class seems all but unaware of their existence.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:37 AM

July 07, 2005
Deja Vu

There was another summer of shark attacks, and young women missing. It abruptly ended as much of America awoke one morning to television images of airplanes flying into buildings, and people jumping from them as they first burned, then fell.

Once again, during a summit in which the hot topics are not the religious extremists who wish us to convert or die (and are indifferent as to which, or would in fact prefer the latter), but global warming and African poverty (the latter a condition that has generally been worsened, not ameliorated by such international gabfests), the early morning news is filled with images of sundered buses and subway cars and broken British bodies. This time it's in London, the capital of one of our most steadfast allies in the war.

Once again, we're reminded that this is a war of a kind unfamiliar to any American for the past hundred and forty years, and to almost any American from the northern tier of the country for almost two centuries, in that we at home are at risk of our property and lives. We've fought many wars, but the bombs and the injuries and the dying have been endured by those in our military, and largely occurred in the foreign lands in which we waged them. But as on that sunny September day almost four years ago (a time now greater than the span between Pearl Harbor and victory over Germany and then Japan) we are reminded that we're all in the army now, and we're all, at least metaphorically, in the sniper's scope.

It's not clear what the goal of this latest atrocity was. The timing with the G8 Summit seems too close to be coincidental, but it's hard to imagine what these people thought the effect on that event would be, other than to strengthen the resolve of the G8 against them. Certainly the British people are no stranger to such things, and have shown their mettle, as they did in the eighties against the IRA, and against the original Nazis during the Blitz. In the words of Winston Churchill, I'm confident that, once again, they will not falter, or fail. And even if they were the type to be cowed, there's no upcoming election here to sway, as there was in Madrid. If they were trying to hurry the British troops out of Iraq, I suspect that it would be more likely to have the opposite effect now. If nothing else, I hope that it encourages a real crackdown on the Islamist hatemongers, so many (indeed far too many) of whom have taken up residence in Britain, and preached and proselytized their neonazism unmolested for too long amidst a misplaced multicultural overtolerance.

Is it part of a larger plot, still to play out?

I'm in Washington. I walked to work from my hotel this morning, because it was quite close. But I have a lunch scheduled with an editor in the district near the White House, and I was planning to take the Metro to get there. Should I, will I now take a cab instead?

No.

That's what they want. There are many who cannot afford cabs, or cars. For them the subway is their lifeline. At least one of the goals of these creatures is to scare them away from it, to once again damage our economy (as I watched the coverage of the London carnage, all of the st0ck index futures were down steeply this morning). To once again strike fear into our hearts. To once again prevent us from doing the things that we want, and often must do.

No, when I go downtown today, I'll ride the train under the river, with those who must, just as I would had I woken up this morning to normal--the latest shark attack and insipid interviews with friends of neighbors of one of the Aruba accused. Though I love life, it must be a life worth living, and that is not one cowering in fear from impotent madmen who rejoice in death, and would force our participation in a misogynistic and deranged medieval fantasy. I will carry on.

They will not win.

[Update at 10:15 AM EDT]

Not all Brits are maintaining a stiff upper lip. The odious Islamic stooge, George Galloway, has already issued a call to surrender:

We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.

[Another update a few minutes later]

"Red" Ken Livingstone, the leftist mayor of London, has a stouter spirit:

I want to say one thing, specifically to the world today — this was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful, it was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian ... young and old … that isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted fate, it is an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder.
They seek to divide London, they seek Londoners to turn against each other ... this city of London is the greatest in the world because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack.

I know that you personally do not fear to give your own life in exchange to taking others ... but I know you do fear you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society ... in the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our seaports and look at our railway stations ... you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world, will arrive in London to become Londoners, to fulfill their dream and achieve their potential … whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

[Both of the above links via The Corner, which has wall-to-wall coverage, or at least linkage, and commentary]

[One more note a few minutes later still]

I should add that I feel that I'm being neither particularly brave or foolhardy in using the Metro today. First, even if there are attacks, the chances that I would personally be involved in one are quite small. Even in London, after all, I'd guess that 99.9+ % of the train and bus passengers were unaffected (except by the stoppages, of course).

Even leaving the statistics aside, though, if they were going to have attacks here coordinated with those across the pond, I'd think that they'd have already done so at rush hour, both here and in New York. I'll be traveling during late lunch time. Security is high on the Metro (despite no increase in alert status by the DHS), and despite our own lax policies in immigration, we don't have the same critical mass of Islamic extremists that Britain has. I think that they hit London because it was a softer target, and nearby, and the chances that they've been able to coordinate similar attacks here quite small.

[One more thought in the evening]

One more key point between this and Madrid. Tony Blair laid the blame where it belonged, and didn't blame (for example) the IRA (as the Spanish government initially, reflexively blamed ETA). That, as much as Iraq, is what caused the Spanish government to fall.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:42 AM

July 03, 2005
You Mean They Aren't Here To Liberate Us?

Here's a heart-warming story to celebrate the weekend of Independence Day:

Following al-Qa'eda's seizure of the main buildings a number of residents fled. Arkan Salim, 56, who left with his wife and four children, said: "We thought they were patriotic. Now we discovered that they are sick and crazy.
"They interfered in everything, even how we raise our children. They turned the city into hell, and we cannot live in it anymore."

Yeah, totalitarians are like that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:53 PM

July 01, 2005
I Feel Much Safer Now

Cliff May points out that the CIA doesn't seem to know that the phrase "experienced suicide bomber" is an oxymoron. They also weren't aware of the provenance of Iran's new president.

This is hardly surprising. They also had no idea, back in 1979, that the Shah was in trouble. I recall a cartoon that showed two agents with CIA on their trenchcoats, in Tehran, amidst a street revolution. One is whispering to the other, "Psssttt...I hear that there's a problem in Iran." The one replies, "Quick, call President Truman."

I wish we'd had someone else to vote for in November.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:11 PM

June 26, 2005
This Time It's Personal

In his own private war, a Swede (acting against stereotype) who was a hostage in Iraq has hired bounty hunters to hunt down and kill his former captors. No Stockholm Syndrome for him, apparently.

If they're smart, they'll subcontract it to some Iraqis. Otherwise they may just become hostages themselves...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:27 AM

June 24, 2005
A Very Strange Poll Question

I'm not sure what the point of this poll question is:

Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans say that President Bush is more responsible for starting the War with Iraq than Saddam Hussein. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 44% take the opposite view and believe Hussein shoulders most of the responsibility.

First of all, Saddam started the "War with Iraq" fifteen years ago, way back in August 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. That war didn't end until March, 2003, when he was deposed, because there was never a peace treaty from the first Gulf War, and he was in continuous violation of almost all of the UN resolutions that were put in place as conditions of the truce.

Now certainly, the president does have responsibility for taking action to finally end (not start) the war with Saddam. But I don't really know what it means to say that someone started a war, or what value it has in assessing whether or not they were right to do so. Technically, one could say that Israel started the 1967 war, because they had to preempt what would otherwise have been a devastating attack by Arab forces massed on her borders.

So what?

Why is Rasmmussen even asking this question? The issue is not who "started the war," but whether the war was just, and necessary for the purposes of national security. Talk about "who started it" is the mentality of the playground, which seems to be where the minds of many of our so-called opinion leaders reside these days.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 AM

June 22, 2005
A Gitmo Primer

Lileks explains:

Q: What is Gitmo?
A: Contrary to what some suggest, it does not stand for "Git mo' Peking chicken for Muhammad, he wants a second portion." It stands for "Guantanamo," a facility the United States built to see if the left would ever care about human rights abuses in Cuba. The experiment has apparently been successful.

It gets better.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:05 PM

The Cowboy War

Armed Liberal has a good post on the fantasy world of perfectionist war critics:

...in the reality-based America where I live, we do bad things all the time. The good news is that we tend to do a far better job of self-correcting (note that the Abu Ghraib folks were already or about to be indicted when the story broke - the military justice folks had received the info, acted, and were busting the perps - one of whose lawyers released the imagery as a negotiating tactic) than, for example, the Greenpeace-killing French DSGE do...
...All actions and systems involve mistakes, are imperfect, have undesirable unforeseen consequences. We're human, and fallible. We have imperfect information, we often act out of fear or prejudice or laziness or greed. This has been a part of the human condition as long as there has been a human condition to have. It is the root of tragedy, the most human of art forms...

In an imaginary world in which we were omnipotent, yes, none of this would happen. We could identify our opponents with perfect accuracy, and disarm and restrain them without harming anyone. Once restrained, our procedures would be firm, gentle, and correct in every degree.

It's funny, but I pretty much think that's what we're doing now, with a massively narrow span of error.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:14 AM

June 21, 2005
Divide And Conquer

Well, you know the old saying about no honor among thieves? It seems to apply to terrorists and Ba'athists as well. The native Iraqi "insurgents" don't seem to be getting on that well with their foreign "allies":

Marines patrolling this desert region near the Syrian border have for months been seeing a strange new trend in the already complex Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents, they say, have been fighting each other in towns along the Euphrates from Husayba, on the border, to Qaim, farther west. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels...
...Capt. Chris Ieva, a fast-talking 31-year-old from North Brunswick, N.J., said he could tell whether an area was controlled by foreign insurgents or locals by whether families had cellphones or guns, which foreign fighters do not allow local residents to have for fear they would spy on them. Marines cited other tactics as being commonly employed by foreigners. Sophisticated body armor, for example, is one sign, as well as land mines that are a cut above average, remote-controlled local mines, and well-chosen sniper positions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:11 AM

June 19, 2005
I'm Sure The Riots Will Break Out Any Minute Now

A "Palestinian" prisoner threw pages of the Quran in a toilet.

I'm sure that this will be the headline in the New York Times tomorrow. Right?

What? You mean it's only news when we're alleged to do it? Not when the people who supposedly revere the book do it?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:14 PM

June 07, 2005
The EMP Threat

Here's something that we're not worried about enough. At least not enough to actually be doing what we need to do about it.

[Update at 10:45 AM EDT]

A commenter asks if Scuds could reach Kansas City from outside US territorial waters. I suspect that a North Korean No Dong (range of about a thousand miles) might be able to come close to it from the Gulf of Mexico.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:26 AM

June 06, 2005
"The Wolves Howl Along The Way"

Many look at the rising casualty figures in Iraq and assume that this means that the "insurgents" are winning. Of course, the casualty figures rose dramatically in the Mekong Delta during Tet, but all it meant was the the Viet Cong were on their last legs there, and lashing out in desperation. Similarly, there was a huge increase in American casualties during the Battle of the Bulge, but that didn't mean that Germany was winning the war.

Smart stock pickers don't rely on past, or even current performance, or buy into an up and overvalued market. Similarly, the terrorists in Iraq aren't a good bet at this point. Amir Taheri explains why, in fact, they're doomed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:14 PM

May 27, 2005
Desperation

Bill Roggio notes the depth of moral depravity to which the terrorists in Iraq have been forced.

While the media reports there is a glut of volunteers willing to immolate themselves, the reliance on blackmail, the mentally handicapped and four legged creatures as martyrs shows there may be a serious problem with the devotion to the cause amongst the recruits.

As Bill asks, where is PETA?

[Update at 10 AM]

They're also using children as human shields.

Bill Whittle reminds us of the kind of people we're dealing with here (note: as usual a long, but worthwhile essay):

Whenever there is war and invasion, there will be terrified civilians trying to get from one place to another. In the very early hours of Operation Iraqi Freedom, when we expected to be fighting the same Army that in the Gulf War fully honored the idea of uniformed troops, our soldiers discovered large numbers of unarmed, military-aged men in civilian clothes making for the rear. Many of these men were let through, and promptly took up arms and caused immeasurable damage before blending back into the population.
But they did much worse. Because after a few suicide bombers in civilian vehicles drove up to checkpoints and blew themselves and honor-abiding Coalition soldiers to bits, we have found ourselves having to treat all speeding civilian vehicles as hostile. We simply have no choice anymore. We did not simply decide to open fire on civilians; rather the enemy, in a cold and calculated decision repeated many, many times over, decided to violate the Sanctuary given to civilians to wage war on an American and British Army playing by the rules. They have made the line between civilian and soldier nonexistent. They did this, not us. They did it. They gained the benefits from it, and it has cost us dear. And so perhaps, in a world with less ignorance and more honesty, Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena – who sped at a US roadblock, weaving, at more than 60 mph and in violation of warning shots -- would be pointing her finger at the people who violated this Covenant of Civilization, and not those being forced to make terrible decisions in order to preserve it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:44 AM

May 17, 2005
Giving Them A Pass

Again.

And Andrew McCarthy is angry about it:

The false report, according to the New York Times, instigated "the most virulent, widespread anti-American protests" in the Muslim world since...well, since the last virulent, widespread anti-American protests in the Muslim world — particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where at least 17 people have been killed.
That's right. The reason for the carnage is said — again and again, by media critics and government officials — to be a false report of Koran desecration. The prime culprit here is irresponsible journalism.

Is that what we really think?

Here's an actual newsflash — and one, yet again, that should be news to no one: The reason for the carnage here was, and is, militant Islam. Nothing more.

Newsweek merely gave the crazies their excuse du jour. But they didn't need a report of Koran desecration to fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers, to blow up embassies, or to behead hostages taken for the great sin of being Americans or Jews. They didn't need a report of Koran desecration to take to the streets and blame the United States while enthusiastically taking innocent lives. This is what they do.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:43 AM

May 09, 2005
An "Insurgency" By Any Other Name

If this story, and this one are accurate, it would seem to me that Iraq is in a state of war with Syria (and probably other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, as well). After all, they seem to be sending in people to murder Iraqis and attack its government. I'm not sure at this point exactly what they can do about it, but I would think that at the least it would be useful to state the reality, to call them on it. Perhaps in a year or two, after being given sufficient training, the Iraqis themselves will institute a regime change in Damascus. Which raises the interesting issue of whether or not Syria has any of Saddam's WMD...

[Update at 5 PM EDT]

Along those lines, this looks like good news, if accurate:

American troops backed by helicopters and war planes launched a major offensive against followers of Iraq's most wanted insurgent, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in a desert area near the Syrian border, and as many as 100 militants were killed, U.S. officials said Monday.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:23 PM

The New Brownshirts

On the sixtieth anniversary of the formal end of fascism in Europe, Andrew Sullivan has a very disturbing email from the Netherlands.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:29 AM

May 05, 2005
Never Again?

Would that it were so, but we've seen comparable brutality and cruelty since, from Mao, Pol Pot, Kim pere et fil, Saddam and others. We now fight a new totalitarian enemy that would cheerfully do the same, should we grant it the power. On the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps in Europe, Chuck Simmins has some remembrances.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 AM

May 03, 2005
Tuning Up The World's Tiniest Violin

The Iraqi insurgents were boo-hooing to Zarquawi last week that their morale is low. Ain't it a crying shame?

The author of the letter also "admonishes 'the Sheik' for abandoning his followers" after last year's U.S. siege on Falluja, west of Baghdad.
U.S. forces led an assault then on the Sunni Triangle city's terrorist network believed to be run by al-Zarqawi.

Because of the "continuous pressure by Iraqi and [U.S.-led] coalition forces," a military statement said, al-Zarqawi has relied on his cell leaders to conduct operations while he is forced to evade being killed or captured.

Doesn't your heart just go out to them?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:10 AM

April 30, 2005
Two Wars' Ends

It hadn't previously occurred to me that the fall of Saigon, thirty years ago today, was in turn almost exactly three decades after the fall of Berlin and the end of the war in Europe, six decades ago.

Quite a contrast in American power. The fall of Saigon was a post-war low point for American foreign policy, but it didn't end there--in many ways it was a prelude to the greater humiliation of the Iran hostage crisis, and a long string of shows of American weakness in the face of new confrontations by the new totalitarians--the Beirut barracks bombing, the foolish overtures to the mullahs in Iran/Contra, the pullout in Somalia, the ineffectual responses by the Clinton administration--that eventually culminated in the destruction of the twin towers.

As Glenn points out, many (though of course not all) critics of US policy would be happy to see Americans standing on the roof of a Baghdad embassy, being evacuated by helicopters, in renewed joy at our comeuppance, like that of thirty years ago, in thinking that we could defend the world against those who despise western notions of freedom. I hope (and in fact think) that due to our wakeup call almost four years ago, our resolve will prove more durable today, mirroring that of sixty years ago, rather than thirty.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AM

April 27, 2005
Home-Town Hatefest

If I were going to be home this weekend, I'd think about attending and reporting on this event, but I'm going to be in Phoenix at the Space Access Conference.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:28 AM

April 22, 2005
Hooray For Preemptive War

That's what France says now. I guess it's only bad when the US does it "unilaterally" (that is, with Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, Spain...)

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 AM

April 20, 2005
Follow Up On The Mosque

Some commenters in this post (and over at Little Green Footballs) are (unaccountably, to me) skeptical about Laura Mansfield's tale of the mosque. I emailed her to ask if she wanted to respond, and she wrote:

I did not provide details as to the location of the mosque or the date of the visit simply for safety reasons. They do not have my full name. However if I provide the date and the name/location of the mosque I might as well walk back in, hand the imam a copy of the article, and wait for the backlash.
I do not have the weight of a governmental agency behind me; I have had to redact certain information for security purposes.

Let me also add that the sessions were audiotaped - not broadcast quality but certainly understandable.

I suspected that was the situation, as I noted in previous comments. People will, of course, continue to believe (and disbelieve) as they choose.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:06 AM

April 19, 2005
A Tale Of Two Meetings

On the tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Laura Mansfield has a very disturbing story--Jihad comes to Small Town, USA:

Khaled and three of his companions had gone to New York for several days in January. He told of how uncomfortable his trip up to NYC had been. He felt like he was being watched, and thought he was the victim of racial profiling.
Khaled and his friends were pretty unhappy about it, and while in New York, they came up with a plan to "teach a lesson" to the passengers and crew. You can imagine the story Khaled told. He described how he and his friends whispered to each other on the flight, made simultaneous visits to the restroom, and generally tried to "spook" the other passengers. He laughed when he described how several women were in tears, and one man sitting near him was praying.

The others in the room thought the story was quite amusing, judging from the laughter. The imam stood up and told the group that this was a kind of peaceful civil disobedience that should be encouraged, and commended Khaled and his friends for their efforts.

This part of the meeting was all spoken in Arabic.

In Israel, Yasser Arafat was well known (at least to the non-naive) for making conciliatory speeches in English and inflammatory ones in Arabic. Apparently, he's not alone in this practice.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:01 AM

April 08, 2005
Echoes Of History

While I agree with his general thrust--that (as Iraq seems to many) the early US didn't look for very promising for forming a government either--Publius errs slightly when he writes:

There were Scottish, Irish, English, Indians, Dutch, French, Germans, and those who had lived in America since its founding. And more; many speaking languages other than English at the time.
Yet we ended up with a Constitution and a country to rally around. Our eventual Civil War was never fought on the basis of ethnic differences either, but serious compounding issues over nearly forty years that led to a war not of national origin, but of the preservation of our nation.

The roots of the War Between the States did in fact lie (at least partly) in national (or at least regional) origin. It was a war between groups of people descended from the English settlers who first settled North America. The Union was an alliance of the Puritans of New England (originally from East Anglia) and the Quakers of the Delaware Valley (originally from the Midlands), fighting against the Confederacy, which was an alliance of the Cavaliers of southwest England who settled the Tidewater country of Virginia and the Piedmont and the redneck Presbyterians from the borderlands and Ulster who had colonized Appalachia and the deep south. The war was to a large degree a fight over different conceptions of liberty, and in some senses, could be said to be an echo of the English Civil War, with a similar result.

For more information, read Albion's Seed, by David Hackett Fischer.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 AM

April 05, 2005
Where Is The Poland In The New Cold War?

That's the title of my latest piece about popes, past and future, at TechCentralStation.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:42 AM

Figuring It Out

The Dutch, who are in some ways on the front line of the war, are starting to figure out that, as Anglospherian Jim Bennett has said, "Democracy, immigration, multi-culturalism--pick any two."

“I see developments in the Arab world as very promising,” says Paul Scheffer, a journalist who is one of the leaders of an ideological movement that wants to counter Islamist extremism by putting more emphasis on the rule of law and less on accommodating differences.
Taking his cue from America's political right, he hails the fact that in some Middle Eastern countries ordinary people have challenged old elites and theocracies. In Europe, he reckons, traditional leaders who presume to speak for Muslim immigrants have it too easy, because governments pander to them out of a misplaced respect for cultural diversity.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:28 AM

March 31, 2005
We'll Prevail Again

On the sixtieth anniversary of the invasion of Okinawa, Victor Davis Hanson offers some lessons from that experience:

For all the horror, stupidity — and sheer courage — of the campaign, American firepower, training, adaptability and bravery prove eventually a match for zealots and suicide bombers, whether on Okinawa or in Fallujah.
For all the talk of the softness and decadence of modern Western man — whether the hot-rodders and soda jerks of the late 1930s or our own Jasons and Jeremys with rings in their ears and peroxide hair — the free American soldier proves far more lethal than those who blow themselves up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AM

March 30, 2005
Did General Sanchez Perjure Himself?

Mark Kraft thinks so. At first glance, that's how it looks to me, too, but I'd be interested to see what the General or his defenders have to say.

Unlike him, though, I don't see any basis of inference that Rumsfeld did anything wrong. Of course, I don't consider any of the things listed in that memo torture, or relevant to the more egregious acts at Abu Ghraib. I am concerned about the possible perjury before Congress, though. As they say, it's not the act, it's the cover up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 AM

Living In The Past

Walter Pincus says that the usual suspects are hysterically opposed to US military superiority.

To realize how absurd this is, imagine the response at the time if an article were to appear in the WaPo like this:

Plans by U.S. to Dominate The Seas Raising Concerns
Arms Experts Worried at Navy Department Push for Superiority

April 1, 1938

WASHINGTON (Routers) Arms control advocates in the United States and abroad are expressing concern with the Roosevelt administration's push for military superiority in the world's oceans.

A series of Navy Department doctrinal papers, released over the past year, have emphasized that the U.S. military is increasingly dependent on shipping lanes and ocean-based assets for offensive and defensive operations, and must be able to protect them in times of war.

The Department in August put forward a Counterocean Operations Doctrine, which described "ways and means by which the Navy achieves and maintains maritime superiority" and has worked to develop weapons to accomplish such missions.

Earlier this year, Secretary of the Navy Claude Swanson signed a new National Ocean Defense Strategy paper that said the use of the world's oceans "enables us to project power anywhere in the world from secure bases of operation." A key goal of Swansons' new strategy is "to ensure our access to and use of the seas and to deny hostile exploitation of them to adversaries."

The Navy Department is developing and procuring aircraft that could hit targets almost anywhere in the world within hours or minutes of being launched from ocean-based aircraft carriers. It also is developing systems that could attack potential enemy ships and submarines, destroying them or temporarily preventing them from sending signals.

Michael Dumpeesnik, president emeritus of the Woodrow Wilson Peace Center and a former arms control official, said the United States is moving toward a national ocean doctrine that is "preemptive and proactive." He expects the Roosevelt administration to produce a new National Ocean Policy statement soon that will contrast with the one adopted by previous administrations.

"We previously adopted the traditional U.S. position of being a reluctant ocean warrior," Dumpeesnik said. "The seas were to be used for peaceful purposes, but if someone interfered with us, we couldn't allow that to happen. But it was not our ocean policy preference."

Dumpeesnik last week attended a conference in Geneva organized by the Japanese and German governments on preventing an arms race in the oceans. Tokyo and Berlin have for years promoted a new treaty to govern arms at sea.

One of those attending last week's session was Franz von Kliptherschipps, the German ambassador to the League of Nations Disarmament Conference. At a LoN disarmament meeting last year, von Kliptherschipps criticized efforts to achieve "control of the seas," as well as research into new weapons that can be used there. "It is no exaggeration to say that oceans would become the third battlefield after land and air should we sit on our hands," he said.

Dumpeesnik said a new treaty is needed because "if the U.S. proceeds to weaponize the oceans, anyone can compete, and that makes sure everyone loses."

Margaret Atwater, vice president of the Center for War Information, also attended the Geneva session and said a low-ranking U.S. diplomat attended as an observer but did not speak. She said experts there discussed where the issues stood and how one could verify a treaty for ocean security. "That included a code of conduct and even just banning anti-ship weapons," she said.

Analyzing the proposed Navy Department fiscal 1939 budget just sent to Congress, Atwater and her colleagues pointed to $680 thousand for an experimental XXS ship whose "payloads" could attack enemy ships. Another $60 thousand is earmarked for an experiment that would use electromagnetic jamming technology to disable enemy ship transmissions.

Navy Department officials make no secret that they are working on new defensive systems to protect the nation's ships.

"I think everybody that I know in the United States military and the Department of the Navy understands the important role that our naval assets play in our national security," Secretary of the Navy Swanson told the House Armed Services Committee March 10. "One of the biggest issues that we had to deal with was trying to figure out what was happening to a particular capability if the function was interrupted."

One system under development would be able to identify a ground station or ship interfering with U.S. ships, so that it could be destroyed.

As another defensive measure, the United States last October announced deployment of its first mobile, ground-based system that can temporarily disrupt communications from an enemy ship. The Counter Communications System uses electromagnetic radio frequency energy to silence transmissions from a ship in a way that is reversible. Two more units are due later this year.

Any bets on what language residents of Europe and Asia (and perhaps even North America) would be speaking if this had been the prevailing attitude in the 1930s?

The bottom line is that these folks oppose US military superiority, period. They're just waging that war on any battleground they can find, and space is the next retrenchment for them. They know that the other theatres are a lost cause, because we've long become accustomed to seeing them as military theatres. They are engaging in linguistic legerdemain here to hold the line against any further expansion of US/Anglosphere capability to win wars.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 AM

How Many Excess Deaths?

Alastair Mackay has a post-publication peer review of the Lancet study on excess Iraqi civilian deaths from last fall.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:50 AM

March 27, 2005
Expanding The Anglosphere

The US has apparently decided to buttress what should be a natural ally, if they can get all of the nutty socialism out of their system.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AM

March 25, 2005
Overhype

It's looking like the recent blow against the terrorist camp in Iraq wasn't as big as originally reported.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:50 AM

March 24, 2005
The Terrorists Are Winning

In the Netherlands:

Wilders said: "The people who threaten us are walking around free and we are the captives."
...The wife of an Islamist militant who is in police custody told a local newspaper that Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, would be slain by Muslim women. "The sisters are patient," the woman said. They will wait, "even if it takes 10 years."

The wasp of Islamic totalitarianism has planted its eggs into the receptive body of Europe, and they are starting to hatch.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:45 AM

March 23, 2005
Bad News In Iraq

...for those looking for bad news in Iraq. But good news for everyone else.

I'm sure that the Lancet will add this to the count of all the "innocent Iraqis" killed because we removed Saddam:

U.S. and Iraqi forces raided a suspected guerrilla training camp and killed 85 fighters, the single biggest one-day death toll for militants in months and the latest in a series of blows to the insurgency, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.
"Among the dead are Arab and foreign fighters, including Sudanese, Algerians and Moroccans, as well as other nationalities," Interior Ministry spokesman Sabah Kadhim told Reuters.

Isn't that a shame? And they didn't even get to murder children before they died. Maybe they'll get their virgins anyway.

If they can keep things up at this pace, I suspect that they will be killing them faster than new ones are recruited, because news like this makes recruiting a lot harder.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:20 AM

Progress In Iraq

Here's an interesting interview of the incoming Iraqi Prime Minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, by Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: The Sunnis, the second-largest ethnic group in Iraq, were in control of the country until recently, but now they feel forced into a secondary role by the Shiite majority. Many sympathize with the terrorists. A few Sunni religious leaders have even issued fatwas that justify the killing of occupation forces and alleged collaborators.
Jaafari: This is why I am doing everything within my power to convince our Sunni brothers to join us in developing the new constitution.

SPIEGEL: How successful have you been? 80 percent of Sunnis boycotted the elections.

Jaafari: My efforts have certainly been fruitful. More and more Sunni politicians, even religious dignitaries, are now willing to participate in developing our constitution. We want every Iraqi to support the new constitution.

SPIEGEL: What will the constitution look like? Do you envision an Iranian-style Islamic republic, or could Saudi Arabia be a model?

Jaafari: Iraq should become an Islamic state, but without Iran or Saudi Arabia as its godfather. Islam, not unlike Christianity, has many different faces.

SPIEGEL: Will you introduce sharia?

Jaafari: Yes, but only as one of several sources of jurisprudence. That is only natural in a country that is populated mainly by Muslims.

SPIEGEL: Will Christians, for example, be given religious freedoms?

Jaafari: Everyone will have the same rights, even the members of our many smaller religious communities.

SPIEGEL: How do you plan to deal with the many Iraqis who are in favor of a secular state and the separation of religion and the state?

Jaafari: Iraqis are tolerant by nature. No one should be concerned about losing his freedom of expression. I will fight to ensure that every citizen is able to express his opinion, even if I don't agree with it.

SPIEGEL: Will women be required to wear veils in the new Iraq?

Jaafari: Never. They will be free to choose for themselves.

Read the whole thing. He sounds like a savvy politician. And the civil war, and Islamic Republic so long predicted (and probably, on the part of many, fervently desired) by war opponents seems to continue to be delayed in arriving. Of course, that's true for almost all of their dire predictions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 AM

March 19, 2005
What It Was For

Amir Tehari reviews the bidding two years after the toppling of Saddam's brutal regime.

The most ardent advocates of the anti-war case are remnants of the supposedly revolutionary left that, in almost every other case, regard the law as nothing but a bourgeois prop to keep the masses in check. The spectacle of Leninists, Trotskyistes and Maoists beating their chests about the legality of toppling a tyrant is surely a treat for all students of politics.

Indeed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:23 AM

March 16, 2005
Never Again

At least by Saddam.

It's the seventeenth anniversary of Halabja.

If some had had their way, the monster who did this would still be in power. Instead, the Iraqi people just had their first free election in decades, and peace and democracy is on the march throughout the region.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:41 AM

The Bureaucracy Is Winning

The TSA continues to drag its feet in letting airline pilots arm themselves.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AM

March 15, 2005
A Turning Of The Tide?

Strategy Page says that the "insurgents" are running out of money.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:35 AM

Bada Bing

Lileks says that the Middle East is a lot like the Sopranos.

[Update at 10 AM EST]

GaijinBiker says that freedom is sexy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:50 AM

March 09, 2005
Dominoes

A lot of nostalgic lefty anti-war types have been warning us for years that Iraq was going to be just like Vietnam. Claudia Rossett says that they may be right. But they won't be as happy about it as they think they will.

It kind of reminds me of an old joke that a USC grad told me, back when their football program was in the doldrums in the eighties. He said that his nightly prayer had been that USC would have a basketball program as good as its football program. And he finally got his wish.

Heh.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:50 AM

March 01, 2005
A Disappointment To Michael Moore

The Iraqis seem to be fed up with the "insurgents", his "Minute Men."

More than 2,000 people held the impromptu demonstration on front of the clinic, chanting "No to terrorism!" and "No to Baathism and Wahhabism!"

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:36 PM

February 28, 2005
The Arab Street Gets Results

The pro-Syrian Lebanese government has fallen. Just goes to show you what can happen when the vaunted "Arab Street" really gets stirred up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:50 AM

February 21, 2005
Looking For Info On Iraq Polls

A while back, I recall seeing a poll, or survey, indicating that the vast majority of Iraqis had an acquaintance or family member who had been tortured, imprisoned or killed by the Saddam regime. But I can't find hide nor hair of it on Google. Am I going nuts (well, that's probably a separate issue), or can someone point me to a cite?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:58 PM

February 08, 2005
The Chickenhawk Argument Redux

Once again, it is employed by the increasingly odious Professor Cole (who makes me embarrassed to be a Michigan alumnus), and slapped down by the Baseball Crank.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AM

February 07, 2005
A New Sheriff In Town

Condi Rice committed the gravest diplomatic sin of ignoring Arafat's grave:

Unlike a long line of other leaders who paid some kind of homage to Arafat's grave at the entrance to the Mukata, when visiting PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), Rice's car simply pulled into the compound, passed the grave and Rice got out and walked into the building.
On the way out, she also made no acknowledgment of the grave, unlike other leaders, like EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana who laid a wreath or British Prime Minister Tony Blair who walked by and nodded.

History will record that the major (in fact only) contribution that Yasser Arafat ever made to peace in the Middle East was shuffling off this mortal coil. He didn't do it willingly, of course, but still, credit where credit's due.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:00 PM

February 03, 2005
More Of This, Please

The Iraqis are turning on the "insurgents":

The insurgents raided the village of al-Mudhiryah south of Baghdad after warning its inhabitants not to vote in the election.
The villagers fought back, killing five of the insurgents and wounding eight others.

The insurgents' cars were then set alight.

Al-Mudhiryah's tribal sheikh says his people are sick of being threatened by Islamic extremists.

Maybe they'll start to get the message now. I doubt if Michael Moore will, though. Just what the heck kind of quagmire is this, anyway?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 PM

December 28, 2004
Oops

Guest blogger "Ross" over at Andrew Sullivan's place is a little confused in his critique of Michael Ledeen's optimism about democracy in Iran:

...I'd be more convinced that "a bit of guidance in the methods of non-violent resistance, a bit of communications gear, and many words of encouragement" will bring down the mullahs in Iran if there were a single example of a successful democratic revolution anywhere in the Arab world that Ledeen could cite.

This might be a salient question if we were discussing an Arab country, but Iran is Persian. And in fact most polls I've seen indicate that in a free election, it's likely that a democratic Iranian government would be pro-west and pro-America. The generation that's grown up over the past quarter century of mullahcracy has had its fill.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:51 AM

December 23, 2004
Michelle On The Case

Michelle Malkin isn't letting up on the idiots running the TSA. She's got lots of anonymous letters of support from Air Marshals.

This is citizen reporting at its finest, and she wouldn't have been able to get the word out like this before the internet. I've been concerned ever since September 11 that it would be used as an excuse for bureaucrats (and in this case, vindictive, petty bureaucrats) to aggrandize power and build little tyrannical fiefdoms that have little or nothing to do with actually defending the country. This is a prime example of that. Let's get the word out, and maybe we can put enough pressure on so that even this White House will realize how foolish this is. I'd like to see this clown transferred here, where he can guard airplanes in his suit and tie.

I wish we'd had better choices last month.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:56 AM

December 07, 2004
Sixty-Three Years

That's how long it's been since the last time we were caught sleeping before September 11.

I think that last month's election results show that we haven't drifted back off to slumberland yet. We prevailed then, and we will now as well. The only question is how long it will take, and at what cost.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:56 AM

December 05, 2004
Europe's Need To Wake Up

David Pryce-Jones has a long but interesting read on Europe's Islam problem.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:35 PM

December 03, 2004
Finally

Europe is waking up.

From Norway to Sicily, governments, politicians and the media are laying aside their doctrines of diversity and insisting that “Islamism”, as the French call the fundamentalist form that pervades the housing estates, is incompatible with Europe’s liberal values.
The shift is not just a reaction to exceptional violence such as the Madrid train bombings, or the murder of Theo van Gogh, the anti-Islamic Dutch film-maker, by a Dutch-Moroccan. It stems from a belief that more muscular methods are needed to integrate Europe’s 13-million strong Muslim community and to combat creeds that breed extremists and ultimately, terrorism. With mixed results, governments are trying to quell the scourge by co- opting Muslim leaders to promote a moderate European Islam.

In Germany, with its three million — mainly Turkish — Muslims, and France, with its five million of mainly North African descent, television viewers were shocked when local young Muslims approved of Van Gogh’s murder. “If you insult Islam, you have to pay,” was a typical response.

“The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart,” said Angela Merkel, leader of Germany’s Christian Democrat opposition. “Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots.” Italy’s traditional tolerance towards immigrants has been eroded by fear of Islamism. An Ipsos poll in September showed that 48 per cent of Italians believed that a “clash of civilisations” between Islam and the West was under way and that Islam was “a religion more fanatical than any other”.

And look at this:

Reluctantly, some intellectuals have lately concluded that the model for Europe should be the US. On Tuesday a writer for Libération, the French left-wing daily, noted that immigrants in the US threw themselves into “the American dream” and prospered. “There is no French, Dutch or other European dream,” she noted. “You emigrate here to escape poverty and nothing more."

When "some intellectuals," (even if not all), and "left-wing" ones to boot, start to believe something, you know it's serious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 PM

November 26, 2004
Good News From Iraq

Zarquawi is running scared:

For his part, Al Zarqawi has also expressed concern over the U.S. military operation against Fallujah, Mosul and other insurgency strongholds.
On Wednesday, an audio tape posted on an Islamic website and purportedly from Al Zarqawi accused Muslim clerics of failing to support the insurgency in Iraq.

"You have let us down in the darkest circumstances and handed us over to the enemy," the message said. "You have stopped supporting the holy warriors. Hundreds of thousands of the nation's sons are being slaughtered at the hands of the infidels because of your silence."

"Hundreds of thousands"?

Is such exaggeration really helpful to his cause? If I were an incipient Jihadi, I might have second thoughts about joining up upon hearing that. If, that is, they subscribe to bin Laden's "strong horse" theory (that is, "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse."). The message is, "we're losing, folks."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:20 AM

November 21, 2004
"The Insurgents Had A Very Bad Week"

Jack Kelly has a good rundown on the Fallujah battle, and notes like others that it has turned expectations of losses in urban combat on their head.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:48 PM

November 16, 2004
A "British" Hostage?

The latest snuff video release from Murderwood features Margaret Hassan being shot in the head. If it was her body found in Fallujah, then at least she died (relatively) painlessly, and wasn't hacked up and disemboweled while alive.

But I was curious about the claim that she was a Briton. I thought she was born in Dublin?

[Update a few minutes later]

Guess I didn't read carefully enough:

Born in Ireland, Hassan also held British and Iraqi citizenship.

I'm assuming that she emigrated to the UK and got citizenship there prior to going to Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:21 PM

November 15, 2004
The Continuing Iraq Quagmire

If you're one of the Islamofascists, that is:

Allawi identified the group as Jaish Muhammad, Arabic for Muhammad's Army. The group "has been arrested ... We arrested their leader," Allawi said, identifying him as Moayad Ahmed Yasseen, also known as Abu Ahmed.

Muhammad's Army was known to have cooperated with Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida and Saddam loyalists and was responsible for killing and beheading a number of Iraqis, Arabs and foreigners in Iraq (news - web sites), Allawi said.

"They were planning to destroy Fallujah...by blowing up important positions," he said. "They have extensions abroad that I cannot talk about now." Allawi did not say how many members of the group were captured or what kidnappings the group has been involved in.

Apparently, when the US bombed some of the tunnels in Fallujah, there were secondary explosions for forty-five minutes. As someone commented over at Free Republic, "Teacher says every time there's a secondary explosion in the tunnels, a dozen Islamonazis get their wings..."

Unfortunately, there was a grisly discovery as well:

On the streets of Fallujah, Marines recovered the disemboweled body of an unidentified Western woman wrapped in a blood-soaked blanket.
It is not known if the body was of Margaret Hassan, the 59-year-old director of CARE international who was one of two Western women abducted last month. Polish-born Teresa Borcz Khalifa, 54, another longtime resident of Iraq, has also been missing since last month.

They neglect to mention the other reports that her limbs were hacked off, and her face disfigured. No report on whether these atrocities occurred prior to or after her demise. This is what they'd love to be able to do to all of us who don't share their vile world view. These are not people with whom we can, or should, negotiate. In fact, it's getting more and more difficult to think of them as people at all.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:41 AM

November 12, 2004
Good News From Fallujah

The enemy is starting to turn on themselves.

...residents said the U.S-led offensive opened strains between the local insurgents and the foreigners. When a senior Zarqawi commander was found dead of a bullet to the head during the battle, many interpreted his death as the result of an insurgent execution.
Besides the commander's death, the bodies of 20 foreign fighters also were found shot to death execution-style, military officials said.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:03 AM

November 11, 2004
De Is Ea Id Mortuis Nil Nisi Male

Of this dead, speak only ill. Max Boot and Jeff Jacoby have appropriately harsh eulogies for the late monster of Ramallah, and equally harsh criticism of his European enablers who remain with us.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:39 AM

November 05, 2004
Smaller And Higher Precision

...weaponry.

Whenever I read things like this, I have to laugh at the idiots who accuse us of "mass murdering civilians," and "blowing up countries" and being "indifferent to collateral damage."

And the new de-vices are just in time for this:

"American commanders seem convinced that it is only a matter of time before the Iraqi prime minister, Ayad Allawi, gives the order for them to retake the city," the Times notes. "For many marines here, that order cannot come too soon. After a long summer of cat-and-mouse games with shadowy insurgents, they are hungry for a decisive battle."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 AM

November 03, 2004
Lest We Forget

The war in which we are today engaged didn't start on September 11, 2001. It actually started exactly a quarter of a century ago.

It just took us over two decades to realize it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:20 PM

November 02, 2004
Yet Another Reason To Vote For Bush

Osama bin Laden: "...we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration..."

May it be so for another four years.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:41 AM

October 30, 2004
A Plea For Sanity

In the Arab News:

“There are individuals in the Muslim world who pose as clerics and issue death sentences against those they disagree with,” says Shakir Al-Nablusi, a Jordanian academic and one of the signatories. “These individuals give Islam a bad name and foster hatred among civilizations.”
Nablusi said hundreds of Arab writers and academics were collecting more signatures and hope to have “tens of thousands” by next month. Among those collecting signatures are Jawad Hashem, a former Iraqi minister of planning, and Alafif Al-Akdhar, a leading Tunisian writer and academic. Most of the signatories are from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states plus Iraq, Jordan and Palestine.

The signatories describe those who use religion for inciting violence as “the sheikhs of death”. Among those mentioned by name is Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian preacher working in Qatar. The signatories accuse him of “providing a religious cover for terrorism.”

I wish them the best--people like this are the only hope for Islam--but I suspect we'll be hearing some new fatwas shortly.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:49 AM

October 21, 2004
"Why I Won't Be Voting For Bush"

Nelson Ascher makes a very compelling case. If I were in his situation, I'd do the same.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 AM

October 20, 2004
Banana Republique

Claudia Rossett (who deserves a Pulitzer for her reporting on the Oil for Palaces and Weapons scandal) has some appropriately ungenerous words for Kofi Annan.

Alas, such dignity may come as cold comfort to the French, given that Mr. Annan did not actually deny that the Chinese, Russians and French had taken big payoffs from Saddam. Mr. Annan merely disputed that the Chinese, Russians and French would have delivered anything in return for the bribes. In other words, they may be corrupt, but at least they weren't honest about it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:33 AM

October 17, 2004
Latest From The Religion of Peace

Sure, John-John, let's give them nuclear fuel and "see what they do with it."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AM

October 13, 2004
Good News From Fallujah

The foreign fighters are wearing out their welcome.

Relations are deteriorating as local fighters negotiate to avoid a U.S.-led military offensive against Fallujah, while foreign fighters press to attack Americans and their Iraqi supporters. The disputes have spilled over into harsh words and sporadic violence, with Fallujans killing at least five foreign Arabs in recent weeks, according to witnesses.
"If the Arabs will not leave willingly, we will make them leave by force," said Jamal Adnan, a taxi driver who left his house in Fallujah's Shurta neighborhood a month ago after the house next door was bombed by U.S. aircraft targeting foreign insurgents...

...U.S. and Iraqi authorities together have insisted that if Fallujah is to avoid an all-out assault aimed at regaining control of the city, foreign fighters must be ejected. Several local leaders of the insurgency say they, too, want to expel the foreigners, whom they scorn as terrorists. They heap particular contempt on Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian whose Monotheism and Jihad group has asserted responsibility for many of the deadliest attacks across Iraq, including videotaped beheadings.

"He is mentally deranged, has distorted the image of the resistance and defamed it. I believe his end is near," Abu Abdalla Dulaimy, military commander of the First Army of Mohammad, said.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:52 AM

October 06, 2004
What He Should Have Said Then

Here's the president's speech this morning in Pennsylvania, in which he said many things that he should have said in last Thursday's "debate":

There will be good days and there will be bad days in the war on terror, but every day we will show our resolve and we will do our duty. This nation is determined: we will stay in the fight until the fight is won. (Applause.)
My opponent agrees with all this — except when he doesn't.

(Laughter.) Last week in our debate, he once again came down firmly on every side of the Iraq war. (Laughter.) He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat. Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake — but also called the liberation of Iraq a "colossal error." He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there. He said he wants to hold a summit meeting, so he can invite other countries to join what he calls "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." (Laughter and applause.)

He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border, but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror.

(Laughter.) You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face. (Laughter and applause.)
...
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator speaks often about his plan to strengthen America's alliances, but he's got an odd way of doing it. In the middle of the war, he's chosen to insult America's fighting allies by calling them, "window dressing," and the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." The Italians who died in Nasiriyah were not window dressing. They were heroes in the war on terror. (Applause.) The British and the Poles at the head of the multinational divisions in Iraq were not coerced or bribed. They have fought, and some have died, in the cause of freedom. These good allies and dozens of others deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. (Applause.)

Instead, the Senator would have America bend over backwards to satisfy a handful of governments with agendas different from our own. This is my opponent's alliance-building strategy: brush off your best friends, fawn over your critics. And that is no way to gain the respect of the world. (Applause.)

My opponent says he has a plan for Iraq. Parts of it should sound pretty familiar — it's already known as the Bush plan. (Laughter and applause.) Senator Kerry suggests we train Iraqi troops, which we've been doing for months. Just this week, Iraqi forces backed by coalition troops fought bravely to take the city of Samarra from the terrorists and Baathists and insurgents. (Applause.) Senator Kerry — Senator Kerry is proposing that we have — that Iraq have elections. (Laughter.) Those elections are already scheduled for January. (Laughter and applause.) He wants the U.N. to be involved in those elections. Well, the U.N. is already there.

There was one element of the Senator — there's one element of Senator Kerry's plan that's a new element. He's talked about artificial timetables to pull our troops out of Iraq. He sent the signal that America's overriding goal in Iraq would be to leave, even if the job isn't done. That may satisfy his political needs, but it complicates the essential work we're doing in Iraq. (Applause.) The Iraqi people — the Iraqi people need to know that America will not cut and run when their freedom is at stake. (Applause.) Our soldiers and Marines need to know that America will honor their service and sacrifice by completing the mission. (Applause.) And our enemies in Iraq need to know that they can never out-last the will of America.

Also, Bill Whittle has a new, related essay.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:11 PM

Emptying Prisons In Cuba

No, the headline isn't about a repeat performance by Castro, but about releasing most of the prisoners from Guantanamo. But the story has me scratching my head:

Most of the alleged al Qaeda and Taliban inmates at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are likely to be freed or sent to their home countries for further investigation because many pose little threat and are not providing much valuable intelligence, the facility's deputy commander has said.

OK, seems reasonable to me. But I emphasized those three words to put them in contrast with this:

"We don't have a level of evidence to feel that we can be confident to prosecute them" all, he added, according to the newspaper. "We have guys here who have never told us anything, except to say that they want to cut off the heads of the infidels if they get a chance."

Can someone help me reconcile this? Does someone who "wants to cut off the heads of infidels if they get a chance" really "pose little threat"? I mean, it's not like these are exactly idle desires, as we've seen from the videos recently at various Islamic web sites. They really do it. And last time I checked, I was an infidel, by almost anyone's definition, but certainly by these guys'. So is it unreasonable for me to feel safer if they remain caged up in Guantanamo?

Now I understand that we may not have any legal grounds for holding them within our criminal justice system (though even that's kind of surprising--is it standard practice to parole someone who cheerfully admits that he'll decapitate innocent folks given half a chance?), but we are at war. Frankly, if it were feasible, I'd be happy to cage up everyone who wants to lop off infidels' heads, no matter how many million of them there are. We obviously can't go out and find them all, or read their minds, but if we already have some in custody, and they admit that they're going to try to murder us upon release, does it really make sense to release them?

Of course, it may not make sense to feed and clothe and guard them the rest of their days either. So I've got a modest proposal. How about we shorten a few of them by a few inches? With a pork-fat laden blade? Not all of them, just the ones who profess to think that a fitting fate for us infidels? It might serve as a salutory example, and at least they might quit being stupid and brazen enough to brag about their evil intentions toward us.

Obviously, we're not going to do this, but sometimes I despair of any way of winning this war without resorting to such measures. How do we share a planet with people (and right now there are thousands, perhaps millions) who want nothing except, as the alien said in Independence Day, for us to die? If their minds cannot be changed, and changed in a way that we can feel confident that they've been changed, what can we do short of imprisoning or killing them?

Other than converting, or dying, I mean.

[Via Orin Kerr]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:35 AM

August 17, 2004
Flypaper Hung By Mistake

David Warren writes that we need more quagmires:

...by mucking in, the U.S. and allies have succeeded in creating a theatre of conflict far from Europe and the U.S., that draws Jihadis away from where they could be operating. Quite often, British and European I.D. is found on the corpses of the insurgents, who were recruited in Western mosques.

So much for Kerry's charge that we're "creating more Al Qaeda recruits." We're destroying them on a battleground of our choosing, not theirs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:20 PM

August 11, 2004
Not The Great Satan

If this is not atypical, and the word gets out, Tunisia could expect a huge inflow of Yankee tourist dollars. It gives one hope for ultimate victory in the war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:41 PM

August 02, 2004
Still Hope For Iraq

Despite the church bombings this weekend.

Ayatollah al-Sistani has condemned them:

Iraq's top Shiite Muslim cleric condemned as "hideous crimes" the coordinated bomb attacks on five churches in Baghdad and Mosul that killed at least seven people and marked the insurgency's first major attacks on Iraq's minority Christians.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani said in a statement that Sunday's assaults on churches "targeted Iraq's unity, stability and independence..."

"...We assert the importance of respecting the rights of Christian civilians and other religious minorities and reaffirm their right to live in their home country Iraq in security and peace."

It looks like he understands the problem. Amazingly, even Mooky al-Sadr's guy got into the act:

"This is a cowardly act and targets all Iraqis," Abdul Hadi al-Daraji, spokesman for radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, told Al-Jazeera television.

Unfortunately, I'll bet we won't be hearing this from the imams across the border in Iran, or from the loony bins that are many of the mosques in Saudi Arabia. This is why Iraq is so fundamental in the war on the fundamentalists.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:15 AM

August 01, 2004
What We Fight

...and who we fight, in Iraq and the Middle East.

Steven den Beste has been thinking a lot about the nature of terrorism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:54 PM

July 17, 2004
Homeland Security Stupity

Now for a brief break from conference blogging--just how idiotic is this?

Beards are out. So are jeans and athletic shoes. Suit coats are in, even on the steamiest summer days.
That dress code, imposed by the Department of Homeland Security, makes federal air marshals uneasy — and not just because casual clothes are more comfortable in cramped airline seats. The marshals fear that their appearance makes it easier for terrorists to identify them, according to a professional group representing more than 1,300 air marshals.

"If a 12-year-old can pick them out, a trained terrorist has no problem picking them out," said John D. Amat, a spokesman for the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

Documents and memos issued by the Department of Homeland Security and field offices of the Federal Air Marshal Service say marshals must "present a professional image" and "blend unnoticed into their environment." Some air marshals have argued that the two requirements are contradictory.

No kidding.

Why don't they make them wear an Air Marshal Dillon Badge, too?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:38 PM

July 13, 2004
Summer Fun

I was listening to Fox just now, and they ran a report on summer camp for Palestinian children, at which instead of making lanyards and leather products, learning to swim or sail, and engaging in various sports, they are learning to sneak past Israeli checkpoints, and the virtues of dying for the Palestinian cause. You know, the kind of child abuse that Charles Johnson documents on a regular basis.

And then I recalled that people like Human Rights Watch have actually expressed concern about the use of children as soldiers. Surely, thought I, they will have had something to say about this?

I wandered over to see, and sure enough, it's a major area of concern. So I clicked on the link on the right of the page, for specific area reports, confident that I'd find the abuse described above reported in detail, with appropriate opprobrium.

But (and I know you'll be amazed to hear this), there was no obvious mention of it among the reports as listed. Oh, wait, down toward the bottom, there's a discussion of Lebanon, which at least is in the neighborhood. We discover there that some civilians have been expelled from Lebanon for refusing to join a militia.

Well, that sounds promising. Of course, am I cynical to suspect that the only reason this gets a mention is because, according to the little blurb, it is "an Israeli auxiliary militia"?

But of course.

But I wanted to be fair, so I decided to dig down another level, to the latest (2003) overall HRW report on the subject.

This showed a little more promise--it has a section called "ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES."

Surely, I thought, now we'll find out about all of this turning young Arab children into Jew-hating killbots.

Imagine my surprise again, to learn that they discuss:

Israel holding teenagers in the same prisons with adult men.
Israel using youth as informers against Hamas and Islamic Jihad
Israel allowing seventeen-year-olds to volunteer for the IDF
Arrest and interrogation of children suspected of throwing rocks, by (you guessed it) Israel

Now, arguably some of these, if true, can certainly be said to be human rights violations, but I'm straining my brain to determine how they constitute forcing children to be soldiers, which I thought was the point of this particular report. And as to the Palestinian summer camps that Charles and others point out?

There was no evidence that the Palestinian Authority (PA) recruited or used child soldiers. In May 2002, the PA addressed the United Nations Special Session on Children and advocated the application of the CRC-OP-CAC, which prohibits the use in hostilities of those under the age of eighteen.129 In 2002, the PA also reaffirmed its commitment to the Coalition not to use children in hostilities in a private communication...
...During 2002, both Hamas and Islamic Jihad disavowed the use of children after under-18s were involved in suicide bombings and armed attacks on Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. A Hamas statement in April 2002 called on mosque imams “to give this issue some mention in their sermons” and on educators “to dedicate time to address this issue without sacrificing the enthusiasm or spirit of martyrdom of our youth [ashbaluna].”134 An Islamic Jihad communiqué of April 26, citing Islamic strictures against the participation of children in war, declared: “We refuse any encouragement given to young people that might drive them to act alone or be pushed by others into action. They are not ready and not able to do so.

Well, I guess that settles it. I mean, if you can't take the word of models of probity and honesty like Yasser Arafat, and the leadership of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, well, what's the world coming to?

Well, actually, it turns out that their motto is, like that of Ronald Reagan, "trust but verify." They recommend that "The UN should monitor Qassam Brigades, (Hamas), Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Fatah) and Islamic Jihad to determine whether recruitment and use of children is taking place."

Maybe they might want to check in on Little Green Footballs once in a while.

[Further thoughts an hour or so later]

Maybe they're just lawyering here. Apparently it's OK to train children to be soldiers (including unculcating them with hatred for the enemy--Israeli civilians), as long as they're not actually "used." But isn't sending them through training camps a form of "recruitment"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:32 PM

July 07, 2004
Dominoes Lining Up?

Well, well, well...

They've captured two Iranian agents in Baghdad, fomenting much of the murder and terrorism in the newly emerging nation. This, of course, is an act of war.

Allawi has been making justifiably belligerent noises toward Syria as well, saying that he wouldn't necessarily mind if coalition forces were to take offensive action there.

I wonder how far off we are from a war between Iraq, and Syria and Iran (in which we would participate on the side of Iraq)? That would be a continued draining of the swamp, and we know that a majority of the Iranians, if not the Syrians, would like to see the end of their current government. If so, it would be the next step on the path toward a saner Middle East.

The problem, of course, is that if it happens before November, the conspiracy loons will claim that Bush is going to war out of desperation, in the face of the "exciting" (oh, be still, my heart) John-John ticket, to distract the populace with another war based on "lies."

One thing that might help in the near term would be a UN resolution condemning Syria and Iran for their attempts to destabilize Iraq. Any bets on whether such a thing would pass? After all, it wouldn't be condemning the US and Israel, which is the only kind of condemnation in which the UN has shown any historical interest...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:51 AM

June 26, 2004
Bad News In Iraq

For people eager for actual bad news in Iraq, that is. At least that's what Amir Tehari says:

The Iraqi civil defence corps has gone on the offensive, hunting down terrorists, often with some success. At the same time attacks on the Iraqi police force have dropped 50% in the past month.
There is also good news on the economic front. In the last quarter the dinar, Iraq's currency, has increased by almost 15% against the dollar and the two most traded local currencies, the Kuwaiti dinar and the Iranian rial.

Thanks to rising oil prices, Iraq is earning a record Pounds 41m to Pounds 44m a day. This has led to greater economic activity, including private reconstruction schemes. That money goes into a fund controlled by the United Nations but Iraqi leaders want control transferred to the new interim government, when sovereignty is transferred at the end of this month.

Despite the continuing terrorist violence Iraq has attracted more than 7m foreign visitors, mostly Shi'ites making the pilgrimage to Najaf and Karbala where (despite sporadic fighting) a building boom is under way. This year Iraq has had a bumper harvest with record crops, notably in wheat. It could become agriculturally self-sufficient for the first time in 30 years...

..."We are coming out of the cold," says al-Ayyari. "The world should help us put our house in order." But this is precisely what many in the West, and the Arab world, won't do.

Having opposed the toppling of Saddam, they do not wish to see Iraq build a better future. Arab despots and their satellite television channels fear a democratic Iraq that could give oppressed people of the region dangerous ideas. The anti-American coalition in the West shudders at the thought that someone like Bush might put Iraq on the path of democratisation...

...Iraq is not about to disintegrate. Nor is it on the verge of civil war. Nor is it about to repeat Iran's mistake by establishing a repressive theocracy. Despite becoming the focus of anti-American energies in the past year, its people still hold the West in high regard. Iraq has difficult months ahead, nobody would dispute that. But it has a chance to create a new society. Its well-wishers should keep the faith and prove the doomsters wrong.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:54 AM

June 16, 2004
Compare And Constrast

You know, if Dubya were one tenth the murderous bloodthirsty imperialistic stormtrooper cowboy that the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid left says he is, we wouldn't be dropping leaflets with reward offers. We'd be dropping leaflets with an ultimatum to give him up in twenty-four hours, allow a monitored exodus, and then MOAB the place.

I'm not saying that's an appropriate strategy, of course--I'm just pointing out that that's what the George Bush of their fevered fantasies would do. Or perhaps he wouldn't even give the warning--he'd just level the town. You know, like most other rulers in the region (who they seem determined to keep in power) would.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:17 PM

June 14, 2004
"The Future Is Becoming Frightening"

I find it difficult to understand how anyone can read things like this and not understand that Iraq is a fundamental front in the war on Islamic fundamentalism.

Titled "The text of al-Zarqawi's message to Osama bin Laden about holy war in Iraq," the statement appeared on Web sites that have recently carried claims of responsibility for attacks in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
"The space of movement is starting to get smaller," it said. "The grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future is becoming frightening."

The statement says the militant movement in Iraq is racing against time to form battalions that can take control of the country "four months before the formation of the promised Iraqi government, hoping to spoil their plan." It appears to refer to the government that would take office after the elections scheduled for January 2005.

It also says insurgents are planning to intensify attacks on Iraqi soldiers and police, seen as collaborators with the U.S.-led coalition. Calling Iraqi forces "the occupier's eye, ear and hand," the statement says: "We are planning on targeting them heavily in the coming stage before they are fully in control."

[Tuesday update]

Citizen Smash says that this is old news.

The point remains, however.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 PM

Oh, No!

OK, I keep hearing these reports about Al Qaeda types claiming that they will treat western prisoners like their "Iraqi brothers" in Abu Ghraib.

So, what are they going to do? Make them j3rk off while wearing womens' underthings on their heads? Somehow, it doesn't seem like them...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 PM

What Would Bugs Do?

Actually, it's not WWBD.

It's more like WWAD--what would Acme do?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:27 PM

Caught In The Act

The Israelis appear to finally have a video confirming what they've long accused the Red Cross of--sheltering terrorists in ambulances. Confronted with the evidence, they apparently admitted that there were terrorists in the ambulance, but claimed that it had been hijacked. But as Fox pointed out, the driver never complained. Not, that is, until the video was released.

How much longer are we going to grant moral authority to the increasingly-obviously-corrupt UN, and the ICRC?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:27 PM

June 08, 2004
The Need To Keep Score

Wretchard has (as usual) some very good points in this piece.

Offering up the objective of more United Nations legitimacy or adopting an "exit strategy" in Iraq, as the Democrats have done, does not amount to a strategy. But neither does the open-ended formula of bringing freedom to the Middle East constitute an actionable agenda. It may be a guide to action, but what is needed is a set of intermediate goalposts against which progress can be measured. Some of these might be:
1. The desired end state in Saudi Arabia: whether or not this includes the survival of the House of Saud or its total overthrow;
2. The fate of the regime in Damascus;
3. Whether or not the United States is committed to overthrowing the Mullahs in Iran and the question of what is to replace them;
4. How far America will tolerate inaction by Iraq security forces before acting unilaterally;
5. The future of the America's alliance with France and Germany;
6. The American commitment to the United Nations.

Each of these hard questions must be weighed according to its contribution to the final goal of breaking the back of international terrorism. Somewhere in that maze, if it exists, is a ladder to victory. Leading the horse to drink presumes that we know what purpose watering them serves; what paths we will travel. Answering these questions will be a heuristic process, one that moves towards progressively better solutions. Finding ourselves in the place we first began is equivalent to defeat. Whether we are further along in Saudi Arabia in May 2004 than on November 2003 is one of the indicators of whether we are winning or losing. But someone has to keep score.

This would also make it easier to sell to the American people, because it would show that we have a plan, and that we are making progress in it. The problem, of course, is that it's a plan of which much of the world (particularly the dictatorphilic part of it, including some of our "allies" in Europe) won't approve.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:55 AM

Gratitude

The Journal points out that the press hasn't told people about this:

First in Arabic and then in English, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said in his inaugural address to the Iraqi people last Tuesday that "I would like to record our profound gratitude and appreciation to the U.S.-led international coalition, which has made great sacrifices for the liberation of Iraq." In his own remarks, President Ghazi al-Yawer said: "Before I end my speech, I would like us to remember our martyrs who fell in defense of freedom and honor, as well as our friends who fell in the battle for the liberation of Iraq."
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the U.N. Security Council much the same thing last Thursday: "We Iraqis are grateful to the coalition who helped liberate us from the persecution of Saddam Hussein's regime. We thank President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for their dedication and commitment."

[Update]

Morton Kondracke has more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 AM

June 04, 2004
What Does Victory Look Like?

In comments to the previous post, Duncan Young writes:

The big difference is that in WWII the shape of victory was pretty damn clear - specific land was occupied, papers were publically signed, POW's turned over etc etc.
I've never heard a non-handwaving description of what 'winning' looks like in the War on Terror. Which is a bit of a problem with applying the whole 'war' paradigm to this case.

That's one of the problems with calling it a "War on Terror."

If we call it by its right name, a war on radical Islamic fundamentalism, then the victory conditions become more clear, if not entirely politically correct.

It means a Middle East (and other places) in which governments don't actively fund (or look the other way at) terrorist activities, in which imams in the mosques don't preach hate and death to the Jews and other infidels every Friday evening, with either active government support or acquiescence, in which madrassas, if they exist at all, teach a modern and reformed version of Islam. It may also include a prosperous and free Arab world, though unfortunately it need not if those other conditions can occur without it.

That's what victory looks like. How to achieve it is unclear, and worthy of debate, but many opponents of the war and the administration don't even seem to see that as a legitimate goal, let alone one to debate the means of getting there. The politically incorrect part is that it means committing "culturicide," which is something that remains an anathema to the multi-culti cultists, to whom all is relative. And while it doesn't require genocide, it may indeed require killing many more people than we might desire, because there are some minds that won't be changed.

Certainly policies followed in the eighties and nineties (to which it sounds like Senator Kerry wants us to return) won't get us there. Whether or not the current policy will remains to be seen, but it's got a lot better prospects than prosecutions and diplomacy alone. There will be many more regime changes, by various means, before this war is over.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:19 PM

And Speaking Of WW II

Go read VDH today:

We do have a grave problem in this country, but it is not the plan for Iraq, the neoconservatives, or targeting Saddam. Face it: This present generation of leaders at home would never have made it to Normandy Beach. They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor, cast around blame for the Japanese internment, sued over the light armor and guns of Sherman tanks, apologized for bombing German civilians, and recalled General Eisenhower to Washington to explain the rough treatment of Axis prisoners.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:02 AM

May 31, 2004
Who is Armed Liberal?

Over at Winds of Change my favorite member of the WoC crew has decided to drop the pseudonym and let us know that Armed Liberal is Marc Danziger. He's the new C.O.O. of Spirit of America, a charity that's working to make life better for Iraqis and in doing so portray America in a more favorable light. I've said before that the current conflict is all about perceptions. Spirit of America is on track to make us all safer by making it harder for the enemy to recruit. I believe that efforts like this will have a greater effect in the long run than any purely military operation (which is not to suggest that military operations are unneccessary in the short term). Check out the site and see if you can help out.

Posted by Andrew Case at 04:01 PM

May 20, 2004
Extrapolation

Andrew Sullivan points out that Susan Sontag is vying for one of his Susan Sontag awards:

...the cover story in Sunday's New York Times Magazine is a Susan Sontag essay. Yes, she's going to write about Abu Ghraib. And - yes! - the headline is: "The Photographs Are Us."

Fine, Susan. I'll consider the possibility that "the photographs are us" when you and other people in the intelligentsia and media will admit that people like this are you.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:45 PM

May 19, 2004
Bad News In Iraq

At least for those who, for partisan political purposes, are hoping for bad news in Iraq. It's a roundup of all of the good things that are happening there, that aren't being prominently reported.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:48 PM

May 17, 2004
"...To Serve Its Own Citizens..."

The conventional wisdom is that we lost the battle of Fallujah, by pulling back and letting a former Ba'athist general take over. In that context, reader Mike Puckett points out this very encouraging news.

With this kind of good news, combined with the bringing to heel of Al-Sadr, it's easy to see why the quagmirists in the media want to keep the focus on Abu Ghraib.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:52 AM

May 15, 2004
Happy Grafitti

Mohammed at Iraq The Model has an encouraging story of a trip to the southern part of Iraq:

The point behind all these pictures and stories I mentioned is that the people started to speak out and express their feelings and here we’re in great need for support from the free world to back the progress. Moving back is absolutely unacceptable; we’ve put our feet on the right way and we need help from the others. Never let the bad pictures lay their heavy shadow on the good, bright ones. The negative media want our eyes to pause on the bad events to win time in this worldwide battle and to make us forget the good pictures that encourage us to keep the momentum. This includes most of the major western media.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:20 PM

May 13, 2004
For What It's Worth

I've had several people find their way to this site today with searches on variants of "Berg Decapitation Beheading Video etc."

Not a single one came searching for information on Abu Ghraib.

Those stupid people. They won't let their betters tell them what's news.

[Update at 4:30 PM PDT]

Here's a weird one--"Arab locust beheading"

[Update on Friday afternoon]

Brian Linse disagrees.

In a sense he makes my point. There probably are many people looking for this item merely for the dubious pleasure of watching a snuff film, but the fact remains that demand for it is relatively high because the same news outlets that couldn't wait to show us pornography that reflected badly on the administration remain unwilling to show something that might arouse "the American street."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:45 PM

"The War That Dare Not Speak Its Name"

Andrew McCarthy says something that I've been saying since the beginning--that we aren't at war with "terror."

Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a method. It is the most sinister, brutal, inhumane method of our age. But it is nonetheless just that: a method. You cannot, and you do not, make war on a method. War is made on an identified — and identifiable — enemy.
In the here and now, that enemy is militant Islam — a very particular practice and interpretation of a very particular set of religious, political and social principles.

Now that is a very disturbing, very discomfiting thing to say in 21st-century America. It is very judgmental. It sounds very insensitive. It is the very definition of politically incorrect. Saying it aloud will not get you invited to chat with Oprah. But it is a fact. And it is important both to say it and to understand it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:16 AM

May 12, 2004
Finally

We see some condemnation from the Arab world. Hizbollah says that the decapitation was "un-Islamic":

"Hizbollah condemns this horrible act that has done very great harm to Islam and Muslims by this group that claims affiliation to the religion of mercy, compassion and humane principles," the Shi'ite Muslim group said in a statement.

Yes, you're not supposed to cut their heads off. You're supposed to blow yourself up next to them, propelling rat-poisoned-dunked metal fasteners though them, ensuring that if they live, it will be a lifetime of pain. Now that's Islam!

Here's the real reason they're upset. It's mostly the timing:

Hizbollah said Berg's killing had diverted the world's gaze from an escalating furor over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by occupation soldiers.
"The timing of this act that overshadowed the scandal over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in occupation forces prisons is suspect timing that aims to serve the American administration and occupation forces in Iraq and present excuses and pretexts for their inhumane practices against Iraqi detainees," it said.

It's a lament I'm sure they share with some people here. Couldn't they have waited until after the election?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:23 PM

Was It Even Worse Than We Thought?

Someone at Free Republic thinks that the terrorists edited out about a minute and a half of the butchery. If what he describes is accurate, it sounds credible.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:58 AM

More Than Half Full

Arnold Kling has a list of all the bad things that haven't happened in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:13 AM

The Great White North Is Now Greater

After Chretien, it's nice to see Canada finally have a PM with a grip on reality.

"I believe that terrorism will be, for our generation, what the Cold War was to generations that preceded us," he said. "I don't think we're out of it yet."
Martin disagreed with former prime minister Jean Chretien, who publicly blamed poverty for terrorism and the Sept. 11 attacks. "The cause of terrorism is not poverty, it is hatred."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 AM

Contrarians

I know that good news about Iraq doesn't seem to be very popular right now, particularly in the major media, but Glenn has a couple letters that are encouraging, about Najaf and Al-Sadr, and Fallujah.

On the other hand, what do they know?

They're only the people who are actually there on the ground, interacting with the Iraqis in ways both violent and kind, as appropriate, every day. They don't have the benefit of journalism degrees and elite cocktail parties from which to get their news and reinforce their anti-Bush opinions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 AM

May 11, 2004
We Have Only The Power To Destroy It...

James Lileks says what I meant to say here, but more at length and, as always, more eloquently.

...half the battle will occur in places we cannot reach or observe. A minimal-casualty defeat of the Islamists will require the help of Islam. I'd like to think that will happen on its own, without some exterior catastrophe to force the issue. For that matter I'd like to think I'll win the Powerball. Every time the jackpot goes over 200 million, I buy a ticket. Every time I lose. I'm always disappointed, of course. But never surprised.

Let's hope we can hit the jackpot.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:56 PM

Hold Fast

I'm not always a fan of Bill Safire's, but I find little in this column with which to disagree.

But won't the Iraqi people be driven crazy by pictures from Abu Ghraib prison and embrace the pro-Saddam terrorists? My Kurdish friends say that's nonsense. They remember the 5,000 innocents Saddam gassed to death in Halabja — nor have the Shiites forgotten his mass graves. Many Iraqis may be resentful of the current American protection, but most are not sore enough to wish us gone yet, or to submit again to Sunni rule.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:38 PM

Too Gruesome?

The media outlets don't want to show the beheading video.

"It's a pretty clear call for us," said Jon Banner, executive producer of ABC's "World News Tonight." "I think the viewer will understand what happened to Mr. Berg. They won't have to sit through the graphic images."

Yup, just as they don't have to sit through the graphic images of people plunging from the towers. Apparently they only show (and reshow) graphic images when it's of American "atrocities."

Note that I'm not necessarily complaining that they're not showing the video. But some of those same media outlets should be asking themselves to what degree showing all of the Abu Ghraib photos may have resulted in this, and why they considered that necessary. After all, couldn't the viewers have understood what went on in the prison without the graphic images?

And since we've been told that even worse photos are coming in the days ahead, perhaps they'll give the matter a little more consideration before airing them?

[Wednesday morning update]

Ratherbiased.com has similar questions for CBS and Dan Rather.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:21 PM

Al-Zarqawi Apologizes For Beheading

I was going to do a satire on the bizarro world in which this actually might occur, but the Ace of Spaces beat me to it. He has other, pertinent aerospace-related news, too.

..engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that they had successfully granted a 200-pound sow the power of flight. "We just grafted four pairs of condor wings on to the pig," said Henry Fields, project manager of the Winged Wilbur project. "You should see that pig fly. It's something to behold, I'll tell you. And we're going to need flying pig technology in the future, given the widespread effects of global environmental change. The latest reports of the temperatures plummeting in Hell should be a warning to us all."

[Update at 5:40 PM PDT]

Scrappleface has apparently been visiting that planet as well.

We need to get the cost of access to space down so we can all move there.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:01 PM

Monsters

Would this have happened absent the Abu Ghraib scandal?

Who knows? I think they would have found some other excuse. I mean, it's not like they've never done such things before, on far less pretense.

Like many of their vicious acts, I expect that this will have exactly the opposite of the desired effect.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:23 AM

May 10, 2004
Burned Alive

A gruesome tale, from the Religion of Peace™.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:13 PM

May 08, 2004
Hypocrites

I'm with Andrew Stuttaford.

Bush was right to apologize to the Iraqis for what was done, and, politically it may have been shrewd to couch that apology in wider terms to all Arab peoples, but we should be clear about one thing. The denunciations of America by the Arab press outside Iraq has no more moral (politically speaking, it is something else) significance than the sight of a weeping Goebbels. It’s nothing more than the howling of a coterie of hand-picked hypocrites, flaks for the fascists, theocratic or otherwise, who run their countries, journalistic attack dogs who, it seems, have learned to love their leashes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:06 PM

The Corrupting Influences Of War

Wretchard has a sobering post about what we should be trying to avoid, and what many of the ringmasters in the ongoing circus in Washington may be, unwittingly, leading us to.

While it is important to punish everyone responsible for the outrages at Abu Ghraib, the only effective way to stop the corrupting influences of war is to achieve victory. Japanese tourists are welcome in Asia everywhere today because the Second World War ended in 1945. And if by contrast Palestinians hand out sweets whenever a Jewish orphanage and Old Folk's home is bombed it may be because the UN refugee camps there celebrated their 50th anniversary in 1998. If the outrages at Abu Ghraib hasten the end of war it will not have been in vain, but if they lead, as the Left most earnestly desires, to a Vietnam-like stalemate, it will be not the last but the first of many sad mileposts.

[Warning, graphic descriptions of violence]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 AM

An Aberration

Omar at Iraq The Model posts an interesting conversation with an Iraqi doctor about Abu Ghraib.

There are other interesting posts there about Iraqi and Middle Eastern reaction as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:34 AM

May 06, 2004
It's The Sex, Stupid

Charles Krauthammer explains why what happened at Abu Ghraib was such a huge setback (hopefully not permanent) to our cause.

...the torture pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib prison could not have hit a more neuralgic point. We think of torture as the kind that Saddam practiced: pain, mutilation, maiming and ultimately death. We think of it as having a political purpose: intimidation, political control, confession and subjugation. What happened at Abu Ghraib was entirely different. It was gratuitous sexual abuse, perversion for its own sake.
That is what made it, ironically and disastrously, a pictorial representation of precisely the lunatic fantasies that the jihadists believe -- and that cynical secular regimes such as Egypt and the Palestinian Authority peddle to pacify their populations and deflect their anger and frustrations. Through this lens, Abu Ghraib is an "I told you so'' played out in an Arab capital, recorded on film.

Jihadists, like all totalitarians, oppose many kinds of freedom. What makes them unique, however, is their particular hatred of freedom for women.

I continue to be amazed that the left, so supposedly solicitous of women's rights, continues to support these people. It brings to mind the idiocy spouted by Sunera Thobani during the Afghan war. Apparently there are no evil acts unless they're acts by the United States, and then they're evil simply by dint of the fact that we commit them.

And of course, to repeat what I said last week, it's hard to imagine how the morons in that prison could have done more harm to our prospects for a free Iraq than what they did. The sad thing is that it looks as though a lot of them were simply carrying over business-as-usual habits from being prison guards stateside, which is a devastating commentary on our own penal system.

[Update on Friday morning]

As I said, morons. I don't know if Rumsfeld should resign over this, but somebody should.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:50 PM

Thoughts on the War

A grab bag of thoughts and observations on the news of the past week or so:

(1) The administration still doesn't seem to fully grasp the seriousness of the damage done by the revelations of abuse in Iraq. For one thing, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya have been on the case since last year, while administration spokesmen have been denying that anything bad was happening. These revelations give credibility to news sources we are trying to undermine, quite apart from the direct damage of pushing literally hundreds of millions of muslims further into the arms of the islamists. Bush has finally said the word "sorry" but it's not clear he's taking any other effective action to undo the damage.

(2) Sometimes saying the obvious is a bad idea. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't harbor fantasies of driving the Jews into the sea that at least some West Bank land will have to be permanently annexed to Israel, for no other reason than that the lowlands around Tel Aviv are not defensible without control of the highlands overlooking them, and those highlands are outside the 1948 borders. Equally obviously, the Jewish State will cease to exist if the Palestinian refugees from 1948 and their descendants are allowed to return. It is apparently not obvious that you're better off keeping your mouth shut when saying the obvious puts issues on the front page that enable your enemies to portray you as a Zionist puppet. The fact that they'll make the claim no matter what is irrelevant - don't give them ammo unless you get something advantageous in return, which we so far have not. There may be some back room deal that makes the accounting work out, but I'm not holding my breath.

(3) This is a war of propaganda and perceptions. Who controls the front page controls the terms in which the conflict is perceived. The dominant issue in the Arab world is a sense of victimization at the hands of colonizers, and in particular at the hands of Zionists. Islamists offer one solution to this "problem," and secular strongmen another. Getting the Israel/Palestine issue off the front page should be a top administration priority. That may mean making the problem worse in the short term, but the problem cannot be allowed to continue festering. The details of rights and wrongs are complicated enough that there is simply no way to create a perfectly just solution. Both sides are going to have substantial numbers of innocent people who get royally screwed, and quite a few right bastards will get away scot free. The goal should be to compensate the former to whatever degree is practical, and to limit the number of the latter, along with their influence in the post-resolution power structures. If the Israel/Palestine issue can be gotten off the front page, the Arab media will have to find other stories to report, and other people to blame for their problems. The tinpot dictators of the Arab world know this, and it keeps them awake at night, as well it should.

(4) One of the right bastards alluded to above is Ariel Sharon. He's one of the lesser ones (it's hard to crack the top 100 considering the competition from the Palestinian side), but he has innocent blood on his hands. Despite this, he is probably the best hope for peace, since he appears to have a very solid grip on reality. The Wall is a necessary first step. Withdrawal from Gaza will limit Israeli casualties and provide a proving ground for the techniques needed to limit the danger from the West Bank once there is a withdrawal of Israeli troops behind the wall. The course of the wall will probably have to be adjusted, but the essential idea is sound. Once the wall is done it will rapidly become obvious to the Palestinian leadership that a permanent resolution of the conflict is being imposed, like it or not, and all they can hope to do is bargain for the best they can get. If they are smart they'll bargain right of return for compensation, and bargain for a geographically viable state in return for giving up claims to some of the West Bank highlands. Unfortunately there is major opposition from within Likud, which has the potential to derail the whole thing, taking everyone involved back to the same old pattern of atrocity and retaliation.

(5) Finally, a positive note. The Abu Ghraib fiasco has one clear hero, and his name is Army Specialist Joseph Darby. He blew the whistle to superiors, triggering the chain of events that lead to the Taguba report. He did this despite knowing he might suffer retaliation and ostracism. We need more like him.

Posted by Andrew Case at 03:25 PM

May 05, 2004
Who We Fight

Michael Totten has an interesting and clarifying essay about who the enemy is. It's a restorative for those tired of arguing with people who mistakenly think that Iraq was a "distraction" from the "war on Al Qaeda."

There is no Christian counterpart to what Saudi Arabia does. Imagine if the white supremacist "Christian Identity" movement (which includes David Duke among its adherents) made billions of dollars a year and founded churches throughout the Christian parts of the world to spread its hateful, racist, xenophobic ideology. Imagine if their brand of Christianity were the fastest growing on Earth, that they had also seized nation-states and used their powers to massacre millions. Whole swaths of the Christian world would look much like 1990s Yugoslavia, where Serbian Orthodox Christian supremacists did their worst to put the Muslim population of Europe to the sword.

On a related note, Steven den Beste says that we're fighting a two-front war, some parts hot and some parts cold, and some of Europe (and indeed, many within the US itself) are on the other side. It's long (as is often the case) but worth reading.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:54 AM

What He Said

Andrew Sullivan has an appalling summary of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and a suggestion for the president. He should take the advice.

And on a slightly different but related topic, how is "Ghraib" pronounced, anyway? I keep hearing people (including NPR people, who are usually sticklers about pronunciation, at least if it's some trendy lefty country) saying "Grayb," with a single syllable. I'm no Arabic expert, but I'd think that it should be "Grah-eeb." Anyone know?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AM

May 02, 2004
Our Friends The Saudis

A Saudi Imam has praised the "resistance" to the American occupation of Iraq.

You may not be totally shocked to learn that he also laments that "our Palestinian brethren in Palestine are suffering from state terrorism by the Zionist entity, which carries out assassinations of Palestinian leaders," while doing nothing to diminish their plight, other than supporting continued murder against innocent Israelis.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:19 PM

May 01, 2004
Treason

I wonder if the torture incident in Iraq will become this generation's My Lai?

I've little to say except that, by providing fodder for anti-American propaganda, what these morons did certainly had the effect, if not the intent, of providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Given that this occurred in the land of Hammurabi, I'm tempted to suggest that they get the same treatment, with live broadcast rights to Al Jazeera, but it would actually be too good for them.

[Update a few minutes later]

It's already happening, in Pravda. Note the headline.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:52 PM

April 27, 2004
Oil For Fraud Program

That's what Mark Steyn calls it.

The scale of the UN Oil-for-Fraud programme is way beyond any of the corporate scandals that so excite the progressive mind. Oil-for-Food was designed to let the Iraqi government sell a limited amount of oil in return for food and other necessities for its people. Between 1996 and 2003, Saddam did more than $100 billion of business, all of it approved by Kofi Annan's Secretariat.
In return, by their own official figures, $15 billion of food and health supplies was sent to Iraq. What proportion of this reached the sick and malnourished Iraqi children is anybody's guess. Coalition troops discovered stockpiles of UN food far from starving moppets. But let us assume there is an innocent explanation. Even so, by the UN's own account, Oil-for-Food seemed to involve an awful lot of oil for not much food.

So where's the media that couldn't get enough of the Enron scandal?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:31 PM

A Happy Ending

This is too weird for words. Two robbers were killed trying to steal a bomb from a suicide bomber in Gaza.

My favorite part of the story:

There have been cases of rival groups stealing each other’s explosives, but no group claimed the two gunmen, and their families did not go to the hospital to take the bodies, indicating that the two were not militants, who are revered in Palestinian society.
A Hamas official said that whatever their intention, the two should be considered agents of Israel.

“Anyone who tries to stop a fighter from doing his work is a collaborator,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

You couldn't make this stuff up. If the whole Middle East situation wasn't so tragic, it would be hilarious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:38 AM

April 21, 2004
Nostalgie De Bodybag

John Weidner has some cogent commentary on a renewal of the draft.

Robert E. Lee once remarked that it was good that war was so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it. Some apparently want to make war too terrible for us, so that we are no longer able to make it terrible for those who wish to end us.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 PM

April 20, 2004
More Preemption?

Trent Telenko has a thought-provoking post (along with a lot of good comments) on just how high the foreign-policy stakes are in this election.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:50 AM

April 19, 2004
What A Shame

Some people in Hamas think that it might be hard to carry out their blustering threats when their leaders are picked off almost as fast as they can name them.

"The Islamic and Arab world ... expected the Palestinian Fatah and Hamas resistance movement combatants to take revenge for the bloodshed of martyr Sheikh Ahmed Yassin immediately," he told the agency. "But [they] are unaware of the limitations and [the] amount of pressure imposed against the Palestinian combatants."

Isn't it a shame to disappoint "the Islamic and Arab world"? Not to mention their apologists in the west, who assure us daily that Israel's tactics will just create more terrorism?

And this was interesting as well:

A leading Arab expert on Palestinian militant movements said in an interview that Hamas also might be deterred by the fear that a large-scale attack inside Israel would provoke Israel to kill Mr. Arafat — whom Hamas now sees as its main protector.
"It is mainly because of Arafat that Hamas is left unharmed by the Palestinian Authority's security services," said Nabil Khatib, a lecturer at the leading Palestinian university, Bir Zeit, who is in close contact with the Palestinian factions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:25 PM

April 17, 2004
He Gets His Raisins

Well, this didn't take long...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:24 PM

April 16, 2004
A War For Oil

By Jacques Chirac. I'm chiraced, just...errr...shocked.

...Chirac was defending something quite different when he sent his erstwhile foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, around the world to buy votes against America at the United Nations. Chirac was determined to maintain Saddam Hussein in power so that two extraordinarily lucrative oil contracts, negotiated by the French, could go into effect...
...during the first seven years alone, it would earn the French around $50 billion. Elf-Aquitaine negotiated a virtually identical deal with Saddam to expand the gigantic Majnoon oil field as well. Put together, those two deals were worth $100 billion to the French. That’s 100 billion good reasons for Mr. Chirac to keep Saddam in power.

This is particularly amusing (or pathetic), in light of this perspective about the hypocrisy and contradictions of the administration's critics:

For most of late 2002 and early 2003, many of these same critics decried America's supposedly imperial obsession with the petroleum reserves of the Middle East. Our war with Iraq ("no blood for oil") was emblematic of American machinations to steal a nation's natural treasure or at least rig the circumstances of its exploitation. And then suddenly war came. In victory, Iraqi oil was put under the transparent auspices of the Iraqi people — even as some surrounding Gulf sheiks were furious at American efforts to bring not dictatorship but democratic reform to the Middle East.
The result? The price of gas skyrocketed, in part because at least some Gulf OPEC autocratic states vented by cutting production. America was shown in fact to have had little influence concerning, much less any control of, the very petroleum that lay beneath the country it now occupied and had bled for. Suddenly Mr. Kerry and other senators decried not the worry over petroleum theft but the spikes in energy prices, demanding redress from the administration. Apparently Mr. Bush, the one-time unilateralist who had turned a deaf ear to Arab entreaties and had been too tough with Arab regimes, now suddenly was not unilateral enough with such greedy despots. Indeed, he was to be condemned for not confronting those about oil whom he had already "unnecessarily" once confronted purportedly over oil.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:59 PM

April 15, 2004
The New Jenin?

As Glenn points out, Fallujah isn't Tet, and it's not Mogadishu either. It does appear that the next attempt at dressing it up in old clothes (though not so old this time) will be to resurrect the myth of the Jenin "massacre," and to try to make it appear of similar kind.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:44 AM

Too Disturbing To Air

Many (including me) were wondering how, given Al Jazeerah's record of running the most brutal films on air, they could have found the snuff film of the murdered Italian too gruesome. Tim Blair has the answer.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 AM

April 13, 2004
Why Are We In Iraq?

...when our supposed enemy was based in Afghanistan? To me, of course, that's like asking why our first major invasion in World War II was in northern Africa when we were attacked by the Japanese in the Pacific. It's a recognition that we're in a regional, if not global war, and it's called strategy. Joe Katzman explains.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:00 AM

April 09, 2004
Perspective

Amidst our self absorption with our own casualties (which while devastating to those to whom they are familiar, are trivial in the context of other wars, many less momentous than this), it's easy to forget the suffering and fright of the innocent Iraqis who must live with and through the current chaos. Sadly, sometimes necessary things have calamitous effects on those who had no part in the making of them, and it's hard to take a long-term view when bombs are falling.

To the proprietress of the Riverbend blog, and others like her, I can only offer trite, but often true cliches--it's often darkest before the dawn, and sometimes the only way out is through. For those of my readers of the praying type, say one or two for her and hers, and I hope that she knows that she is in our hearts at this time of crucial point in her country's history.

[Update a few minutes later]

And for contrast, I hope she hears and appreciates what compatriot blogger Mohammed has to say.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:08 PM

April 08, 2004
Can't We All Just Get Along?

The former secretary of Northern Ireland thinks that we should negotiate with bin Laden.

In a television interview which will be broadcast on Easter Sunday, she described the current hardline approach to the war on terror as "completely counter-productive".
Ms Mowlam told Tyne Tees TV's Sunday Interview that Britain and America must open a dialogue with their enemies.

Interviewer Tony Cartledge asked if she could imagine "al Qaida and Osama bin Laden arriving at the negotiating table".

She replied: "You have to do that. If you do not you condemn large parts of the world to war forever.

"Some people couldn't conceive of Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness getting to the table but they did."

She added: "If you go in with guns and bombs, you act as a recruitment officer for the terrorists."

I was amused by this aside at the end of the column:

She also confirmed on the programme that she has completely recovered from a brain tumour.

I'd say that we have some evidence to the contrary here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:50 PM

April 06, 2004
Just A Thought

If Iraq is our Vietnam (an analogy that's flawed on many levels), then Iran is China, without the (yet) nukes and massive army.

I know the press is paying no attention to this, but I hope that the administration is doing something about it. Next country in the Axis, on deck...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:22 AM

April 05, 2004
Is This Iraq's Tet?

We may be at a very crucial point in Iraq. Laughing Wolf has some thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:20 AM

April 04, 2004
Did Saddam Create Fallujah Or Fallujah Saddam?

Victor Davis Hanson asks that question, a disquieting one.

...at some point the world is asking: “Is Mr. Assad or Hussein, the Saudi Royal Family, or a Khadafy really an aberration—all rogues who hijacked Arab countries—or are they the logical expression of a tribal patriarchal society whose frequent tolerance of barbarism is in fact reflected in its leadership? Are the citizens of Fallujah the victims of Saddam, or did folk like this find their natural identity expressed in Saddam? Postcolonial theory and victimology argue that European colonialism, Zionism, and petrodollars wrecked the Middle East. But to believe that one must see India in shambles, Latin America under blanket autocracy, and an array of suicide bombers pouring out of Mexico or Nigeria. South Korea was a moonscape of war when oil began gushing out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia; why is it now exporting cars while the latter are exporting death? Apartheid was far worse than the Shah’s modernization program; yet why did South Africa renounce nuclear weapons while the Mullahs cheated on every UN protocol they could?
No, there is something peculiar to the Middle East that worries the world. The Arab world for years has promulgated a quite successful media image as perennial victims—proud folks, suffering under a series of foreign burdens, while nobly maintaining their grace and hospitality. Middle-Eastern Studies programs in the United States and Europe published an array of mostly dishonest accounts of Western culpability, sometimes Marxist, sometimes anti-Semitic that were found to be useful intellectual architecture for the edifice of panArabism, as if Palestinians or Iraqis shared the same oppressions, the same hopes, and the same ideals as downtrodden American people of color—part of a universal “other” deserving victim status and its attendant blanket moral exculpation. But the curtain has been lifted since 9-11 and the picture we see hourly now is not pretty.

[Update late on Sunday evening]

Michael Ledeen comments at Charles Johnson's site.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:04 PM

If He's So Rich, Why Ain't He Smart?

George Soros has a cliche-ridden wrong-headed polemic against the Bush administration in today's Puppy Trainer. This is hardly surprising, because he's openly declared war on this administration, vowing to spend as many of his millions as necessary to end it this fall. But it demonstrates that, just as being smart doesn't necessarily make one rich, the corollary is apparently true as well--Mr. Soros doesn't seem to be very smart, at least not about anything other than making money.

The Bush administration is in the habit of waging personal vendettas against those who criticize its policies, but bit by bit the evidence is accumulating that the invasion of Iraq was among the worst blunders in U.S. history.

Hmmmm...a "habit"? Can he cite the innumerable examples of this to justify this statement? In fact, I can't think of a single instance of "waging personal vendettas." The only ones that I can think of that Mr. Soros and his ilk might come up with are Valerie Plame and Richard Clarke, but in neither case do these meet the "personal vendetta" threshold.

In the case of the former, while the matter remains under investigation, the simplest explanation to me is that, rather than having the intent of harming Mr. Wilson's wife, the intent was simply to explain to Mr. Safire why the administration made the dumb decision to send the ambassador to Niger to sip sweet mint tea, instead of making a serious effort to investigate the possibility of yellowcake sales.

As for Mr. Clarke, I hardly think that pointing out inconsistencies in public statements, and conflicts of interest, when under attack, constitute a "personal vendetta." Yes, they helped damage his credibility, but they were only helping him damage his own--in his apparent mission to attempt to rewrite history, he was much more active in that goal than anyone else.

And as to "one of the worst blunders in American history," like "the worst economy in fifty years," such hyperbole might be rhetorically effective with people unfamiliar with American history (which Mr. Soros, not being native born, may very well be), but to those more informed, it sounds more like shrill volume is being used to compensate for a lack of solid argument.

And that's just the first graf.

...to protect ourselves against terrorism, we need precautionary measures, awareness and intelligence gathering — all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Declaring war on the very people we need to enlist against terrorism is a huge mistake.

What people did we declare war on? The only people we declared war on were the people running brutal regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The people who were being subjugated by those organized crime syndicates know that we not only didn't declare war on them, but rather that we took great pains to avoid making war on them, spending much more than it would have cost otherwise, and putting our own soldiers more at risk. The Iraqi people may not be happy with being occupied, but they're smart enough to know that we didn't make war on them, even if Mr. Soros isn't.

On Sept. 11, the United States was the victim of a heinous crime, and the whole world expressed spontaneous and genuine sympathy. Since then, though we Americans are loath to admit it, the war on terrorism has claimed more innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq than were lost in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The comparison is rarely made in the U.S.: American lives are valued differently from the lives of foreigners, but the distinction is less obvious to people abroad.

Now this is both odious and disingenuous--or stupefyingly dumb.

I'm not "loath to admit" that more innocent civilians were lost in Afghanistan and Iraq than in New York and Arlington (and Shanksville). What I'm loath to admit is that this is a meaningful comparison, and it's not because American lives are worth more than Afghan or Iraqi lives.

Such thinking stems from a continual misunderstanding on the part of the war opponents about our purposes (often heard also in the form of the straw man "...but Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda," as though the claim had ever been made that he did). They assume that the purpose of going into Afghanistan was vengeance.

Equating the number of American civilian deaths with the number of Afghan and Iraqi deaths is to revert to the primitive (perhaps appropriate, since we're talking about Babylon here) notion of "an eye for an eye," or in this case, a life for a life. Everyone, even Europe, favored our going into Afghanistan, because, apparently, everyone thought that a war for revenge was just peachy. They then, absurdly, attempt to place themselves on a higher moral plane than the American "cowboys."

But of course, the Bush policy has, appropriately, never been about revenge. It is about preventing future deaths, not just of Americans, but also those in other nations, including other Arab and Middle Eastern nations, where human life does indeed seem to be held less dear than here, and in which a depressingly large segment of the population does seem to worship death over life, with many proclaiming so loudly and proudly.

Here's a much more sensible comparison, Mr. Soros. Look at how many innocent civilians were dying in those countries before we removed their foul leadership.

How many children were dying from starvation and disease in Iraq under a corrupt UN sanctions regime which padded the bank accounts of bureaucrats so that Saddam could build palaces? How many were being starved and tortured under the tyranny of the Taliban?

How many new mass graves do you expect to appear in an Iraq under US occupation?

Agree or disagree about the war, Mr. Soros, but spare me your faux concern for the Iraqi people. By any rational measure, we've saved far more than we killed, and one can only pretend to moral superiority by ignoring this fact.

One more point. The comparison of civilians killed with deliberate intent by madmen who hate the west with civilians killed as a tragic side consequence of liberating nations, in the face of vast treasure and risk to avoid such a consequence, is despicable, but it's what I've come to expect from moral midgets such as you.

Accordingly, I hope that your own vendetta against the White House founders this fall, and leaves you considerably poorer, if not smarter.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:37 AM

April 03, 2004
Street Theatre

David Warren has a depressing column on Fallujah, and how our own media undermines our efforts.

...we come to the next stage of an unpleasant proposition. In its selective use of explosive imagery, the media have a power equivalent to that which the terrorists have in the selective use of explosive devices. There is an overlapping agenda, too: for the great majority of both terrorists and journalists consider the Bush administration to be their principal adversary. (On the other hand, they differ on the need for the imposition of Sharia law.)

But the bottom line remains:

In its recent experience in Iraq and elsewhere, the U.S. is finding what the Israelis have long since not wanted to know. Michael Oren is an Israeli veteran, and the brilliant author of the definitive history of the Six Day War. When I had coffee with him, recently, he said: "If you strike back, you will encourage terrorism. And if you don't strike back, you will encourage terrorism."
You let them walk over you, or you fight. It's true that fighting makes them even angrier, but it helps to wipe them out.

In the face of such graphic images, it's easy to forget that much of Iraq is now at peace, with prospects for future prosperity and freedom increasing daily.

Fallujah is the last stand of the Ba'athist regime, with a significant population of those who benefited from it at the expense of most, and who remain unwilling to yield their power. It is, in fact, a microcosm of what all of Iraq was a year ago, before the liberation. It is a gang of brutal thugs, holding hostage a majority of the populace within it, living in an unreality like Saddam's--the notion that bluster, brutality, deceit and murder will somehow fend off the Americans. As they will find out shortly, it is they, not we, who are fighting the last war, having learned too well the false lesson of Mogadishu.

We are paying the price now for not conquering it when we went in last March.

As many (including me, and more eloquently, David Warren) pointed out at the time, last year's military activities were less a war than the ending and resolution of a massive hostage situation, the removal of a gang of criminals that had gained sway over the territory of Iraq, maintaining their power by terrorizing its inhabitants.

Their territory, the so-called Sunni Triangle, has now been reduced to a very small portion of that original area, and what we did to the tyranny of Iraq at large then we must do to the thankfully much smaller one in Fallujah now. Like then, it will have to be done as precisely as possible, with as little damage to innocents and infrastructure as possible, but it must be done, and I think it will.

[Update]

They think they've identified at least some of the perps. And note this:

...they included former members of Iraq's paramilitary forces and "non-Iraqi Arabs."

Flypaper's still working. More that we can kill there instead of having to defend against them here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:07 AM

April 02, 2004
An "Elected" Leader

Speaking of spoiled children in Europe, now the EU is whining that Israel had better not kill the terrorist Arafat, because he's an elected leader."

What a crock. Even leaving aside the illegitimacy of his "election," would they have said in 1943 that we shouldn't have assassinated Hitler, because he was "an elected leader"?

Sadly, many of them probably would. And for those who say that assassinations are a bad idea because they may result in retaliatory assassinations, phooey. You have to consider the asymmetry of the situation.

Hitler's brutal Germany (and Saddam's Iraq--he was "elected" too, with almost a hundred percent of the vote) were those people personified. Kill Hitler or Saddam, and you kill the regime. On the other hand, in a true constitutional republic, a state consisting of laws rather than men, killing the head of state would simply result in a smooth transition to his replacement, and the war would continue with renewed ferocity.

Now arguably, unlike the Nazi Party, the PA might survive Arafat's demise, but that's no reason not to remove him. He is the murderous enemy of the state of Israel just as surely as bin Laden is ours, and he makes himself a legitimate target by his continued actions.

I suspect that what the EU is really worried about is that, with Arafat's death, as with Saddam's downfall, a lot of dirty laundry may come out in terms of the depths of the corruption of their dealings with him. Old Yasser reputedly has a some pretty sizable European bank accounts. How much of his thievery has he been kicking back to the Eurocrats?

[Update at 1 PM PST]

With whitewashes like this, we probably won't find out as long as Arafat, or someone like him, continues to run the Palestinian Authority. Iraq was hardly the only swamp that needs to be drained over there.

She said: "This form of assistance has been subject to more scrutiny than any other area...No one has proven a direct link, it is as simple as that".
Pointing to the lack of convictions of the people who money is suspected of being transferred to, she added that no link has been found between them and terrorist organisations.

However, Parliamentarians remain divided over whether this legalistic definition of evidence accurately reflects the situation.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:15 AM

Bureaucratic Stupidity

The TSA continues to drag its feet on arming pilots. Fortunately, some Senators (including, surprisingly, Barbara Boxer), are getting tired of it.

"They'll get the message or they'll lose their money for the program," Bunning said. "We'll put it somewhere where it will get the job done."

I hope they do. I'd be happy to see this agency defunded completely. And how long is Bush going to keep Norm Mineta?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:27 AM

Fallujah Could Have Been Much Larger

Christopher Hitchens has some questions for opponents of removing Saddam last year.

I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:39 AM

April 01, 2004
Lunar History

I wasn't sure about the category on this one--it could have been both space science and war commentary. But here's the real scoop from the Religion of Peace (TM).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:36 PM

March 26, 2004
Nearing A Turning Point?

The fact that this is a news story is depressing. On the other hand, the story itself offers a glimmer of hope. One would like to think that the basic humanity of the people called "Palestinians" hasn't been totally quenched by the oppressive conditions and brainwashing that they've endured for decades (and no, I'm not referring to the Israeli "occupation").

Golda Meir once said that the war would end when the Palestinians decided that they loved their children more than they hated the Jews. This may be a sign that this is starting to happen.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:49 PM

Man Bites Dog

The Vatican has actually condemned Palestinian terror tactics.

The Vatican, often critical of Israel, harshly condemned Palestinian terrorists for trying to use a teenager as a suicide bomber.

I guess it would have been all right if it was an adult murdering those Jews (and other "Palestinians").

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:37 AM

Making It Worse

In Monty Python's The Life of Brian (a movie that's about to be rereleased to theatres to capitalize on the success of Mel Gibson's "Passion"), there's a hilarious scene in which a man is about to be stoned to death for blasphemy.

Really.

MATTHIAS: Look. I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying 'Jehovah'.
CROWD: Oooh! He said it again! Oooh!...

OFFICIAL: You're only making it worse for yourself!

MATTHIAS: Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!

Allison Kaplan Sommer says that, after years of intifada, this is the point that the Israeli public has reached, and why there's little domestic opposition to Sharon's plan to build the wall and kill the terrorist leadership.

With nothing left to lose, let's try to do what we can to protect ourselves. That's the sentiment of the man on the street.
Clearly, the Israeli public seems to have all but given up on figuring out how to make the right moves in order to nudge the Palestinians towards wanting a peaceful two-state solution. They've given up. That's why there's generally support for Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan -- otherwise known as the "We're So Disgusted with the Palestinians, We're Getting the Hell Away From Them and Building a Big Wall" plan. And if they try to wage war from the other side of the wall, they'll get the same treatment as Yassin.

We're not running scared. We're just sick and tired of this.

Stephen den Beste (from whom I got the link to Allison's post) has further thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:29 AM

March 23, 2004
His Dream Job, But A Short One

Rantisi has been given the leadership of Hamas.

Defense chiefs have decided to try to kill the entire Hamas leadership, security sources said Tuesday, a day after Israel assassinated the sheikh.

I wouldn't want to have to shop for his life insurance.

Seventy two raisins, coming up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:11 AM

March 22, 2004
Death Of A Man Of Peace

"I have been to the mountain top. I have a dream."

"I have a dream of a Palestine from the west bank of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea."

"I have a dream of blood-sucking Zionists--men, women, babies--in their ice cream parlors, sundered and bleeding by metal fasteners soaked in rat poison, dead or writhing in agony now and for years."

"I have a dream of a Middle East without Jews, in which Arabs can mingle with Islamicists, and oppress unbelievers and women, without being offended or defiled by the oppressive Jewish race."

"I have a dream, of a future in which people will be judged not by the content of their character, but by their religion and ethnicity. I have seen the promised land."

Yes, we all remember how the Reverend Martin Luther King sent out children with bombs strapped surreptiously to their bellies to deliberately murder innocents, in order to seek a better life for his people.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:46 PM

Tolerance

Mark Steyn says that our supposed betters in Europe have it backwards:

In 2002 and 2003, I took a couple of two-legged, mini fact-finding trips - first to western Europe, then on to the Middle East. And both times I was struck by the way the Muslims of Araby were far less inflamed than those in the alienated immigrant ghettoes around Paris and Amsterdam. Life in the West, exposure to the self-loathing platitudes of Anglican clerics, these are the sort of things that seem to inflame Muslims. Many of the wackiest Islamists from Richard Reid to Zacarias Moussaoui to Metin Kaplan are products of the enervated Europe symbolised by the Rev Mark Beach...
...[The Islamists'] most effective guerrillas aren't in the Hindu Kush, where it is the work of moments to drop a daisycutter on the mighty Pashtun warrior. They're travelling light on the bridle-paths of Europe - the small cells that operate in the nooks and crannies of a free society, while politicians cling to the beaten tracks - old ideas, multicultural pieties and a general hope that things will turn out for the best.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:23 PM

March 20, 2004
Speak For Yourselves

As usual, none of these mindless minions who claim to speak for the Iraqis have apparently bothered to ask them what they think.

Compare and contrast:

From Sydney to Tokyo, from Santiago, Chile, to Madrid, London, New York and San Francisco, demonstrators condemned U.S. policy in Iraq and said they did not believe Iraqis are better off or the world safer because of the war.

Seventy per cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.
And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:37 PM

Not An Endorsement He Needed

I haven't seen Gibson's movie, but I didn't think that it was anti-semitic until I read this--now I'm having doubts. I doubt if Yasser thinks that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:48 PM

March 14, 2004
The Terrorists Win

That is, they did if their goal in Friday's bombing was to remove the Spanish government that supported the War on Terror. And why wouldn't it be their goal?

I very much fear that the Spanish electorate has just dramatically increased the probability of a terrorist attack on American soil in late October and early November, emboldening them to think that they can influence American politics as well. And I hope that if my fear comes true, that in our case, it will have exactly the opposite of the intended effect, as September 11 did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:43 PM

February 27, 2004
The New Language Of Anti-Americanism

Victor Davis Hanson has some words of wisdom for those who whine about "unilateralism" and "preemption."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:23 AM

February 07, 2004
Vintage Rumsfeld

Can be found here.

...In North Africa, Libya?s leader decided in December to disclose and eliminate his country?s chemical, biological and nuclear weapon programs, as well as his ballistic missiles. In the weeks since, Libya has turned over equipment and documents relating to nuclear and missile programs -- including long-range ballistic missile guidance sets and centrifuge parts for uranium enrichment -- and has begun the destruction of its unfilled chemical munitions. With these important steps, Libya has acted and announced to the world that they want to disarm and to prove they are doing so.
Compare Libya?s recent behavior to the behavior of the Iraqi regime. Saddam Hussein could have opened up his country to the world -- just as Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and South Africa had done -- and as Libya is doing today.

Instead, he chose the path of deception and defiance. He gave up tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues under the U.N. sanctions, when he could have had those sanctions lifted simply by demonstrating that he had disarmed. He passed up the ?final opportunity? that was given to him in the UN Resolution 1441 to prove that his programs were ended and his weapons were destroyed.

Even after the statues of Saddam Hussein were falling in Baghdad, the Iraqi regime continued to hide and destroy evidence systematically going through ministries destroying what they could get their hands on.

We may never know why Saddam Hussein chose the destruction of his regime over peaceful disarmament. But we know this: it was his choice. And if he had chosen differently -- if the Iraqi regime had taken the steps Libya is now taking -- there would have been no war...

...The advance of freedom does not come without cost or sacrifice. Last November, I was in South Korea during their debate on whether or not they should send South Korean forces to Iraq. A woman journalist came up to me and put a microphone in front of my face -- she was clearly too young to have experienced the Korean war -- and she said to me in a challenging voice: ?Why should young South Koreans go halfway around the world to Iraq to get killed or wounded??

Now that's a fair question. And I said it was a fair question. I also told her that I had just come from the Korean War memorial in Seoul and there's a wall that has every state of the 50 states in the United States with [the names of] all the people who were killed in the Korean War. I was there to put a wreath on the memorial and before I walked down there I looked up at the wall and started studying the names and there, of course, was a very dear friend from high school who was on a football team with me, and he was killed the last day of the war -- the very last day.

And I said to this woman, you know, that would have been a fair question for an American journalist to ask 50 years ago -- why in the world should an American go halfway around the world to South Korea and get wounded or killed?

We were in a building that looked out on the city of Seoul and I said, I'll tell you why. Look out the window. And out that window you could see lights and cars and energy and a vibrant economy and a robust democracy. And of course I said to her if you look above the demilitarized zone from satellite pictures of the Korean Peninsula, above the DMZ is darkness, nothing but darkness and a little portion (Inaudible.) of light where Pyongyang is. The same people had the same population, the same resources. And look at the difference. There are concentration camps. They're starving. They've lowered the height for the people who go in the Army down to 4 feet 10 inches because people aren't tall enough. They take people in the military below a hundred pounds. They're 17, 18, 19 years old and frequently they look like they're 13, 14, and 15 years old.

Korea was won at a terrible cost of life -- thousands and thousands and thousands of people from the countries in this room. And was it worth it? You bet.

The world is a safer place today because the Coalition liberated 50 million people -- 25 million in Afghanistan and 25 million in Iraq.

RTWT

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:13 AM

December 22, 2003
That's Why It Was Successful

The French are whining that they were kept in the dark about Libya.

Too bad we couldn't have kept them in the dark about Iraq. We might have fixed things there a lot sooner.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:51 PM

We Play Right Into Their Hands

Here's an interesting, and disturbing article claiming that the powers that be are now concerned that Al Qaeda already has trained pilots working for foreign airlines. Just in case you can't tell, this makes me...mad.

Here's the key point:

Reinforced cockpit doors intended to thwart hijackers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks would now protect any terrorist pilot at the controls, the officials said on condition of anonymity.

After 911, we didn't change our (failed) philosophy toward aircraft hijacking--we just reinforced it and made it all the more idiotic and potentially disastrous.

Before 911 we were treated as sheep--if your airliner is hijacked, assume a docile position, let the grownups handle it, and hope that everything comes out all right.

The only lesson that our fearless/feckless leaders seemed to learn from that experience was that they didn't do enough to disarm the sheep, and the wolves in sheep's clothing. They stepped up the faux-sheep disarming campaign, carrying it out to the level of nose-hair clippers, further increasing the annoyance and waste of time, on the assumption (regrettably not unfounded) that most people would associate annoyance with safety. They decided that even those responsible for the safety of the plane and passengers wouldn't be allowed to arm themselves, relying instead on the notion that the pilots should be vaulted up in the cockpit so that no one could take it over.

Thankfully, due to a public uproar and a response from some of the few people in Congress with intact minds, the pilots were finally allowed to carry, but the administration continued to drag its feet for months in actually implementing it.

But now we learn the (what should have been obvious) folly in our approach. What if the pilot is the hijacker? What if the pilot is the terrorist? All he has to do is disable his flight crew (or better yet, ensure that they're already on his side) and he can deliver his passengers to their deaths while immolating another skyscraper, or nuclear plant, or government facility unmolested, thanks to the armored door, which prevents anyone of the possibly hundreds of people on the plane from preventing it. Now the only solution is to shoot it down, with all aboard.

D'oh!!!

Brilliant.

Consider an alternate scenario.

We stop wasting peoples' time looking for tweezers, and let them take care of themselves, which ultimately they already have to do, given the reality that the police cannot be everywhere everywhen.

Yes, occasionally a nutball will get on a plane with a weapon, but he will be subduable (as the Flight 93 people proved) and almost certainly subdued. If he's subdued prior to his access to the cockpit (which would have happened with Flight 93, and indeed all other flights that day had they realized the stakes), they don't suffer the fate of Flight 93--they get the aircraft safely to the ground, and only lose those few passengers who are overcome before the passengers (aka air militia) realize what's happening.

He doesn't get into the cockpit, not because it's armored and locked, but because no one lets him in there. And if he somehow gets in there nonetheless, as occurred in Flight 93, in the last extreme, the militia can still ultimately break in and prevent his fiendish mission, even if it costs them their lives.

But this administration continues to treat the people like a herd, rather than a pack, and so in the next incident, they may leave us even more defenseless, not only unable to save themselves, but this time, unable to save the White House or the Capitol Building.

And if the residents of those locations die, they'll fully deserve it for their elite arrogance and insufficient faith in the ability of free men to defend themselves and their country.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:30 PM

December 20, 2003
The Beginning Of A Bloodba'ath?

Would this have happened a week ago?

Unfortunately, it's inevitable that there are a lot of old scores to pay. It happened in Europe after the end of the Nazis, and it's been delayed in Iraq by fear of the return of Saddam, but it may be beginning now. The most challenging period may lie immediately ahead, in the struggle to prevent a full-fledged civil war, and keeping the whole country from being thrown out with the Ba'ath water.

[Update at 3 PM PST]

Here's a more in-depth story from the WaPo.

Nima said the assassinations have centered on Hussein followers implicated in violence, not all former party members. The murders seem meticulously planned, and the perpetrators leave behind no clues, he said. With few leads, detectives have made little progress in figuring out who is killing the Baathists, but Nima said this does not trouble him.
"There's only a limited number of them. Once they're all dead, this will have to end," he said.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:07 PM

December 14, 2003
Shelly Had His Number

Just to finish off this glorious day:

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:10 PM

The Continuing Quagmire

Now that he's in custody and supposedly cooperating, I wonder if Saddam will have anything to say about this.

I should add, head over to Instapundit, The Corner and The Command Post for a steady roundup of the news and reaction to it. The press' reaction is the most interesting.

[Update just before the President's statement]

OMG! As if things weren't bad enough for the idiotarians, on the same day as Saddam's capture, after years of prodding, cajoling and threats, the inimitable Iowahawk has finally started a blog. Behold it, and despair.

[Update just before noon]

He's continuing to build the site in real time. I just checked a few minutes ago, and he now has finished (or at least better populated) his "About" page, and he's steadily adding to the blogroll. No Paypal button yet, though, despite his admonition.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:11 AM

October 23, 2003
They Blew It Again

Some Iraqis say they won't forget how France has behaved, first in doing everything possible to keep Saddam in power, and now in stiffing them on aid. I think that Chirac has forgotten how long peoples' memories can be in that part of the world.

And these folks are supposed to be experts on diplomacy?

I suspect that when it comes to having contracts honored and getting debt repaid, the French (and Germans) just went to the back of the bus. In fact, I hope that Iraq explicitly repudiates Saddam's odious debt to France. I doubt if it would damage their ability to get loans anywhere else.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:04 PM

September 18, 2003
Lileks

...accidentally slipped a screed, dripping with fury at the hypocrisy of the war whiners, into a bleat.

In short: the same people who chide America for its short-attention span think we should have stopped military operations after the Taliban was routed. (And they quite probably opposed that, for the usual reasons.) The people who think it's all about oil like to snark that we should go after Saudi Arabia. The people who complain that the current administration is unable to act with nuance and diplomacy cannot admit that we have completely different approaches for Iraq, for Iran, for North Korea. The same people who insist we need the UN deride the Administration when it gives the UN a chance to do something other than throw rotten fruit.
The same people who accuse America of coddling dictators are sputtering with bilious fury because we actually deposed one.

Complain, yes! Carp! Criticize! Bitch! Moan! But there's a difference between criticizing the particulars of the Normandy invasion, and insisting that Hitler can be contained with bauxite sanctions. (Imagine if these people had been running papers in the 40s: enough troops? Supply line problems? Plans in place for getting the Berlin power grid up? Oh no! Battle of the Bulge! Quagmire! Bastogne is a mess! Roosevelt lied, Private Ryan died!) To those who sniff 'this isn't World War Two,' I'll agree: it's worse. It's going to be longer, meaner, and it sprawls across every map. Its ultimate severity won't be apparent to some people until a band of god-bothering raisin seekers sneaks a nuke into Baltimore on a cargo container.

Go read it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:00 AM

September 13, 2003
The Plot Revealed

The Evil Jews (TM) are going to kill Arafat with poisonous death rays beamed into his brain, according to the loons.

I think they'd better tighten up their own foil hats--the poisonous death rays, emanating in the form of photons from their lunatic screeds into their brain via their ocular nerves, and phonons reverberating across the air of the mosques, have driven them so far around the bend, they can't see the bend from there.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:43 AM

September 12, 2003
Not Flypaper--A Rat Trap

I love this headline at the New York Post. A paper that's not afraid to tell it like it is.

It's a shame for the Iraqi people, but I suspect that most would think that it's still better to be on the front line of the war against Islamofascism than to be under Saddam's thumb.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:43 PM

September 02, 2003
"Iran Is Winning This War, Not America"

Michael Ledeen has a disturbing article over at NRO, which points out the foolishness and irrelevance of the statement by the anti-war types that "there's no proof that Saddam had anything to do with September 11."

Many of our analysts are currently falling into one of those linguistic traps that Ludwig Wittgenstein used to warn us about. They constantly ask, "which organization do these terrorists come from?" But they should be asking the empirical question: "Does it still make sense to talk about separate terrorist organizations?" I have been arguing for the better part of two years that we should think of the terrorists as a group of mafia families that have united around a single war plan. The divisions and distinctions of the past no longer make sense; the terror mafias are working together, and their missions are defined by the states that protect, arm, fund, and assist them: Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:37 AM

July 29, 2003
Useful Idiots

Glenn's already noted it, but it's worth broadcasting this far and wide. Here's an insider's view of the "peace" movement and how it made itself an unwitting dupe for one of the most brutal dictators in the last few decades, all for the hatred of Amerikkka.

To be perfectly frank, we were less concerned with the suffering of the Iraqi people than we were in maintaining our moral challenge to U.S. foreign policy. We did not agitate for an end to sanctions for purely humanitarian reasons; it was more important to us to maintain our moral challenge to "violent" U.S. foreign policy, regardless of what happened in Iraq. For example, had we been truly interested in alleviating the suffering in Iraq, we might have considered pushing for an expanded Oil-for-Food program. Nothing could have interested us less. Indeed, we even regarded the paltry amounts of aid that we did bring to Iraq as a logistical hassle. When it suited us, we portrayed ourselves as a humanitarian nongovernmental organization and at other times as a political group lobbying for a policy change. In our attempt to have it both ways, we failed in both of these missions.
We were so preoccupied with our own agenda that we didn't notice or care that the regime made use of us. When critics asked us whether the group was being exploited by the Iraqi regime, we obfuscated, and in so doing put Saddam and his minions on the same level as the U.S. government...

Tonight, I caught a portion of one of the HBO series "Band of Brothers." It was the one in which the troops come across one of the camps (I didn't see the whole thing, so I don't know which it was--I think that it was Dachau).

These men (barely that--most of them were barely out of adolescence) had been through basic training, and were prepared, as well as any human can be without actually experiencing it, for the horrors of war, in which men come at other men either from afar with high-powered weaponry, or up close, with knives and bayonets, or even bare hands and fingernails, in the extreme.

But nothing in their training, even had their trainers anticipated it, could have prepared them for the horrific sights that would greet them as they liberated Germany from the madness that had overtaken that once-civilized nation for the past dozen years.

No lectures, or even films, had they existed, could have rendered them able to deal with the reality of hundreds, thousands of skeletal human beings in striped pajamas, numbers crudely tatooed on their arms to mark them and track them in the system forever--or even just for a few months--which in many cases was the same thing, walking up to them--often staggering, weak from unimaginable hunger--and hugging their deliverers, murmuring, whispering soft yet eternal words of pitiful gratitude in a language that they did not know.

No words of caution could have softened the blow to a farm kid from Iowa, who saw bodies stacked like cordwood, underfed and worked literally to death, or perforated with the few bullets that the monstrous regime had left at the end, eager to destroy as much living evidence as it could before fleeing from the liberators.

The documentary described and showed how the soldiers recruited (at gunpoint, if necessary) the local townspeople to help in cleaning up--moving and burying countless bodies, providing bread to the starving, but also keeping a close watch on them to ensure that they didn't fatally overeat after months of deprivation.

Imagine a middle-aged matron, perhaps the Frau of the mayor, lifting the lifeless body of a nameless, despised Jew, struggling to get it into a hastily dug grave, wondering how she had fallen to such a state. Imagine her muttering, under her breath, "Wir haben es nicht gewusst."

Perhaps they really didn't know.

But in Iraq, they knew.

This may seem like a diversion, but bear with me.

I was brushing a fly away from the kitchen door the other day with my hand. It's a stained, but otherwise unfinished wooden door, and as I flicked at the insect, I brushed it and caught a tiny wooden splinter under a fingernail.

I was instantly shocked at how much pain an almost-unseeable piece of cellulose could cause.

I was grilling some meat on a gas grill a couple days ago, and the meat stuck to the grill. In order to dislodge it, my hand spent a little more time above the heat than I planned, and my sensory system rapidly made me aware of that fact. This was just a momentary overheating of my fragile epidermis--what would a more extended excursion feel like? Boiling in oil, being baked alive in an oven...?

I've lived a very fortunate life. I've never known true pain. I've never broken a bone, or sustained any serious injury other than a sprained finger, and a deep cut on my inner thigh when I was young, which required several stitches and leaves a scar to this day. I've never given birth (and barring some kind of major medical advance, given my gender, never will).

My readers know that I often complain about government grown too large, but I've never feared a knock at the door, never worried about myself or my loved ones being taken away in the night, for no reason, to be imprisoned for years, or tortured, or murdered, or all of the above. I've never feared to speak my mind, and express my opinion of...anything--at least not because I thought it would result in such a knock in the night.

How then, to even begin to imagine living in a place like Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

I think about the sudden sharp and intense pain of that miniscule splinter, and then read about a prison in which all of the fingernails are brutally torn out, along with the toenails, with nothing resembling anaesthesia other than pure terror and shock, and I simply cannot get my mind around the concept of how much suffering and unending agony that would cause. And I'm grateful for that.

I relive that momentary increase in heat on my palm and then try unsuccessfully (which is probably a blessed thing) to envision it continued, not just on my palm, but on my arm, and other arm, and legs, and torso, and head, until the flesh is searing off them, until I am finally, mercifully graced with unconsciousness from the sheer physical insult to my body, but probably not soon enough.

I suspect that the "peace" activists are as unfamiliar with the potential consequences of the depths of human depravity as I, but it seems not to slow them down at all.

I've often been criticized for my satirical comparisons of reportage about WW II and the present war, by those who say Hitler was so much worse--how can I equate him to Saddam? But in what way was he worse?

Hitler never used chemical weapons on his enemies in the field (ignoring the chambers of course, for those Jews, and gypsies and Catholics and faggots, who in his mind deserved it). Yes, yes, he believed that we would retaliate in kind, but there was something more there. He was gassed in the trenches of the Great War--he knew what it was like. Even he, unthinkable though it may be, had his limits. There was an element of humanity there.

There are goals, and there are capabilities. Hitler's goals were odious, as were Saddam's. Hitler's capabilities, relative to the rest of the world in his time, were, given his goals, frightening. But Saddam's goals were no less--he was constrained only by the fact that he ruled a failed Arab state, rather than a vital European one, and that was a flaw that could, and would, have been eventually rectified by purchasing what he needed, given the advancing state of technology and his ability to get around the sanctions, allowing him to use oil money to buy the most destructive weapon that the current world had to offer.

Is this an apology for Hitler? Of course not, and anyone who would interpret my words in that way is of such a low intelligence level as to be not worthy of response. My only point is that it's possible, as bad as he was, to be worse than a Hitler. Hitler believed in something, however monstrous that something was, but Saddam believes (and as I write these words, I hope that the tense of that verb will change soon) in nothing, except raw power, and nihilism.

Yet in their hatred for America, and freedom, there continue to remain those who would embrace him and protect him, even now, after the children's prisons have been opened, after the mass graves have been found, after the endless stories of torture and rape and slaughter start to spill from the lips of those who have been silenced by the unremittant terror for decades. And their crime is even greater than that of those who appeased and supported the ideals of the Nazis, vast though that was.

Because unlike the Germans, the Iraqi people knew. They couldn't avoid knowing. Few of them, even the Ba'athist loyalists, were untouched by the mindless brutality of the regime. Almost everyone had either lost a family member or friend, or seen them savaged beyond the imagining of anyone in a civilized country, or had such an experience themselves. They knew, and even before the liberation, it was possible to learn it from them, albeit at great peril to both those learning and those teaching.

But when one has a juvenile, anti-capitalist, transnational progressive agenda, it's easier to say "wenn ich es nur gewusst hätte" (if only I had known). And I suspect that even now, they still don't want to know.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:10 PM

July 26, 2003
Is It Vietnam Yet?

Here's what the grunts in Iraq think of the media.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:18 PM

February 18, 2003
The Delusions Of The Protestors

Mark Steyn describes it to a tee.

Hitler's problem was that he was over-invested in ideology. He'd invented a universal theory -- the wickedness of the international Jewish conspiracy -- and he persisted in fitting every square peg of cold hard reality into that theory's round hole. Thus, Churchill must be a "puppet of Jewry." As a general rule, when it's reality versus delusion, bet on reality. That held true in the Cold War. Moral equivalists like Harold Pinter insisted that America and the Soviet Union were both equally bad. But the traffic across the Berlin Wall was all one way. East German guards were not unduly overworked trying to keep people from getting in. The Eastern bloc collapsed because it was a lie, and the alternative wasn't...
...The new Universal Theory, to which 99% of Saturday's speakers and placards enthusiastically subscribed, is that, whatever the problem, American imperialist cowboy aggression is to blame. In fact, it's not so different from the old Universal Theory, in that the international Zionist conspiracy is assumed to be behind the scenes controlling the cowboys: Bush is a "puppet of Jewry," just like Churchill was -- notwithstanding the fact that America's Jews voted overwhelmingly for Gore. But, if you believe that the first non-imperialist great power in modern history is the source of all the world's woes, then logic is irrelevant. "It's all about oil"? Yes, for the French, whose stake in Iraqi oil is far more of a determining factor than America's ever has been or will be. "America created Saddam"? No, not really, the French and Germans and Russians have sold him far more stuff, and Paris built him that reactor which would have made him a nuclear power by now, if the Israelis hadn't destroyed it in the Eighties.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:27 AM

February 12, 2003
Great Timing

Just in case you weren't mad enough at the pusillanimous burghers in Brussels over the recent antics with the French and Germans, the Supreme Court of Belgium just decided that Sharon can be tried for genocide over Sabra and Shatila.

Like "hate" and "racism," apparently the word "genocide" has lost all useful meaning.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:39 PM

January 22, 2003
Peace In Our Time

The EU says that we can't go into Iraq without UN approval.

Well, I guess that settles it. Might as well have the ships turn back.

More and more, as I look across the Atlantic, it seems to be through a looking glass.

There seem to be multiple delusions going on here. First of all, we already have UN approval. SCR 1441 was carefully crafted by Powell to ensure that was the case. But the Europeans continue to fantasize that there is a need for another resolution (one that the French can therefore block by veto), when they lost that battle in October.

I guess that they're in denial. If they were to no longer believe this, they'd have to confront the reality that they've made themselves utterly irrelevant. They'd no longer be able to pretend that they were players on the stage of world events.

But here are the other major delusions:

Prime Minister Costas Simitis of Greece, EU president until the end of June, said a war would harm peace and stability in the Middle East.
Speaking after a meeting with visiting Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Nastase, Simitis said:

"We both estimate that peace (in Iraq) must be preserved. We both believe a conflict will result in delaying many developments and is a conflict that will not benefit stability and peace in the region."

This supposes that "stability" is a positive attribute in a hellhole. After all, a grave is stable.

It also postulates that there is some existing "peace" in Iraq that is preservable, and that it is desirable to preserve it.

Take the second first. Can a country whose government terrorizes its own citizens, that has Al Qaeda guerillas attacking the northern parts nightly (the parts not under Saddam's control), be properly said to be at peace? Not in my book. There will be no peace in Iraq as long as Saddam or one of his partners in monstrousness are in power there, and as long as Al Qaeda has safe haven in Iran from which to attack the Kurds in the north.

The Middle East is not at peace now, and will not be until there are wholesale changes in governments there. Thus, stability is not our friend, because it's the stability of constant warfare by the regional governments against their own people (and particularly their women), some of which spills over into attacks on us, as we saw a year and a half ago.

We want to, we must destabilize the present Middle East--it's the only hope of restabilizing it into something that offers hope for its inhabitants, and true peace, for us as well as them. As the old saying goes, sometimes, the only way out is through.

The Eurocrats who would perpetuate the notions described above are not contributing to peace, any more than did Neville Chamberlain sixty five years ago. Their course of delay and obfuscate would just make the ultimate necessary outcome much more difficult and costly in human lives, as did his.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:43 AM

December 22, 2002
More TSA Follies

[Note, as I write these words, this post is three and a half years old. For anyone coming here in April 2006 via Kathryn's link at The Corner, this post is closed for comments, but I've started another one here]

I'm traveling, and have limited net access.

One quick travel horror story, though. We went to LAX terminal 4 (American) for a flight to St. Louis via Dallas. We got there later than we should have, for reasons both our fault and the cab company.

We got into line as usual for security (we had e-tickets). After waiting for several minutes, we were told that we had to have boarding passes. New procedure.

We tried the self-service machines, but they wouldn't issue the passes, because we were too close to flight time. So resigned to missing the flight, we got into line to talk to an agent.

Fortunately, our flight was late, so we got our boarding passes and got back into the security line again.

This time, they segregated us into a separate line, apparently reserved for suspicious types, though it wasn't at all clear what profiled us. This is apparently a new procedure, under test at this terminal (though not American's other LAX terminal--terminal 3). Apparently they no longer pull random people out of line at the gate for the wanding and luggage rummaging, but instead do it at security. They also no longer check ID at the gate--the boarding pass alone is sufficient under this procedure.

One step forward, two back, in my opinion.

I guess the idea is that they no longer delay departures for people still being frisked at the gate. Now, you get frisked back at security, and if you miss your flight, you're screwed.

Anyway, we managed to make the flight.

One more irritation. At the gate in Dallas, which was still using the old procedure, they asked for ID along with boarding pass. I have an old expired California drivers license that I use for ID, because it's no big deal if I lose it (as I did my passport a year ago).

The agent looked at it, and said, "This license is expired."

I said, "Yes. So?"

"It has to be a valid ID."

"It is a valid ID."

"But it's expired."

"But I'm not. Nothing happened after it expired to make it no longer my ID. It's not a valid driver's license, but it's still a valid ID."

There was no arguing with her. She had to see a current driver's license. Not wanting to hold up the line, I got out my Wyoming license, good until 2004. And fumed.

This is called "not understanding the concept."

Someone told her that it had to be a valid ID, without explaining what that means.

But what are you gonna do?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:13 PM

September 26, 2002
Some More Good Terrorists

The IDF apparently knocked off some top Hamas people today.

Good. It's exactly what they need to keep doing. The best way to stop this nonsense is to make it look like a very unpromising career path.

[Update at 1:57 PM PDT]

Reuters says that the top guy got away again. Of course, it's hard to know whether or not it's true. Reuters doesn't even think that he's a terrorist--just a "militant." At least they didn't call him a "freedom fighter."

The only place that the word "terror" or any variation on it appears in the article, of course, is with respect to Israel.

"We are determined to wipe out Zionist terrorism. They are targeting civilians. They are targeting children. There are at least 15 children among the wounded here."

True or false: if there had been only children in that car, how many think that the Israelis would have fired rockets at it? Raise your hands, everyone.

Sorry, they weren't "targeting children," no matter how much Reuters wants to leave lies like this unchallenged. They do say that:

Israel denies trying to harm civilians in army operations against the Palestinian uprising. Since the start of the uprising, its forces -- aided by informers -- have traced and killed dozens of militants alleged to have attacked its citizens.
Palestinians brand such Israeli operations state-sponsored assassination and the tactic has been condemned internationally. Israel says it is acting in self-defense.

No mention of condemnation of the Palestinian war crime of hiding soldiers among a civilian population, of course. That's never mentioned. I suspect that I'll be much older, with much less hair, before it ever is, at least at Reuters.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:41 PM

September 08, 2002
On Hallowed Ground

Here's a column by Dave Barry that (unusually) is not very funny.

It's, instead, very moving. It also demonstrates once again (as did Mark Twain, and does James Lileks) that you can't be a great humorist without also being a great writer. If you don't read anything else today, I recommend this.

On This Week this morning (which was Sam and Cokie's last show--I don't know if I'll be able to stomach an hour of Stephanopolous), a couple questions were asked. One was, what changed on September 11 that suddenly made Iraq more dangerous?

The answer is, of course, nothing. Saddam was just as dangerous on September 10 as he was on September 12.

The difference was not in the actual danger but in our perception of it. We now understand that we are no longer safely cocooned across vast oceans from our enemies--they can come here and attack us on our soil, and they are among us today. We now know that when people say they want to kill us, we should take them at their word.

But something else happened on September 11. While our perception of the danger increased dramatically, the actual danger decreased. I personally felt safer flying on September 12 than on September 10, not because of the Patriot Act, or because we made airline security workers federal employees with spiffy new uniforms, and not because I could fly secure in the knowledge that my seatmate didn't have breast milk in a bottle, or a nose-hair trimmer.

No, I felt safer because I knew the danger, and I knew that my fellow citizens now knew the danger as well, and the brave, ordinary people on Flight 93 proved that never again would murderous madmen hold innocent lives hostage to evil, wretched goals.

As George Will said this morning, Americans are watching now. Even if the mindless bureaucracy of Norm Mineta refuses to racially profile, Americans are smart enough to know that the danger comes from young men (and perhaps women) from the Middle East, not little old ladies from Fargo.

Someone (perhaps Mark Steyn), said earlier this week that September 11 was like rolling Pearl Harbor and Jimmy Doolittle's Tokyo raid into a single day. We were attacked without warning, and within an hour, we were fighting back, and struck a blow against the enemy.

The memorial - the word seems grandiose, when you see it - is a gravel parking area, two portable toilets, two flagpoles and a fence. The fence was erected to give people a place to hang things. Many visitors leave behind something - a cross, a hat, a medal, a patch, a T-shirt, an angel, a toy airplane, a plaque - symbols, tokens, gifts for the heroes in the ground. There are messages for the heroes, too, thousands of letters, notes, graffiti scrawls, expressing sorrow, and love, and anger, and, most often, gratitude, sometimes in yearbookish prose:
"Thanx 4 everything to the heroes of Flight 93!!"

Visitors read the messages, look at the stuff on the fence, take pictures. But mostly they stare silently across the field, toward the place where Flight 93 went down. They look like people you see at Gettysburg, staring down the sloping field where Pickett's charge was stopped, and the tide of war changed, in a few minutes of unthinkable carnage. There is nothing, really, to see on either field now, but you find it hard to pull your eyes away, knowing, imagining, what happened there...

...we need to remember this: The heroes of Flight 93 were people on a plane. Their glory is being paid for, day after day, by grief. Tom Burnett does not belong to the nation. He is, first and foremost, Deena Burnett's husband, and the father of their three daughters. Any effort we make to claim him as ours is an affront to those who loved him, those he loved.

He is not ours.

And yet ...

... and yet he is a hero to us, he and the other people on Flight 93. We want to honor them, just as we want to honor the firefighters, police officers and civilians at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon who risked, and sometimes gave, their lives to try to rescue others. We want to honor them for what they did, and for reminding us that this nation is nowhere near as soft and selfish as we had come to believe.

We want to honor them.

Years will pass, and more people will come here, and more, people who were not yet born when Flight 93 went down, coming to see this famous place.

And so in a few years, when grass grows once again over the place where Flight 93 hit the ground, when the "X"s have faded from the hemlocks, there will be a memorial here, an official, permanent memorial to the heroes of Flight 93. It will be dedicated in a somber and dignified ceremony, and people will make speeches. Somebody - bet on it - will quote the Gettysburg Address, the part about giving the last full measure of devotion. The speeches will be moving, but they will also prove Lincoln's point, that the words of the living can add nothing to the deeds of the dead.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AM

April 23, 2002
For Our Friends Up North

The Canadian Forces web site has a message board where you can post messages to the troops. They might appreciate some additional condolences from the Yanks for the tragic accident last week in which Canadian solders were killed by a U.S. bomb.

[Thanks to Damian Penny]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:43 AM

More Palestinian Lies Exposed

Three Armenian priests in the Church of the Nativity, (you know, the ones who "weren't hostages"?), escaped last night.

The priests told of "shocking sights" inside the church, including the beating by terrorists of some Christian clergy last night.

Nawwww, no hostages there. Just a little friendly S&M.

Of the many instances of one-sided reporting in this war, this particular incident is one that I find the most inexplicable. I'm still having trouble finding anyone who will criticize the Palestinians for taking over the church--all the blame for the standoff still seems to be levied on the Israelis.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:02 AM

April 21, 2002
Irony

"Demolishing the homes of Arab civilians... Shooting handcuffed prisoners... Forcing local Arabs to test areas where mines may have been planted..."

These sound like the sort of accusations made by British and other European officials concerning Israel's recent actions in Jenin. In fact, they are descriptions from official British documents concerning the methods used by the British authorities to combat Palestinian Arab terrorism in Jenin and elsewhere in 1938.

That's the fascinating beginning of an article in the Jerusalem Post, that describes how there are no new things under the sun.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 PM

April 18, 2002
New Terrorism?

An aircraft has hit the Pirelli Tire building in Milan. It's been characterized as a terrorist attack. Apparently it was a Piper with explosives on board. Unless they're simply mistaking the fuel tank exploding for a deliberate one.

That's too bad. Italy was already on our side. I didn't want this to occur anywhere, but it if it had happened in Paris or Brussels, it might have had a more salutory effect on some of the idiotic attitudes there.

Fox is now saying that there is a report that the pilot sent an SOS, so it's still a confused situation.

[Update at 9:35AM PDT]

Now they're saying that it's looking less like terrorism, because of the multiple SOS signals. It's still bizarre though, that it would accidentally hit the tallest building in Milan, and probably the closest thing to a symbol of capitalism they have there. Of course, the timing is not optimal to maximize casualties (early evening in Italy, when many have presumably gone home). It may indeed be just a weird accident.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:17 AM

April 12, 2002
New Terminology

I just heard Bridget Quinn on Fox News use the phrase "homicide bomber" rather than "suicide bomber." I wonder if they have a new style guide, or she did it on her own.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:54 AM

Honor

For people who agree with Kathy Kinsley's proposal that the Afghan scientists who hid the radioactive material from Al Qaeda deserve a Peace Prize, there's now an on-line petition available.

I've signed it. (Thanks to Dan Hartung for setting it up)

[Update at 10:45AM PDT]

When I signed early this morning, I was number four. Now there are twenty seven. I know that Kathy and I have both publicized it, but don't know if anyone else has picked it up on their blogs yet. We'll know that Instantman has when it starts jumping by orders of magnitude. Did all those signatures come from my and Kathy's site?

[1:11PM PDT Update]

Now there are thirty seven signatures, and I see that Bill Quick has linked to it.

Let's see how fast we can spread this meme.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:52 AM

April 09, 2002
National Palestinian Radio

I just heard an infuriating broadcast on Morning All Things Considered (a program that was particularly woefully mistitled this morning--it should have been One Side Considered) on the situation in Israel and the West Bank. It was shockingly blatant anti-Israeli propaganda, even for them.

First, they give a run down of the news--Israel is still ignoring the U.S. calls to withdraw, except for a couple villages (which are not really part of a withdrawal, but just going through the motions to try to assuage world opinion). They are still holding the major cities, and "claiming" to have found rockets close to Jerusalem.

But the worst part was when they reported that there was a firefight on the Church of the Nativity. The reportage is that the Israelis have fired on it. The Israeli's "claimed" to have been fired on first (but who can believe those lying Jews, I suppose one is to infer from the way they say it). They report anger from the Holy See, with a quote from some representative, who describes the attack as "barbaric," and there is "no excuse."

Absolutely no mention is made of the fact that armed Palestinian terrorists have been holed up there for days, possibly with hostages. Not just no criticism--no mention. If one only heard the report, and had no other knowledge, one would assume that the Israelis simply attacked one of the holiest Christian sites, with no true provocation.

Where is the condemnation, where is the outrage, at the Palestinians for taking over the Church in the first place? I've heard absolutely none, including from the Holy See.

Then, after the "news," they of course have the obligatory, unbalanced interview with Peter Jennings' ex-girlfriend, Hanan Ashrawi. They pitch a bunch of softballs at her, asking how terrible it is, expressing sympathy, asking if it's true that she's depressed and without hope, as she goes through her litany about Israeli "terrorism" and "war crimes," how the Palestinian Authority is being dismantled and how the world simply stands by while Israel is not held accountable.

They don't, of course, sully the moment by asking any unpleasant questions concerning Palestinian, or Palestinian Authority accountability for murders of Israeli civilians, or about the weapons caches being found. Again, if one heard only this broadcast, one would never know that prior to the incursion, Israel had been plagued by waves of murder bombers. No, it's just the innocent Palestinian people being oppressed by the Evil Jews.

Disgusting.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:41 AM

April 07, 2002
Like It Will Make A Difference?

In an article in the Journal today, Fred Kagan warns that the U.S. military lacks resources for the war.

Without passing comment on his general thesis, I have to take exception to this comment:

"...the importance of our missions in Bosnia and Kosovo should be allowed to slip from view, either. One of the purposes our forces serve there is to protect Muslims from Serbian attack. A pullout would mean that Slavs would again begin harming Muslims. Considering the precipitous rise in tensions between the U.S. and the Muslim world, is this the time to run that particular risk?

What risk? They've shown no gratitude, or even recognition of what we've done for Muslims in the Balkans. If we need the troops to fight where there's actually a threat to us, pull 'em out of there. Let the Europeans spend some of that money they've had to build welfare states because we've been defending them for sixty years, to clean up the mess in their own back yard.

[Monday 1:25PM PDT update]

Reader "Pouncer" suggests:

If, in fact, the US is short resources to fight a major war, the "first domino" to kick over among Axis of Evil adversaries should be--North Korea.

We keep some 30,000 troops tied up there enforcing a cease fire at the DMZ. We've done so for 50 years. A very strong ally with major strategic interest in keeping the North Koreans under control is trained, rested, and ready to act under U.S. guidance. (That would be, unlike Northern Alliance or Kurdis irregulars, the actual ARMY of the nation of South Korea.)

The army is often charged with making plans "to fight the last war." To the extent that's true, there must be libraries full of plans to topple North Korea--hundreds of scenarios already wargamed out. Picking one may be a challenge, but any of the best ten of a hundred is likely to be okay.

Kick over North Korea, free up 29,700 U.S. fighting men (assuming about 1% casuality rates). Demonstrate resolve. Take the spotlight off the Middle East. Show Mainland China that we can be serious when the mood strikes us...

Then move the focus back on Iraq. If, that is, such a place still exists by the time the Israelis get through.

That's not a bad idea, except that they're probably worried about China's reaction. The last time we tried that, we ended up facing Chinese troops, and it's not unthinkable that the same could happen again. Of course, the difference is that China is not as enamored with NK as it used to be, and Russia has very little love for it, so we might be able to pull it off.

It's too bad that we've kept Japan toothless for so long--it would be a lot easier to let them do the job, as their contribution to the war. But I suspect that would reopen too many old wounds from the last time they invaded Korea, with less benign intent.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PM

April 02, 2002
You Might Be A Terrorist...

Like Reuters, The Muslim nations are having a problem coming up with a common definition for terrorism.

The countries agreed to form a 13-member committee to "work toward an internationally agreed definition of terrorism'' under a U.N. convention to "formulate a joint organized response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestation.''

Well, I'm so relieved. I'll sleep much better at night knowing that there's a thirteen-member committee of Islamic nations working toward a definition of terrorism. Based on the following, though, one suspects that they may have some difficulty squaring the circle.

The declaration said the countries reject "any attempts to link terrorism to the struggle of the Palestinian people'' to establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.

"We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism,'' the draft said.

They then proceed to make just such a link.

The roots of terrorism, including "foreign occupation, injustice and exclusion'' should be addressed, it said.

While they're coming up with the definition, maybe one of them can explain to me how "foreign occupation, injustice and exclusion" are roots of terrorism, but that the supposed victims of these evils aren't engaging in terrorism.

To say that there are gray areas is not an excuse to avoid making calls on acts that are clearly black. There is a region between earth's atmosphere and space that is neither air nor space. That doesn't prevent us from saying that a Cessna 120 flies in the atmosphere, and that the Cassini probe to Saturn was in space.

There may be some acts that are open to interpretation by reasonable people as to whether they are terrorist acts or not, but they're not the ones that have been dominating the news for the last half year.

Hey guys, let me help you out here--it's clear that you're confused.

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, if you strap TNT to yourself and detonate it in a crowded pizza parlor, you might be a terrorist.

If you walk into a wedding party and start spraying it with AK-47 rounds, you might be a terrorist.

If you drive a rental truck full of high explosives into the basement of a skyscraper and blow it up, you might be a terrorist.

If you purchase airplane tickets, then slit the throats of flight attendants and commandeer the aircraft, and fly it into the side of that same skyscraper, you might be a terrorist.

And if you obfuscate the definition of terrorism, use illogical and inconsistent statements to defend the above behaviors, change the subject whenever anyone calls you on it, pretend that there's any justification whatsoever for them, ship weapons to those carrying them out, and provide large amounts of funding to the widows and family of the perps, you just might be a terrorist yourself.

In which case, you might want to at least consider recusing yourself from any committee dedicated to "defining terrorism."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:10 PM

March 14, 2002
Porous Snake

I thought that the purpose of Anaconda was to cordon off the area so as not to allow any of the "rebels" (and what's up with that word, anyway? They're not "rebels"--they're colonial oppressors and terrorists) escape.

So why are we hearing news reports about some of them escaping?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AM

March 11, 2002
Stuck In The Caribbean

Six months ago today, I'd just gotten back to San Juan from a diving vacation in Bonaire, and was about to get on an American flight back to LA via Dallas. The flight was supposed to leave about 11 AM Atlantic Standard Time (which also happens to be the same time zone as Eastern Daylight Time).

Packed, and waiting for the time to approach at which I was to take a cab to Luis Munoz Marin Airport, I was doing some work on the computer in our apartment in Isla Verde, listening to Fox & Friends on the television. Just as the program was coming to an end at 9 AM, I heard E.D. Donahey announce that they'd just gotten word that a plane had collided with the World Trade Center.

The first thing that crossed my mind was that it must have been a private pilot who lost his way. Was the weather bad? Then I saw the image, and it was clearly a CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited, other than the smoke coming from the fire). Now it was starting to look deliberate--it's hard to come up with a plausible scenario in which someone flies into one of the world's tallest buildings, on a clear sunny morning, by accident, short of a heart attack in the cockpit or something.

As the fire burns, Fox brings in a supposed aviation expert, who assures us (despite my own thoughts) that this is just a navigational problem of some kind--it's very unlikely that it is deliberate. Just as he finishes saying this, I see, in real time, the second plane hit the second tower.

Probably feeling like a fool, the "expert" says something like, "well, now this is starting to look like it's deliberate." Award that man a clue!

We're clearly at war, the only question is with whom.

It's now just twenty minutes or so before I have to decide whether to take a cab to the airport and get on a plane to the mainland. It seems crazy to even bother, but there's been no announcement as to the status of other flights. But fortunately, just about the time that I have to make the decision, they announce that all flights have been grounded. Even if that doesn't include Puerto Rico, I know that no planes are going to depart to Dallas, and if even if it does, I won't get another flight to LA. So I'm now stuck in San Juan indefinitely.

We get word that the Pentagon is hit. I call a business associate in Old Town Alexandria, who has just gotten in to work, and tell him to look out the window. He sees the smoke and flames on the other side of Crystal City.

Now, as I continue to watch, I start musing idly about how I'd get back to LA if I really had to. I'm thinking, I could catch a non-American flight over to Santo Domingo, and then maybe Air Jamaica or something to Tijuana, and then walk across the border. But then I hear that the borders are closed as well.

So, I ended up spending almost another week in Puerto Rico (not a bad thing at all, as Patricia was there). The following Monday, I was on one of the first flights to leave after the fleet grounding. Security was clearly tighter--I had to put my computer through the machine separately, for the first time. The crew on the flight was somber. I wondered if they had lost friends that day...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:20 PM

Ingrates

Victor Davis Hanson reminds us that we don't just have a problem with Saudi Arabia. We must also decide what to do about Our Friends The Kuwaitis.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:16 PM

March 10, 2002
This Isn't The Way War Is Supposed To Be

Sophomoric is a literal description of this opinion piece by a college student at the University of Connecticut, on how he's tired of the War On Terrorism, now that it's turning into a real war, in which young men like him are dying. I hope that the sheltered life and ignorance of history indicated by this editorial is the exception, and not the rule, for his generation.

War, for most of my life, has been antiseptic - - free of pain and worry.

For most of your life? You say that as though you didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. As though, at the ripe old age of twenty or twenty one, you should have expected to see it all, and to know it all.

When bad guys come a-knockin', we go over, kick some butt and come on back in time for the Super Bowl. Going over to fight in a foreign war (excuse me, "police action") is nothing more than spending a semester abroad. U.S. troops don't die, we don't lose, we're the best! We're the Yankees of international warfare.

And now you're just Shocked, Shocked, to discover that real wars are not just a video game.

I don't know any of the lost souls; none of them come from Connecticut, or even New England. But one name struck me as I read the list. An Army soldier by the name of Pfc. Matthew A. Commons, of Boulder City, Nev. What struck me was not his name, or place of origin. What struck me was his age. He died serving his country at the age of 21.

Hate to break it to you, son, but in army life, twenty one is an old man, often a battle-scarred veteran.

One wonders if this guy's ever read any books about war, like The Red Badge of Courage, or any Hemingway, or even Catch-22. I suspect that they were shoved out of his curriculum for more politically-correct reading fare.

Perhaps it's a function of my age,

Gee, ya think?

or of the nature of this new conflict, but war no longer seems antiseptic to me. It's no longer anonymous soldiers being sent off to fight, it's my friends, family and co-workers. And unlike the Persian Gulf, our soldiers are starting to die..

So, what's your point? Now that American men are dying, it's time to call off the war? It's all right to drop bombs on people you don't know from thirty thousand feet, like a video game, but not to actually play "duck, duck, goose" in a mortar exchange, or engage in hand-to-hand combat?

And golly, some of your friends, family and coworkers might have to go off to die?

Here's a clue, son. I know it's tiresome to have to deal with the old fossils, but go talk to your grandparents, if they're still living, or someone of their generation, if not, and ask them what it was like after Pearl Harbor. When everyone enlisted. When the casualties weren't all reported in the New York Times, because there wouldn't have been enough newsprint and ink for it. When everyone knew someone who was injured, or killed, and the chronicling of their fate was featured in every home town newspaper, for weeks, upon months, upon years.

And no one whined about it, as you are here, because they knew that there was only one way to deal with the Hitlers and Tojos and Stalins of the world, and that if they didn't, the carnage would be even worse, and it wouldn't be just sons and brothers and fathers, but sisters and mothers and daughters, down to the babies.

How soon are military units sent to Iraq, North Korea or Somalia, as President Bush bolsters his approval ratings by pumping more and more money into defense spending? More importantly, what are we looking to accomplish? When will we be safe from terrorism? When we have recognized our foreign policy mistakes, or when we have bombed the very last militant off of the very last mountaintop?

We have recognized our foreign policy mistakes, son. Our foreign policy mistakes were to allow people like bin Laden to think that he could murder innocent people wholesale, and suffer no consequences, partly because we thought that cruise missiles could substitute for eyes and arms on the ground, giving rise to your previous video-game warfare fantasies. And yes, it will be over when we have removed the last terrorist (not militant) from the last mountaintop, or camp, or alley. And that's not going to happen overnight, but you're young--you'll probably see it happen.

For the sake of my friends, and for the sake of the families of the soldiers who have died, I hope the answer lies with the diplomat and not with the gun.

Hope has no power. To the degree that you should be hoping anything, though, you should be hoping that more people don't think as you do, and that others will be willing to take up the challenge, even if you are not, so that your children and grandchildren will have an opportunity to write asinine editorials like yours.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:34 PM

March 08, 2002
Norm Mineta Knows Best

I made the mistake of listening to NPR again this morning, and they had a story about airline security that had me chewing ten-penny nails, due to both the story itself, and their coverage of it.

I only caught the tail end, but apparently some federal Air Marshals arrived late for an American flight, and tried to commandeer seats in first class, insisting that the passengers whose seats they wanted be put off the plane. Their excuse was that they needed to be able to see the cockpit. The airline had given them aisle seats in the front of coach, with a clear view, but that wasn't good enough for them. Perhaps they wanted to get the free booze, to complement their intoxication with power. The airline didn't let them get away with it, but it wasn't clear what the outcome was (the story's over at NPR in audio, but my sound card is on the fritz right now).

But what really fried me was the ending. The reporter says that there's an inherent tension between the government, which wants to fight terrorism, and the airlines, who want to generate revenue.

She really said it, just like that. As though the airline has no intrinsic interest in fighting terrorism, as though they'd cheerfully set up charter flights full of Al Qaeda operatives, even help them plan the flight, from takeoff to skyscraper, as long as they got paid.

She got it precisely reversed, of course. The airlines are taking a balanced approach--they are interested in both fighting terrorism and staying in business, whereas the government, at least if we are to judge by its actions, has no interest in the financial health of the industry whatsoever.

This reminds me of the old arguments about how we needed more government regulation on aircraft maintenance and procedures, because in its absence, the airlines would cut corners, and skimp, and crash airplanes, and kill people.

It never seems to occur to these nimrods that crashing airplanes is bad for business. For some unaccountable reason, people don't like to fly on airlines whose planes fall out of the sky with any regularity. Insurance carriers won't give very good rates to airlines whose airplanes have to be replaced often. Airlines will have trouble hiring employees who feel that they're taking their lives in their hands on every trip.

No one has more incentive than an airline to make an aircraft safe, whether from mechanical failure, or from nutballs with box cutters.

On the other hand, government bureaucrats will fanatically seek safety, to the exclusion of all else, including the rights of passengers and their willingness to tolerate the disastrous state of air travel today, because they know that if there is another hijacking, they'll be blamed, particularly now that air security has been made a federal responsibility.

But no bureaucrat will suffer if an airline goes under--there are too many other excuses that they can use to deflect blame.

And no bureaucrat will lose his job because of marketing trips not made, hands not shaken, deals not done, acquaintances not made, wealth and jobs not created, because it's just gotten to be too much of a pain in the ass to fly. But the damage to the economy will continue unabated and silently.

This is another reason why the federalization of this function has been, and is going to continue to be, so disastrous for the industry--there's no counterbalance to the madness.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:41 AM

March 05, 2002
More Lunacy From The Land Of The Pyramids

Check out these ravings from an Egyptian columnist. He compares Gitmo to Auschwitz. We're broiling the prisoners alive in the searing tropical sun. It sounds like he's spent a little too long in the sun himself.

Oh, and did you know that Dick Cheney is a
"super-racist Jew"? Amazing what you can learn when you read the foreign papers.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:05 PM

March 04, 2002
Wacky Anti-Saddam-Whacker

R.C. Longworth, advertised as a "Tribune senior correspondent," stunk up the Windy City yesterday with this bit of blithering idiocy, in which he counsels against the danger of taking out Saddam:

Well, that was a tidy little war in Afghanistan. We won, more or less. Not many casualties, and we caught a few of those Al Qaeda guys, if not the big shots.

Yeah, but if I google you, I'm betting you didn't predict that outcome.

What's next? Why, Iraq, of course. It's time to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Everyone agrees. So why not?

Actually, there are lots of reasons why not. But Washington seems so intent on attacking Iraq, as the first point on President Bush's "axis of evil," that bombs will be falling on Baghdad before any questions are asked or objections raised.

Really? Well, by my count, questions have been asked, and objections raised, from you and your ilk, for months. Ever since, in fact, you realized that whining about Afghanistan was beating a dead horse, and the outlines of the next target came into focus, way back last fall. And not a bomb has fallen on Baghdad yet. So your silly prediction has already been grossly falsified.

The United States is racing toward a war with Iraq on the assumption that we can topple Hussein quickly, with relatively few casualties, no impact on oil supplies, no damage to our relations with the rest of the world, no serious domestic opposition, and no hitches in putting a post-Hussein Iraq back together again.

No, the United States is proceeding calmly and resolutely toward a war with Iraq, in full knowledge that some or all of those things may not be the case, but that the risks of not doing so exceed the risk that it won't be as easy or clean as we might like. From just what planet is it that you email in these stupid little screeds to Chicago?

All this is debatable, to say the least. But the administration seems determined, and the Democratic opposition has been quieted by the president's 83 percent approval ratings. In short, although questions emerged in the past week about the president's long-term plans, nobody in Washington is saying, "Wait a minute."

This was written (or at least published) yesterday. Were you holed up in a cave somewhere last week, when Tom Daschle and Bob Byrd were castigated for doing just that?

If there are doubts beyond the Beltway, they aren't being heard in any coordinated way. Memories of Sept. 11 remain fresh. The nation, terribly wounded but still dangerous, seems ready to lash out at its enemies, wherever they are.

For "lash out at its enemies," read "take preemptive action against those who have stated their desire and intent to see us dead, and have the means to make it happen."

Administration officials talk approvingly of a national "war fever" that gives Bush a free hand in eradicating the "axis of evil." Public opinion polls back this up. One of the most recent, by the Pew Research Center, showed that 92 percent of Americans endorse military force in the war on terrorism and no less than 73 percent want to see us attack Iraq--and Sudan too.

Well, it's not surprising that they approve of the fact that they have public support for actions that they believe that they would have to take, even if the polls were reversed.

What's your point? Do you have one?

As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "If we have to go into 15 or more countries, we ought to do it."

This amounts to a mandate for permanent war in which dissent is treason.

Yes, the prisons are overflowing with the dissenters we've been rounding up. They're even having to let out murderers, drug users, and cigarette executives to make room for them.

[VOICE="Dr. Evil"]
Riiiggghhhht...
[/VOICE]

Haven't you noticed in your hysteria, Mr. Longworth, that we haven't even charged Johnny "Jihad" Walker Lindh with treason? And he had actually taken up arms against us.

No wonder doubts are hushed, even among opposition Democrats such as Al Gore who have abandoned their duty to oppose in favor of a national wartime consensus. If the administration thinks Americans want war, it may be right.

Gee, ya think?

Or it may be wrong. Pollsters say in-depth polling and focus groups indicate that this support is softer than the raw figures suggest. Mounting anecdotal evidence supports this.

Good ol' anecdotal evidence. The last refuge of the scoundrel without real evidence.

About 20 prominent Chicagoans gathered recently for a private dinner to hear an emissary from the Eastern Establishment lay out the administration's case for a war on Iraq. It was a conservative crowd--lawyers, business people, bankers, a sprinkling of academics, even a retired army general. All probably supported the war in Afghanistan, and there wasn't a card-carrying dove in the lot.

Did you check their cards?

Somewhat to their own surprise, these citizens lined up unanimously against a war on Iraq. All agreed the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein. But all felt that a U.S. attack on him would do more harm than good, for a variety of reasons.

They "felt" that, eh? Once more with feeling. Feeeelllliiinngggs...wo wo wo Feeeellliiinnngggsss...

First, Hussein's terrorist credentials are pretty theoretical. The idea of attacking him arose after Sept. 11, and the administration has made him a target in the war on terrorism. Certainly, he has a fearsome arsenal of weapons. But there is no evidence that he has used them against the United States or plans to do so. Evil he may be, but few people think he is so crazy as to jeopardize his hold on Iraq--his overwhelming political goal--by inviting an all-out U.S. attack.

No, he'll just slip some weapons to some other people to attack us (you know, like when his head of security met with the Al Qaeda guy in Prague last year?). And perhaps you've forgotten about that little assassination attempt on Bush 41?

Nawww, Saddam's just a regular guy. He'd never do anything to hurt the United States.

The one link between Iraq and the September attacks is a reported but unsubstantiated meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, between an Iraqi agent and one of the suicide pilots--a flimsy justification for a pre-emptive war.

Now here is where you and your idiotarian fellow travelers in Europe go completely off the rails. And you display the confusion right here in this one sentence. First you talk about the September attacks, as though we can never take action against someone unless they can be proven to be related to that particular event.

Then, in the very same sentence you talk about "pre-emptive war." But if it's a pre-emptive war, what does it have to do with September 11? Pre-emptive means to fend off future attacks, not to avenge past ones.

So this sentence is simply a long oxymoron (as opposed to its writer, who is apparently just the simple, unmodified kind).

"Iraq is going to be a major distraction from the war on terrorism, not a part of it," one lawyer said.

Oh, good. That's who we need war advice from.

Lawyers.

You know, like the one who told them in Afghanistan that we couldn't take out Mullah "Cyclops" Omar when we had a chance. Might not be strictly legal, you know.

The Chicagoans' dissent was no bleat of Midwestern isolationism. Just the opposite. All valued America's alliances, in Europe and the Middle East especially, and felt that a unilateral attack on Iraq would shred those alliances, turning the U.S. from a global leader, respected by its allies, into a global bully feared by its subjects. (Seventy-three percent of Americans may favor an attack, but opposition in Europe runs between 68 percent and 80 percent, depending on the poll.)

Ahhh...note that he presents no evidence for this point of view--the bizarre notion that denizens of the heartland actually value alliances with militarily-impotent and morally-challenged European elites over defending the country. Or that they're overly concerned about the U.S. becoming a "global bully."

I think that this is what psychologists refer to as "projection."

The administration says the Europeans and the Arabs will support a U.S. attack "when they see we are serious." This is unproven wishful thinking. So is the claim, by Richard Perle, a leading hawk, that other Arab nations privately tell us that they want Hussein gone and that his ouster by U.S. arms "would be met by dancing in the streets."

Well, not to gainsay someone who is obviously a premier expert in "wishful thinking," but that seems to be the trend so far.

Why worry?

In fact, the only nation interested in attacking Hussein--us--is the one farthest from him. Why, asked one Chicagoan, should the United States worry about him when those closest to his threat, especially the other Arabs, don't?

Because he's managed to cow the other Arabs into feigning support for him? Because they're afraid that if he goes, their little theocratic dictatorships might be next?

There are lots of potential reasons that have nothing to do with our national security, but why explore them?--it would just remove whatever little air there is to his pointless comment.

"I'm stunned by the enthusiasm of the administration for this war and the growing unanimity among military thinkers for it," a local expert on the Middle East said. "There's going to be a huge Arab backlash."

Like the one when we went into Afghanistan? I could dig out all the predictions. You know, the "Arab street"? The ones that we haven't heard boo from since the daisies were cut? Was this one of those experts?

The word from Washington is that any attack on Iraq is probably six or seven months away, because it will be more complicated than the relatively easy assault on Afghanistan.

An Afghanistan-style attack, with air strikes supporting mostly opposition forces, won't work in Iraq, where the local opposition is weaker and the government forces stronger than the ones in Afghanistan. According to Washington hawks, an American ground force of 100,000 to 200,000 soldiers, possibly more, would be needed. This, we are assured, would guarantee victory within a month, with American casualties limited to about 1,000 dead and wounded.

We are assured by whom? I haven't seen any firm plans. Is Mr. Longworth privy to some classified briefings?

To some of the Chicagoans, these forecasts sounded like government assurances during the Vietnam War.

"...some of the Chicagoans..." Gotta love those sources.

Others wondered where the Pentagon expects to find staging areas for these ground troops. Carrier groups can provide a home base for an air war, but you can't launch tanks from an aircraft carrier.

Only those who are unfamiliar with geography and politics.

Washington seems certain that Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other neighboring nations will gladly play launching pad to this American attack. On Kuwait, that view may be right. The rest are much more uncertain.

I haven't seen any such certainty. Has the author never heard of Turkey? Has he considered that Saudi Arabia may play launching pad without doing so "gladly"? We are at war, after all...

It is an article of faith among the hawks that there is a ready-made anti-Hussein coalition in Iraq that can be quickly mobilized to plant a functioning democracy in what is perhaps the most undemocratic country in the most undemocratic part of the world. As Robert Kagan and William Kristol have written: "The United States will have to make a long-term commitment to rebuilding Iraq . . . and put it on a path toward democratic governance."

To the Chicagoans, this sounds like a quagmire.

I think he's channeling again. I will give him credit for getting this far into the article before using the "Q" word, though.

Most strategists consider the best-known Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, to be a joke. Even supporters of an invasion warn that the U.S. will be left "owning" a shattered country of 23 million people.

A joke. Kind of like that barrel of laughs, the Northern Alliance?

Putting Iraq back together again would cost American taxpayers about $10 billion dollars per year for a decade. Simply running Iraq and keeping it from breaking into fiefdoms, each with its own cache of leftover chemical weapons, would be an international nightmare.

Why is that? I thought they had oil.

If the war goes on longer than predicted, or if the casualties mount, or if the war against terrorism turns into a war against the Arab world, or if post-Hussein Iraq becomes an ungovernable mess, or if the Americans can't catch Hussein (as we can't find Osama bin Laden)--if any of these things happen, domestic support for an Iraq adventure will dry up fast.

If, if, if...

Yes, if it were an "adventure," indeed it would. In fact, it wouldn't even occur in the first place. But of course, if and when we go into Iraq, it won't be as an "adventure." It will be to remove a clear and present threat that Mr. Longworth, who sees so clearly all the "ifs," remains blind to, regardless of the fact that it is not an "if," but rather, an "is."

The best argument for attacking Iraq is the danger that Hussein is close to acquiring nuclear weapons and using both them and chemical weapons against his neighbors or against us.

But even Kagan and Kristol admit that "no one knows how close Saddam is to having a nuclear de-vice."

Perle agrees: "How close is he? We do not know. Two years, three years, tomorrow even? We simply do not know."

Candid ignorance, while endearing, is a feeble battle cry.

Yes, since we don't know if it's tomorrow, or the day after, or even next year, we should simply let sleeping Saddams lie. The fact that we know that he is developing them is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that we don't have his exact schedule and project management plan in hand, and therefore we should do nothing.

So is the assurance that Hussein intends to use his weapons of mass destruction against us. If he did, any domestic opposition to an attack on Iraq would vanish, as it did when Afghanistan-based terrorists protected by the Taliban launched their slaughter in September. Hussein knows this.

Only if he can't do it in such a way as it can be traced back to him. Perhaps he thinks himself smarter than bin Laden, and that he'll get away with it. After all, he has so far (particularly thanks to handwringers like R.C. Longworth).

At the moment, though, the opposite is true. Little evidence exists of Hussein's links to terrorism, at least outside the Middle East. If, despite this, we attack him, we give him every incentive to unsheathe his own chemical, biological and (maybe) nuclear weapons. The first targets would be the U.S. troops invading his country.

Yes, Mr. Longworth thinks that Pentagon planners are idiots.

This line of reasoning argues that Hussein can be contained without an attack. This is not so stirring as an assault on the "axis of evil," but it avoids a cure that might be worse than the disease. And there's a precedent.

President Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire," a model for Bush's "axis of evil" speech. But once Reagan identified the evil empire, what did he do about it?

He certainly didn't launch a military attack. Instead, to his everlasting credit, he did what all his predecessors since Harry Truman had done, which was contain the Soviet Union with a policy of military, economic and diplomatic pressure. Late in his presidency, when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev offered to end the Cold War, Reagan had the courage and generosity to accept that offer.

Russia is still a problem but no longer an enemy. If history repeats itself in Iraq, it will be no bad outcome.

Well, this last almost sounds reasonable, except that the analogy is flawed. The only reason we avoided war with the Soviets was that the risks were too great. Despite all of the vapors exhibited here, the potential downside of an Iraq war isn't large enough to take the risk of continued weapons development on Saddam's part.

And in his apparent isolationist zeal (yes, that's what I call him, despite his apparent channeling of Eurowhining, because he seems to think that we should never attack another country unless it is an indisputably direct and immediate threat to us), he ignores the threat to Israel. What does he think that the U.S. domestic reaction will be if Tel Aviv is nuked, because we were unwilling to preempt Saddam?

The reality, with which Mr. Longworth doesn't want to deal, is that the entire middle east is a vast swamp of tyranny and misery. Until we drain it, we will continue to be at risk of terrorist attacks. Mr. Hussein's regime is the most dangerous one there. Once it's gone, we'll have much more leverage to clean up the rest. It has to be one of the highest priorities.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:49 PM

February 21, 2002
Danny Pearl, RIP

Well, it's now been confirmed what most of us knew was probably the case--Danny Pearl was cold-bloodedly murdered. Our hearts go out to his family and colleagues.

The question now is, how will Musharraf react? Will he try to appease the radical elements, or will he properly use it as an excuse to truly crack down on these monsters?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:57 PM

February 20, 2002
Were They All Catholic?

Elaine Lafferty has a nice piece in the Irish Times about American attitudes toward terror vis a vis Europe's. But there's one statement that I find odd:

Thousands, not hundreds, of civilians were killed; the estimate in New York is that 30,000 to 40,000 children lost a parent in the attack on the World Trade Centre.

Am I missing something? Last I heard, the death estimates were about three thousand, give or take.

First of all, surely not all of the dead were parents. But even if they all were, and ignoring the cases where both parents were killed (hopefully rare), that would average out to over ten kids apiece. So who came up with this number and how was it derived?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:29 PM

February 12, 2002
Sympathy For The Devil

Best of the Web has a link to Ramsey Clark's lawsuit filing in the Camp X-Ray matter. It's a wonder of impenetrable postmodern jargon, with misspellings galore and cites from those renowned juridical minds, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

Ramsey Clark has completed the journey from grumpy-but-vaguely-principled anti-war type to buffoon. It's hard to believe that this is serious. It's so far beyond parody, that it makes you wonder if, like the anti-globo bozos, someone is paying these guys to do things like this to make the anti-war movement look even worse than it already does.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:02 PM

February 11, 2002
Bloviation From Toronto

I assume that our weblogging friends from the Great White North will have this cretin for breakfast, but I'll take my shots at his latest Pilgeresque offering from my location in the more temperate latitudes anyway.

America's allies and friends were initially reluctant to openly criticize Bush's philippic, but in recent days the president's aggressive, triumphalist policies have come under fierce attack around the world, and particularly so in Europe.

Ummm....yes. So? You say this as though it's a bad thing.

Bush administration spokesmen reject all foreign criticism.

No, not all. Just ignorant, America-phobic criticism. Like this opinion piece.

Secretary of State Colin Powell increased war fever by blasting Iran for "meddling" in Afghanistan. This is rich, coming from the U.S., which just invaded Afghanistan, overthrew its government, installed a client regime in Kabul, and is setting up permanent military bases there.

Well, why don't we ask the Afghan people (you know, the ones who are no longer being crushed under walls, or having their nails pulled out, or who can once again listen to music or watch a soccer game without executions as half-time entertainment) which country they would prefer to be meddling in their affairs?

Threatening war against Iran for seeking to advance its interests in neighbouring Afghanistan shows just how irrational and imperially arrogant the Bush administration is becoming.

Yes, it's most important that we allow the people who chant "Death to America! Down with the Great Satan!" to pursue their interests...

India and Russia are also deeply involved in Afghanistan; in fact, Russia has virtually taken over the north. Yet there was not a peep from Washington about these interlopers.

I know that this may be an intellectual concept far beyond your meager neuronal capacity, but have you ever considered the possibility that it might be because neither Russia or India have ever funded people to fly airplanes into American skyscrapers?

Fifty years of painful efforts to build a framework of international law are being swept away by the Bush crusaders, who seem to have convinced themselves they are re-fighting World War II rather than dealing with a dangerous criminal conspiracy made up of a few thousand individuals.

Which "international law" would that be? The one that says that people who hide among civilians to avoid retribution, or who skulk amongst a peaceful people in civilian clothing so that they can deliberately murder thousands of innocents are entitled to POW status? Sorry, I'm not aware of any international law like that.

And what do you propose that we do when those "few thousand individuals" (sounds like an army to me, or at least a division, even if they can't be bothered to put on uniforms and insignia) are sponsored by foreign governments? Ignore that fact? In your bizarro universe, I guess so...

While most Americans continue to cheer Bush's bellicose, adolescent rhetoric and crusading zeal, quiet opposition is developing, particularly among the thinking classes.

Is the nonsense being regurgitated in this piece representative of "the thinking classes"? If so, please assign me a seat in whatever other class is available.

Given the current climate of war fever, hysteria, fear and anti-Muslim paranoia being whipped up by the White House and parts of the media, few Americans are ready to criticize government actions.

Gosh, do you think it's possible that it's because we'd like to hew to the status quo with our remaining skylines? Do you, in fact, think at all?

This loud silence and war fever have unbalanced the U.S. political system, allowing a coterie of ideological super-hawks to monopolize policy and drive the U.S. toward highly irrational behaviour. Congress and the media have become mere cheerleaders for the so-called war. Critical analysis is urgently needed:

Indeed it is. But based on this spew, we can husband our resources, and not search for it from anyone named "Eric Margolis."

remember the disastrous consequences caused by lack of public challenge to America's entry into the Vietnam war.

Yes. People like bin Laden learned the mistaken lesson that America will not respond when attacked.

America has suffered mightily and grievously; but pain and suffering are no excuse for acting foolishly, dangerously, or dictatorially.

No, that is apparently a privilege reserved unto idiotic Canadian editorial writers, who are not responsible for the lives and property of Americans.

Wiser heads abroad are cautioning their American friends.

Thank the heavens for those "wiser heads abroad." What would we do without them? Well, actually, we seem to be doing just fine, based on the war effort so far. While we appreciate the help from the British SAS, most of the rest of the European aid seems to have consisted of sending celebrity philosophers.

To many foreign governments, the real danger is not Bush's preposterous "axis of evil," nor "rogue states" like Iran, Iraq, or North Korea. They are far more worried about a rogue America running amok and igniting conflicts around the world.

Yes, since many of those foreign governments oppress their own people, they should be rightly worried about conflicts being ignited. Particularly when they're likely to be on the losing end. However, Mr. Margolis doesn't explain why this should worry us evil Americans, or anyone who is interested in human freedom. Or why he is more sympathetic to those governments than ours, or even his own.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:28 PM

February 02, 2002
Our Friends The Europeans

Lord Robertson says that NATO can't be expected to support any US war on the axis of evil unless we can prove that they had something to do with 911. Gee, what happened to the war on terrorism? You know, the one that was supposed to put an end to terrorists with global reach?

Apparently, in NATO's formulation, we're not allowed to preempt attacks on our soil. We can only retaliate after they've occurred. By this logic, we could have done nothing about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan prior to September 11--we had to wait until they actually carried out the attack. Their stated intent to do so, and their previous attacks on our assets (including the first one on the WTC) were insufficient.

Europe had better understand that we are now going to do everything within our power to prevent any future attacks like the ones that occurred in September. In all three cases in the "axis of evil," we are dealing with nations with whom we've either been actively at war (Korea and the Gulf War), or who have engaged in acts of war upon us (Iran, when they took and kept the hostages for over a year) to which we didn't properly respond.

It was our failure to deal with them properly at the time that resulted in what happened in September, by building a reputation of weakness and vacillation on our part. All three countries represent unfinished business, business for which we were previously unwilling to pay the necessary price to see it through to the end.

Now we are more than willing to finish--with or without our NATO "allies."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:55 AM

January 31, 2002
They Should Be Worried

The paper formerly known as the Paper of Record informs us that our "allies" are concerned that we won't consult them when it comes to continuing the war.

Some choice bits:

The three countries pinpointed by President Bush as an "axis of evil" ? Iran, Iraq and North Korea ? reacted angrily today...

Guess the truth hurts, huh, guys?

...while commentators in many other nations, including European allies, bristled at what they saw as the combative, go-it- alone tone of the State of the Union address.

Bristle away. We took the hit alone. We can deal with it on our own.

If you expect us to take your advice, step one is to offer some that's sensible. Such a commodity has been in short supply from the Continent in the last few months (not to mention the last few decades).

Over in Russia,

Mr. Rogozin said it appeared that America had forgotten that North Korea had imposed a moratorium on the production of long-range missiles...

No, we haven't forgotten. We just know that they're congenital liars, so such an "imposition" is meaningless.

...that Iran had offered assistance to the Bonn conference on the formation of an interim government in Afghanistan...

Would that be the same Iran which, as I type, has special forces in Afghanistan training insurgents to undermine that interim government?

...and that an earlier Washington statement had called for "smart sanctions" against Iraq.

Yes, we've finally corralled the idiots at Foggy Bottom who think that sanctions have any useful effect other than giving Saddam an excuse to starve his own people while he builds weapons and palaces.

The problem is, you European elites set entirely too much store by what people say, while ignoring what they actually do. Probably the same reason you thought Bill Clinton was so wonderful (in addition to the fact that he, unlike many of us, loved to smooch your arrogant keisters).

Josef Joffe, a German foreign policy analyst, said: "What was particularly striking is the way Mr. Bush countenances the projection of American power from anywhere to anywhere. He described America in a truly global war able to fight anywhere. There is no allusion to allies at all. But in practical terms, the U.S. cannot fight wars without allies."

Oh, we have allies. It's just that they apparently don't run the governments of Europe. And in fact, if need be, we can do quite well without allies, at least without Euroweenie ones. It will take longer, and cost more, but if you don't understand that it's a price that we're willing to pay, then you don't understand anything about America.

"We tend to see Sept. 11 in parenthesis, an aberration that is now behind us," said François L. Heisbourg, director of the French Foundation. "But the Bush speech makes clear that is not the case for the U.S. For Americans, Sept. 11 marks a strategic change in the landscape. And that will be very jarring for many people here to hear."

Well, expect to continue to be "jarred." We aren't going to (in the famous and empty words of the Clinton apologists here and abroad) simply "move on." There is still a gaping hole in downtown Manhattan. For all we know, there are thousands of terrorists waiting to attack the next skyscraper, or ship, or nuclear plant. We hope that it was an aberration, but hope has no power, as we saw on September 11.

There was also speculation about what Mr. Bush really meant by citing North Korea, Iraq and Iran, and treating them as equally culpable. "The lumping of these three countries together will be of concern," said Robert Menotti, a researcher at the Italian research institute Cespi. "We really see North Korea as in another category."

And just what "other category" would that be, Signor Menotti? They build weapons of mass destruction, including missiles. They train and dispatch terrorists. They starve their own people as they expend resources toward those evil ends. In what significant way do they differ from Iraq?

Clearly, the gulf in thinking between the European elitists and America grows wider by the day. I wonder what the European people think?

[Update]

Uh oh. Better batten down the server hatches.

I've been Instapundited...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:01 AM

January 28, 2002
Another Intifada?

An interesting article in today's Telegraph. It lends additional support against the absurd notion that we are treating the Gitmo prisoners too harshly.

Brig Michael Lehnert, commanding troops at the base, said earlier that there were signs of a structure and activities emerging among the prisoners that could be a prelude to an act of violence or escape attempt.

"We're seeing that some leaders are beginning to emerge. Many have received training and are observing activities such as security procedures. Many appeared disciplined and very patient."

and

Some have tried to scratch out grids or messages on the floors and others have been caught hiding stones picked off the scrubby ground.

Of course, the anti-American boobwasie in Europe will say that such behavior can only be expected when we're so cruel to the poor dears. They have no choice, under such inhumane conditions, except to gain their liberty and an end to their horrific suffering by any means necessary. They're not terrorists--they're just fighting for freedom, like the noble Palestinians, with stones if necessary.

Let's review the bidding here. We have a group of people (to be generous with the term) who express enduring hatred of us, and a continuing desire to kill us. They have been extensively trained in all manner of stealth and mayhem. They show every sign of intent to carry out their vile desires, if allowed. Yet we're supposed to treat them as run-of-the-mill criminals? Not on my planet.

There was another item of interest in the article concerning the news reports that Powell wanted to make some of these vipers POWs:

The leak appeared to have come from the Pentagon, many of whose officials view Gen Powell as bowing to pressure from the European Left and State Department officials who served under Bill Clinton.

More of Bill Clinton's legacy. Keep polishing, Bill...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AM

January 13, 2002
National Iranian Review

Professor Reynolds has a link to a BBC story on more incipient revolution in Iran. It's an interesting story, but what caught my eye were these two sentences:

The reformists believe the next step will be the prosecution of numerous reformist deputies on economic corruption charges as part of a right-wing scheme they believe is aimed at bringing the parliament down.

and

While the right-wingers accuse the liberals themselves of trying to precipitate just such a development as part of a plot to overthrow the Islamic system and to save their own political lives.

Just what is it that "right wing" means in the context of an article about Iran? Does it mean that they want school vouchers? That they favor fewer restrictions on the right to bear arms? Do they want lower taxes? Are they opposed to growth in the mullah-run government? What?

And does it mean that the reformers are "left wingers"? Probably not--this is not a phrase often used in the press, other than in "right-wing" media, like Reason or the National Review. In the editorially-condoned jargon, "crazy extremists" are "right-wing," while their opposite extremist counterparts are "mainstream." Often, they're even the editorial staff...

Some have pointed out that such concepts as "left" and "right" don't translate well to the Middle East. I don't think that they're very meaningful even for domestic political discussions, and are generally a sign of political simple-mindedness. I think that statement holds even more true for this article. But of course, such terminology makes it more natural and easier to call "conservatives" in America the "American Taliban..."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:14 PM

January 11, 2002
Pederasty Redux

Jeez, this places just bounces from one extreme to the other. A few months ago in Kandahar, they were executing gays by using them as foundation stones. Now the place is reverting to ancient Sparta.

Can't they find some kind of happy medium?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:48 PM

January 10, 2002
Ooooohh, Nice Touch

In an article entitled "Harsh conditions await prisoners" in the BBC Online, in which they describe the situation at Guantanamo, I found this little nugget:

They will be allowed to pray according to their faith.

But members of a movement that tried to prevent women working may be disconcerted to find that some of their guards are women.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:27 PM

January 06, 2002
High School Graduates 'R' Us

Also in today's LA Times, in their lead editorial, (which unlike the Bill Press nonsense, is linkable), they are complaining about our new "professionalized" airline-security personnel being allowed to confiscate eyelash curlers and inspect wooden legs without the benefit of a high-school diploma.

Not too bad for the Times. They've only got two false premises in this editorial; usually they manage at least the trifecta.

False premise one: that a high school diploma has any value at all in assessing the ability of a person to read, write, compute or think, as opposed to simply having the sticktoitiveness to hang around the high school until the age of eighteen or so without formally dropping out. I don't believe that has been the case for decades.

False premise two: that people who are intelligent and educated make better nail-file confiscators.

Nope. It's a boring job. Anyone with a lick of imagination and intellectual curiosity will quickly go bonkers watching luggage entrails go by all day. Ideally, this is a job for pattern-recognition software that could flash out occasional warnings to people who are reasonably intelligent and can do further inspections, but until it's developed, assuming that we need personnel to scrutinize our carry-ons and persons (I'd rather have them focus on checked baggage myself, since, unlike passengers and carry ons, the passengers and crew have no control over that once aboard), we need people who aren't easily bored. That doesn't necessarily translate to HS graduates.

I suspect that if they actually did a study, they would find close to zero correlation between what makes for a good airline screener and HS diplomas. But no fear of that--apparently the airline-security debate will remain a fact-free zone for now...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:26 PM

November 24, 2001
Bellicose Airline Passengers

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, there's a guy named Don Detrich who's mad as hell and isn't going to take it any more. He's started an organization called the Flight Watch Hijacking Resistance League. Hmmm, doesn't make for a very pronounceable acronym...

They offer passenger training, and are lobbying for legislation (H.R.3150-Secure Transportation for America Act of 2001) to provide liability protection for passengers who assist in thwarting hijacking attempts. Apparently, the airlines have mixed feelings about this, but I'd like to see more of it. I think I'll bookmark this site.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:55 PM

So Much For "Massive Civilian Casualties"

The Telegraph has an article on how impressed Kabul inhabitants are with the precision of the US bombing.

So accurate were the hits on the Antonov transport planes that only the aircrafts' tails, wings and some of the cockpits were left. Their fuselages had disappeared. The official supervising the runway repair, Farid Ahmad, was impressed by the Americans' work. He said it certainly outclassed the efforts of the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who destroyed much of the city and the airport 10 years ago.

"I have been through the Russians," he said. "I have seen Hekmatyar in action and the Northern Alliance. This is just incredible. The Americans appear to have been 98 per cent accurate.

"Hekmatyar tried for six years to destroy the TV signal on Television Mountain. The Americans managed it straight away."

It's a little surreal reading some of the descriptions by people as though they're scoring a game, but to the degree that judges of such things exist, given what they've been through in the past quarter century between the Soviets and the various civil wars, the residents of Kabul and Afghanistan at large have to be the best-qualified people on the planet to issue points.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:01 PM

November 23, 2001
Asymmetric Diplomacy

Much has been made of the asymmetry of the war, but until now, no one except Dr. Krauthammer has explicitly pointed out the diplomatic asymmetry. Why indeed should we have to continue to demonstrate our religious tolerance, in light of the continually-demonstrated religious intolerance in the Middle East?

Imagine if 19 murderous Christian fundamentalists hijacked four airplanes over Saudi Arabia and, in the name of God, crashed them into the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, destroying the holy Kaaba and killing thousands of innocent Muslim pilgrims. Could anyone doubt that the entire Christian world -- clergy and theologians, leaders and lay folk -- would rise as one to denounce the act? Yankee Stadium could not hold the trainloads of priests and preachers, reverends and rectors -- why, even rabbis would demand entry -- that would descend upon a mass service of atonement, shame, ostracism and excommunication. The pope himself would rend his garments at this blasphemous betrayal of Christ.

And yet after Sept. 11, where were the Muslim theologians and clergy, the imams and mullahs, rising around the world to declare that Sept. 11 was a crime against Islam? Where were the fatwas against Osama bin Laden? The voices of high religious authority have been scandalously still.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:30 PM

From The Duuuuhhhhhhhh File

Reuters reports that the US State Department has issued a warning today to travelers that "it was not a good idea to travel to Afghanistan right now because of war, banditry, political instability and an acute food shortage..."

Dang, they just blew my vacation plans right out the window. And I had such good fares, too...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:31 PM

Well, It Wasn't A Concealed Weapon

A man whose hunting rifle discharged at a DFW ticket counter was allowed to board a later flight. Note that "airport operations were not interrupted." Compare and contrast with Atlanta, where the chicken littles shut down the airport for hours because some idiot ran down an up escalator.

I wonder how eager this guy's buddies are to go hunting with him now?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:33 PM

Two Hits of Smack, Please--Hold the Anthrax...

Well, according to this story from Italy, we've had the first reports of anthrax-tainted heroin.

I predicted something like this but I expected it to show up in powdered cocaine, which is generally ingested through the nose.

This is kind of a weird story on a couple levels. There's no percentage in the Taliban adulterating the heroin, because it would damage the market for what is just about the only export commodity that they have to offer. Also, assuming that this is the kind that one shoots up, it's not clear to me that injecting anthrax would cause an infection, or what kind it would cause.

I'm wondering if this is either a mistake, or a psywar lie, to both reduce drug use and to cut off one of the sources of the Taliban money supply.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AM

November 22, 2001
Empowerment vs Passivity

This column by David Brin is a must read. It echoes and expands on many of the themes on which I've been ranting since 911. What happened on September 11 was not a failure of airline security, though it was a failure of many of the institutions in which we have now (inexplicably, at least to me) placed our trust. What it was truly a failure of is the notion that we aren't responsible for ourselves, and must let the "professionals" take care of us. Flight 93 dramatically proved that notion wrong.

We're all in the army now. This is the message that we have to promulgate, through the fog of the media, many of whom, unfortunately, still live in the old paradigm.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:50 AM

November 19, 2001
Further Flight 587 Thoughts

As more info comes out, I've switched back to "glass-half-empty" of sabotage mode. While it's extremely unlikely for a piece of primary structure to simply fall off on an airplane, airplane crashes themselves are extremely unlikely, as evidenced by the demonstrable fact that they are rare. Such events are, almost invariably, caused by a fatal and improbable combination of circumstances and events, and I now think it likely that this will be eventually found to be the case here as well, even given the horrendous coincidences of timing and location.

While it's possible that it was deliberate, the particular plane (full of Dominicans on the way to the Caribbean) seems improbable (though, of course, the saboteur might not necessarily know the destination or manifest), and I would think that there would have been an attempt to do multiple aircraft nearly simultaneously, as occurred on 911, rather than a single isolated case. Also, now that they've determined that it wasn't a fastener problem, it's harder to come up with a theory of just how the tail would have been deliberately weakened in a way that an inspection wouldn't catch. Also, absent some kind of active device (e.g., radio controlled charges), I don't think that one could really plan when or where the aircraft would hit. It seems likely to me that, even given the fact that it was Mike Moran's and the other fire fighters' neighborhood and timing on Veterans' Day and all, the location of the impact was just a tragic coincidence--a few seconds more and it would have ended up in the ocean.

Airbus was the first major manufacturer to use composites for primary structure, and we are only now getting enough life in the fleet to really understand long-term fatigue issues. Given that the vertical stabilizer did not come off quite as cleanly as originally reported, I'm now willing to entertain scenarios in which a stress-fatigued stabilizer came off, perhaps under whipsaw loads from hard rudder action to control the plane in unusual wake turbulence. Once the stabilizer was lost (particularly if the pilot didn't realize this had occurred, which seems likely, since it's fly-by-wire with no direct force feedback), there would be no essentially no yaw control from the airplane. This could result in fairly high g-loads on the engine pylons as it went into a flat spin (they aren't designed to take much in terms of lateral loading--they're cantilevered below, and are designed mainly for vertical loads), and could easily snap off, taking both engines. Once the engines were gone, there was no hope at all, because those would have been the only possibility of yaw control (using differential thrust).

Although I don't buy the official story about TWA 800, I think it unlikely that there's any coverup here--I just don't see a motivation for it. If people think that the government is trying to keep us calm by hiding the "real" reason--terrorists, my response is that I'd much rather think that it's terrorists, which we are already addressing, and could come up with new maintenance security procedures to address, than that we don't know what happened, and that there's a possibility that the entire Airbus fleet (and perhaps even Boeing as well, since they've started using composites in their latest series of aircraft as well) is at risk to an unquantifiable defect. Thus, at least to me, the current government position is more likely to keep me off an airplane than a sabotage theory.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AM

November 18, 2001
Post-Modernism and bin Laden

In a recent speech, Paul Wolfowitz termed Al Qaeda our age's Khmer Rouge. In this week's Weekly Standard, Waller R. Newell has an interesting piece that points up one of the many parallels--both movements have been heavily influenced by western post-modern Marxists.

Many elements in the ideology of al Qaeda--set forth most clearly in Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War Against America"--derive from this same [opposition to hedonism, materialism, egoism, etc. through death and moral rectitude] mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor, Che Guevara. According to Cairo journalist Issandr Elamsani, Arab leftist intellectuals still see the world very much in 1960s terms. "They are all ex-Sorbonne, old Marxists," he says, "who look at everything through a postcolonial prism."

Just as Heidegger wanted the German people to return to a foggy, medieval, blood-and-soil collectivism purged of the corruptions of modernity, and just as Pol Pot wanted Cambodia to return to the Year Zero, so does Osama dream of returning his world to the imagined purity of seventh-century Islam. And just as Fanon argued that revolution can never accomplish its goals through negotiation or peaceful reform, so does Osama regard terror as good in itself, a therapeutic act, quite apart from any concrete aim. The willingness to kill is proof of one's purity.

And as an interesting follow-up to my post of a couple days ago on the post-modern left's fear of technology, and (not always so) veiled admiration for Al Qaeda, he writes:

What the terrorists have in common with our armchair nihilists is a belief in the primacy of the radical will, unrestrained by traditional moral teachings such as the requirements of prudence, fairness, and reason. The terrorists seek to put this belief into action, shattering tradition through acts of violent revolutionary resolve. That is how al Qaeda can ignore mainstream Islam, which prohibits the deliberate killing of noncombatants, and slaughter innocents in the name of creating a new world, the latest in a long line of grimly punitive collectivist utopias.

An interesting read, and one more dot to connect as to why the rabid left cannot get behind the war--at their core, they share many of bin Laden's aims--and methods...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:49 PM

November 17, 2001
More On L'Affaire JIR

In response to my latest rant on the possibilities that the terrorists are either unimaginably moronic, or that they want us to think that they are, and that both possibilities seem incredible, an anonymous reader offers an alternative explanation, to wit:

You know, maybe they aren't that stupid. What if they were browsing the web some day and came across it. "Hey Abdul, you need to read this, it's so funny!"
Then it got left behind. And we thought they were serious. Just wait until the archeologists of the future start talking about the significant news outlets of our time. "Most people got their weekly news from The Onion, America's most respected source, while other chose the New York Times or the satire and comedy paper, The Wall Street Journal."

Well, it is a third alternative, but given all the available evidence on offer, this seems to be a particularly humorless crowd, so to the degree that it is a viable explanation, it seems as astronomically improbable as the others. I've still gotta go with the theory that they really are major-league, world-class, galactic-championship-grade imbeciles...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 PM

Things Getting Back To Normal

It's great to see that P.J. O'Rourke has retrieved his sense of humor. This one's a hoot.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AM

Nukes for Dummies

I'm still trying to verify this, but if the Daily Rotten is correct, the "nuclear weapon plans" found in the Al Qaeda safe house are actually a download of an ancient (gag) article from the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Given their idiocy in so many other realms, why would this not surprise me? And why would it also not surprise me that few journalists would know the difference?

Anyway, if it can be verified, perhaps we can all sleep a little better tonight.

[Update at 7 AM]

It's twue, it's twue! This is delicious.

Just google the words, "the de-vice basically works," and you'll get a plethora of links to this document (this one, from Barking Spider, is just an example--it can be found at a number of sites) titled "How To Build An Atomic Bomb." Look carefully at the pictures of the terrorist document from the BBC at the Daily Rotten page (or go directly to the source, if you don't trust them) and compare.

It's worth pointing out that this article was part of a series. The previous ones were:

Let's Make Test Tube Babies! May, 1979
Let's Make a Solar System! June, 1979
Let's Make an Economic Recession! July, 1979
Let's Make an Anti-Gravity Machine! August, 1979
Let's Make Contact with an Alien Race! September, 1979

The next one was a primer on how to clone your neighbor's wife in a single weekend, using common kitchen utensils.

This may provide a hint about some of Al Qaeda's nefarious plans for our future.

[Further Update: 5:40 PM PST]

In actually reading the satirical document in question, this paragraph jumped out at me (and remember this was over twenty years ago).

Worldwide controversy has been generated recently from several court decisions in the United States which have restricted popular magazines from printing articles which describe how to make an atomic bomb. The reason usually given by the courts is that national security would be compromised if such information were generally available. But, since it is commonly known that all of the information is publicly available in most major metropolitan libraries, obviously the court's officially stated position is covering up a more important factor; namely, that such atomic de-vices would prove too difficult for the average citizen to construct. The United States courts cannot afford to insult the vast majorities by insinuating that they do not have the intelligence of a cabbage, and thus the "official" press releases claim national security as a blanket restriction.

This seemed particularly ironic to me under the circumstances. Of course, to not even be able to recognize the difference between an actual nuclear bomb manual, and an obvious send up of same, implies that one has a level of intelligence that would make a cabbage look like, well, Stephen Hawking--it would imply something more on the order of a lobotomized fern.

So can they really be this stupid, or is this some kind of reverse mindfuck on us to make us believe that they're really, really stupid? That all of this apparent idiocy--the mindless threats, counting on a population that they've been repressing to support them once they're out of power, expecting Muslims worldwide to come to their aid when they're getting their asses blown up, attacking the American Media by literally sending an anthrax-laced envelope to "American Media," asking for flying lessons that don't involve takeoffs or landings, stealing joke plans for bombs from scientific satire magazines--is actually a fiendishly clever ploy, and once we've destroyed their power structure, killed most of them, chased the rest up into their caves, blown up the caves, and starved out the rest, and let our guard down, that's when they're going to hit us with something really big?

I have to confess, that I find both explanations so improbable that I no longer know what to think--the notion that they are really that bereft of mental capacity almost defies biology and the nature of the human genome, but the other explanation absolutely beggars logic. Anyway, I find the former more comforting...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 AM