Saturday, April 7, 2007

Fred Thompson on the Iranian Hostage Taking

Fred Thompson, should he choose to enter the presidential race, will be a strong candidate indeed - as this insightful essay Mr. Thompson penned in Red State demonstrates:

Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.

Maybe it's because military action won't be needed or maybe it's just because the ordeal won't drag on and on, but the world is breathing easier now. A lot of folks are happy. The problem, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad seems to be the happiest.

And why shouldn't he be? He has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences.

The UN Security Council summoned its vaunted multilateral greatness to issue a swift statement of sincere uneasiness. The EU, which has pressured Britain to rely on Europeans for mutual defense instead of the US, wouldn't even discuss economic sanctions that might disrupt their holidays. Even NATO was AWOL.

Tony Blair doesn't appear to be in much of a mood for celebrating. I don't know how he could be, given the troubling spectacle of British soldiers shake the hand of their kidnapper as a condition of release. In the old days, they would have kissed his ring -- but wearing Iranian suits and carrying swag more appropriate to a Hollywood awards ceremony may have been as embarrassing. Ironically, Blair's options are fewer by the day as his own party moves to mothball the British fleet, once the fear of pirates and tyrants the world over.

Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?

Ahmadinejad must be particularly pleased to see "deep thinking" journalists making the case that American actions in Iraq were the true cause of the kidnappings. To believe this, all you have to do is ignore the history of the Iranian Revolution, which has been in the extortion business ever since it took power. Between the 1979 American embassy crisis in Tehran and the seizure of Israeli soldiers last year by Iran's Hezbollah proxies, there have been more than a hundred other examples.

If you include the imprisonment of pro-Democracy dissidents and non-Shi'a Muslim minorities within Iran, the number reaches easily into the tens of thousands. The dwindling and persecuted Christian population of Iran, I suspect, found little joy in Ahmadinejad's explanation that he was freeing his victims as an "Easter gift."

It is critical that we see this incident as part of a long pattern of behavior -- that will continue as long as the current leadership is in power. More importantly, it will escalate unimaginably if Iran achieves nuclear status, and with it the ability to hold millions rather than individuals hostage.

I have no idea if Ahmadinejad and those who put him in power really believe the Shi'a Twelver doctrine that they can spur the messiah to return by triggering Armageddon. You have to admit, though, that the possibility that they look forward to entering paradise as martyrs would make them a whole lot scarier as a nuclear power than the USSR ever was.

There is hope, though. The Iranian people are not an anti-Western horde. They're an educated and freedom-loving people for the most part, and reformers there have been begging us for support and sanctions that would weaken the ruling theocracy. Instead, they've just seen the Iranian dictatorship successfully bully the West into impotent submission. This is not a good thing.

We need to understand this and use every means at our disposal, starting with serious and painful international sanctions, to prevent Iran's rulers from becoming the nuclear-armed blackmailers they want to be. Unfortunately, we are hearing demands that we abandon the people of the Middle East who have stood up to Islamo-fascism because they believed us when we said we would support them.

If we retreat precipitously, the price for that betrayal will be paid first in blood and freedom by the Iranian people, the Kurds, the Afghanis, the secular Lebanese, the moderates in Pakistan and the Iraqis themselves. And America's word may never be trusted again.

Right now, the pirate Ahmadinejad is clearly more confident about the outcome of the Global War on Terror than we are. That ought to give us pause.
I will admit to being a bit jealous of the communication skills of Mr. Thompson who is able to say forcefully in a page what seems to take me a tome. Mr. Thompson's communication skills are a major consideration when one reflects upon the tremendous problems of the Bush administration and the current crop of Congressional republicans, none of whom seem to have the communication and debating skills of a moderately talented high school student.

Read More...

What Now Inside Khomeinist Iran?

Walid Phares, the Middle East scholar and terrorism expert, argued at the start of the UK-hostage crisis that the Mullah's purpose in taking the hostages was mostly aimed inward, at providing justification for a tightening of the screws on a restive population and also an attempt at reigniting revolutionary zeal. See here and here. That assessment is borne out by Iranian author Amir Taheri, who gives us a view of the crackdown that is going on today in the wake of the hostage crisis.

. . . The crackdown is beginning to gather pace. Several publications critical of government have been shut down, and numerous officials regarded as "not revolutionary enough" elbowed out, especially in the provinces. And now the regime seems to be setting the stage for show trials that recall the worst days of Stalinism in the Soviet Union.

Last month, a member of the Majlis, the regime's ersatz parliament, was sent to prison for six years on trumped-up charges. The real "crime" of Salaheddin Ala'i: He had criticized the killing of dissidents in Iran's Kurdistan province.

Next week, it will be the turn of former Deputy Interior Minister Mostafa Tajzadeh, who'll stand trial on charges of undermining the security of the Khomeinist state.

Tajzadeh is one of the establishment's most interesting figures. A man with impeccable revolutionary credentials, he has always insisted that the regime cannot ensure its future by silencing or murdering critics.
The next on the block is expected to be Muhammad Reza Khatami - a brother of former President Muhammad Khatami - who also has an impressive revolutionary resume.

In 1979, he was one of the two dozen or so "students" who raided the United States' Embassy in Tehran and seized its diplomats hostage. Later, he built a career in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and solidified his revolutionary credentials by marrying a granddaughter of Ruhallah Khomeini, the ayatollah who created the Islamic Republic. During his brother's presidency, Muhammad Reza acted as deputy speaker of the Majlis.

Yet, he too, is targeted by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's new radical administration - charged with "activities that undermine the Islamic system."

Ahmadinejad believes that people like these three represent dangers for the system - if only because they insist that the authorities should obey the laws set by their own regime. In his view, a revolutionary regime, because it stands outside the normal framework of history, simply cannot be bound by any law.

According to dissident sources in Tehran, the regime's security apparatus is preparing show trials for scores of others. The chief targets: thousands of middle-class elements who joined the Khomeinist revolution because of a misunderstanding. Ahmadinejad calls them "the half-pregnant ones" - people who dream of being revolutionaries but also crave for a comfortable, Western-style bourgeois life.

Ahmadinejad's supporters speak of a "third revolution" - which, in practice, would amount to a purge of dissidents within the establishment.

Many actual or would-be dissidents have already left Iran for what they hope will be temporary exile in Europe or America. They include a dozen former Cabinet ministers and hundreds of lesser functionaries and apologists. If the looming crackdown gathers pace, thousands more may join them.

To prepare the ground for his "third revolution," Ahmadinejad has worked on three schemes.

* First, he has radicalized political discourse.

Under his two predecessors, Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami, the regime had gradually changed its vocabulary by abandoning the revolutionary terminology and borrowing terms of ordinary politics.

Those two mullah-presidents spoke of economic development, civil society and a dialogue of civilizations. They also allowed some space for non-revolutionary (though not overtly counter-revolutionary) expression in such fields as art, cinema and literature.

. . . * Second, Ahmadinejad aims to link any criticism of the system with foreign powers.

In the decisions to close newspapers or put "khodi" figures on trial, the authorities drop hints about illicit relations with "foreign enemies of Islam." This amounts to a return to classical revolutionary lore in which anyone who criticizes the regime must be an agent of a foreign enemy.

* Ahmadinejad's third and perhaps most important scheme is to revive the regime's pretension of sacredness. He claims to receive periodic instructions from the Hidden Imam - a Mahdi-figure who, according to Shiite lore, went into hiding in 940 A.D. and will someday return to preside over the end of the world. He has thus restored the concept of the Hidden Imam to a central position within the Khomeinist doctrine.

The concept was pure fiction from the start, and most leaders of the Islamic Republic realized that retaining it posed insurmountable theo-political problems. This is why the Hidden Imam was given a back seat under Rafsanjani and Khatami, although both are Shiite clerics.

By restoring the Hidden Imam, Ahmadinejad makes it impossible for anyone to claim that Shiism, let alone Islam, admits of a range of interpretations. In this version of the Khomeinist doctrine, Islam is equated with Shiism, Shiism with the Hidden Imam - and the Hidden Imam with the Khomeinist regime.

THE "half pregnant" had hoped that "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi might, would, at some point, restrain Ahmadinejad. Earlier this month, however, Khamenehi, in his Iranian New Year message, paid glowing tribute to Ahmadinejad, and endorsed his strategy.

The "half-pregnant" are now forced to choose between becoming full-blown revolutionaries - or joining the counter-revolution.

Read the entire article here. There has also been a return to public punishents under Sharia law:
The reformist website Rooz reported on April 5, 2007 that the Friday prayer leader of Shiraz, a city in the heart of Iran, had called for more public punishments, as prescribed by "hodud," Islamic penal law.

After a convicted thief’s hand was amputated in public in Kermanshah, Ayatollah Mohiyeddin Shirazi, an appointee of the supreme leader of Iran, criticized the halting of public punishments, and added, "Those who say that practices like amputating hands belong to the past are themselves part of the past." He also claimed that imprisonment had no effect "on educating criminals and reducing crime."

At a meeting with judges from Fars province, Shirazi argued that public punishments are more effective that imprisonment: "Prison and imprisoning individuals do not have an effect on educating criminals and reducing crime. They also add to corruption." He also called for using criminals convicted for drug-related charges as forced labor.

Kermanshah judiciary head Allahyar Malekshahi promised more amputations in the future and said that citizens had requested the public amputation.

Contine reading here. (h/t LGF)

Read More...

So What to Believe - Your Lying Eyes?

Here are the smiling and happy hostages in a spontaneous burst of appreciation for Ahmedinejad . . .


And here they are in a slightly wider view, not all seem quite so happy . . .

And you have to get to the Scotsman to get the whole story, where not all faces are happy and the Iranian stage manager is attempting to get the best shot . . .



This is a bit of insanity. I hope that the choice of photos and the cropping was not done to make a journalistic point by either the Guardian or the Telegraph. The two papers occupy the far left and the conservative viewpoints, respectively, of major British papers, so I think it more likely just sloppy work by the publishers. Still, it does give one pause about accepting what one sees in the news at face value.

Hattip: Sigmund, Carl & Alfred, Small Dead Animals, and Innovation In Newspapers

Read More...

Will Sarkozy & France Lead Europe Around the Muslim Minefield

The more I hear of France's presidential front runner, Nicolas Sarkozy, the more I like him. In addition to the fact that he is only second generation French, appearing politically correct - whether it be from his support of the U.S. to his views on Islam inside France - is not what drives this man.

The rising tide of influence by radical Wahhabi / Salafi Islam is a concern to all of Europe, not just France. Though France, with its huge and restive Muslim population, has particular problems. (See here for a good essay on this from 2005 by Harvard Prof. Jocelyne Cesari.) Sarkozy is acknowledging the problems and proposing at least some small steps to address them in what seems an intelligent and thoughtful manner.

French presidential front-runner Nicolas Sarkozy has backed off his proposal to modify French law to allow state support for mosques, but said in an interview he wants to keep Islam in France "cut off from foreign influences."

Sarkozy, of Jacques Chirac's ruling conservative party, has upset many in fiercely secular France by questioning the 1905 law separating church and state.

He suggested it be modified to allow public financing of places of worship, specifically mosques, to better integrate the estimated 5 million Muslims in France, which is historically Roman Catholic.

. . . Still, he said he wants to "cut off France's Islam from foreign influence, whether it is financing of places of worship or training of imams."

Read the entire article here. Perhaps if he is successful, it will drive the rest of Europe to likewise acknowledge and address their similar problems before it becomes too late.

Read More...

News From the Surge (Updated)

Detailed news from Iraq is difficult to come by if you are looking in the MSM. Here are a few of the most recent news stories coming out of Iraq, and a few of the military briefings.

Starting with Iraq the Model:

It seems that in Iraq days just refuse to pass silently and they insist on having their own incidents. Today and yesterday are no exception and several significant incidents happened, or still happening, in the fourth corners of the country. Except for Baghdad which remained quiet today.

In the west, particularly in Anbar, the Anbar Awakening Council announced the capture of what appears to be an intelligence treasure. This is what sheik Hameed al-Hayis, a member of the Council told al-Sabah yesterday:
We captured so many of their document and these contain the names of al-Qaeda groups in the province, the letters that were exchanged among those groups, the surveillance reports they were filing to their Emirs about civilian people of Ramadi like clerics and college students as well as details of trials [and executions] to which innocents were subjected.

The al-Qaeda terrorists in Anbar continue their campaign to terrorize the population that is turning against them. This morning another attack with a chlorine gas bomb struck western Ramadi killing and injuring dozens of civilians and policemen.
No wonder al-Qaeda is sending more of their suicide bombers to murder the people of Anbar; a friend of mine who visited the area just two days ago said he saw a crowd of young men near an ISF recruiting center that was "larger than anything else I had seen in Baghdad"

In Diwaniya, the mid-south city to which many Mehdi army militiamen and commanders escaped from the Baghdad operation, Iraqi and US forces are clashing with elements of the Mehdi army. The reports we're getting show that 5 were killed and 15 others were injured in the fighting so far. Al-Arabiya TV reported that the joint force has secured at least two sectors of the city and has also found 2 bomb factories during the ongoing house to house search operations.

It's worth nothing that the situation in the mid-south region provinces has been tense for some time; over the last month or so there have been several minor clashes between the local security forces and the Mehdi army in several places in and around Hilla just north of Diwaniya. . . .

Bill Rogio has a roundup on major operations starting now outside Baghdad.

Outside the Wire has a report with video on a March 26 attack by Al Qaeda in Iraq on Camp Omar, manned by soldiers 1-501 Infantry.

This a story from the 82nd Abn of identifying and taking down terrorist leaders in Adhaminyah.

On video, there are a couple of briefings from Iraq. Both are a bit dry but full of information not only on the surge but also on reconstruction that you will not find elsewhere. The first is a joint briefing with a representative of the Iraqi government.



This is a briefing from April 6 out of the Big Red One


And if you missed it, here was the joint briefing of Sec of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Pace.

Read More...

Criticism From All Sides of Pelosi's Middle East Trip

As pointed out in today's Washington Times, Nancy Pelosi is taking significant criticism seemingly from all sides for taking her Middle East trip over the objections of the White House. For example, see this Wall Street Journal editorial. Justifying her trip as "fostering diplomacy and following the Iraq Study Group's recommendation" to engage in diplomacy with Syria and others in the Middle East, the fact that Ms. Pelosi has no constitutional right, neither as a member of Congress nor as the leading member of the Democratic Party, to be engaging in foreign policy seems to have passed her by.

The criticism is not merely coming from conservatives in the U.S. Indeed, the most scathing criticism seems to be coming from the Middle East. For example, today, this from the Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star (h/t Instapundit):

We can thank the US speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for having informed Syrian President Bashar Assad, from Beirut, that "the road to solving Lebanon's problems passes through Damascus." Now, of course, all we need to do is remind Pelosi that the spirit and letter of successive United Nations Security Council resolutions, as well as Saudi and Egyptian efforts in recent weeks, have been destined to ensure precisely the opposite: that Syria end its meddling in Lebanese affairs.

Pelosi embarked on a fool's errand to Damascus this week, and among the issues she said she would raise with Assad - when she wasn't on the Lady Hester Stanhope tour in the capital of imprisoned dissidents Aref Dalila, Michel Kilo, and Anwar Bunni - is "the role of Syria in supporting Hamas and Hizbullah." What the speaker doesn't seem to have realized is that if Syria is made an obligatory passage in American efforts to address the Lebanese crisis, then Hizbullah will only gain. Once Assad is re-anointed gatekeeper in Lebanon, he will have no incentive to concede anything, least of all to dilettantes like Pelosi, on an organization that would be Syria's enforcer in Beirut if it could re-impose its hegemony over its smaller neighbor.

Then there is this that appeared in the "Arab Times," Saudi Arabia's English language newspaper. Presumably like all other newspapers in the Saudi kingdom, its factual content and editorials are subject to the royal family's watchful eye. Thus at least some of the Royal Family likely agree with this scathing piece by Amir Taheri excorciating Nancy Pelosi for her Middle East boondogle.
The other face of America! This is how Arab media and political circles describe Nancy Pelosi as she winds up her tour of the Middle East amid criticism from the Bush administration. And, there is little doubt that much of the Arab elite likes that face better than the one presented by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her trips to the region.

Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, describes her tour as a fact-finding exercise. But, judging by the substantial negotiations she engaged in, hers was a full-fledged diplomatic mission. At least, this is how most Arabs see it.

“She is the friendly face of America,” says a senior Syrian official. “Where Condi frowns, Nancy smiles.”
Ms. Pelosi was specially feted in Damascus, capital of Syria, the oldest member of the club of “nations sponsoring international terrorism”, according to Washington.

“Her visit was a godsend to an isolated and beleaguered regime,” says a Lebanese minister. “The Syrian regime, which had been thinking of bowing to international pressure, is now reassured. All it has to do is to wait until Pelosi’s party takes over the White House in 2009.”

The Pelosi mission confirms the analysis made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic that the United States is incapable of developing and implementing a long-term strategy. According to this analysis, the US is like a fickle monarch who might wake up one morning and decide to do the exact opposite of what he had been doing for years.

The most radical elements in the region liked Pelosi best if only because she endorsed their campaign of vilification against the Bush administration. Her motto was: Surrender before you have too, and claim credit for it! She represented a superpower that, because no one can take away anything from it, is prepared to give away everything.

The Pelosi Doctrine, as demonstrated during the tour, is the opposite of the Bush Doctrine spelled out in 2002.

The Bush Doctrine links the United States’ national security to democratization in the Middle East. It asserts that undemocratic states serve as breeding grounds for terrorism the way that marshes breed mosquitoes. The US should therefore, throw its weight behind those forces and governments that promote reform in the region.

In practical terms, the Bush Doctrine means a number of things.

It means using force to remove regimes that lack internal mechanisms for change, as was the case with the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddamites in Iraq. It also means persuading friendly regimes to broaden their popular base, liberalize their economies, and open up the social and political space, as is the case in Egypt and Jordan among others. Elsewhere, the Bush Doctrine envisages robust opposition to the ambitions of such opportunist powers as Syria, in its quest to dominate Lebanon, and the Islamic Republic of Iran in its pursuit of regional hegemony.

In the Bush Doctrine the Israel-Palestine conflict is regarded as an almost peripheral problem that could be tackled best when the region is democratized, liberalized, and woven into the global system.

The Bush Doctrine is based on the implicit assumptions that the US represents a political system that is morally superior to that of its adversaries in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The Bush Doctrine is idea-driven, not to say idealistic.

The Pelosi Doctrine, however, is based on realpolitik of the kind that Henry Kissinger or James Baker III, among countless other cynics, would approve.

It rejects the idea that the US political system, or the culture in which it is rooted, is in any way better, let alone superior, to systems developed by other peoples across the globe, including the Middle East. Pelosi applies the tenets of multiculturalism to international affairs: All systems are comparable; all systems are of equal value. She believes that other cultures might not be as good as hers, but hers sure can be as bad as theirs.

The Pelosi Doctrine opposes the use of force, even against obnoxious anti-American regimes. Throughout her tour, Madame Speaker made it clear that she was determined to hasten the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, with hints that the US military presence in Afghanistan would also be wound down. Pelosi’s America would fight back only in self-defense, and rejects pre-emptive war based on perceived threats.

According to the Pelosi Doctrine, the US must work with the regimes in place, including those perceived as enemies. A great power, Pelosi believes, cannot afford to be judgmental. It must work with the realities on the ground rather than seek to change them in accordance with its vision of the world.

Pelosi also restores the status of the Israel-Palestine conflict as the most important issue of the region, if not of international life as a whole, and seeks to resume Washington’s role as mediator in a revived peace process. She rejects what some Arabs see as President George W. Bush’s partiality toward Israel, and urges a return to the even-handedness that the US demonstrated in the last years of the Clinton presidency.

Throughout her visit, Pelosi sought to project a modest image of the United States as opposed to the “arrogant” one presented by Bush.

What would the Middle East look like if the Pelosi Doctrine replaces the Bush Doctrine as the matrix of US foreign policy?

The US will withdraw from Iraq before the new Iraqi regime is capable of defending itself against its internal and external foes. It will then be up to rival regional powers, notably the Islamic republic, to determine the fate of Iraq, together with their local clients.

The new democratic regime in Afghanistan would also come under possibly fatal pressure. The country’s fate would then be in the hands of rival powers, notably Iran, Pakistan and Russia in conjunction with their respective clients within the country.

In the absence of political and diplomatic pressure from Washington, the current trend toward reform and liberalization would come to a halt in most parts of the region. Concerned about the rise of radical forces and greater hostility from revolutionary actors, such as the Islamic republic and the revived Al— Qaeda, Arab regimes would postpone democratization and revert to repressive methods.

Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution” would fade into memory, as Syrian troops return to Beirut to resume occupation.

The Pelosization of US foreign policy would also encourage the “one-state” camp with regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict. At present, a majority of regional powers support a two-state solution in the context of the Saudi peace proposals. But the two-state option is based on the assumption that the US remains an active element in its support, rather than a mediator hedging its bets.

The Pelosization of US foreign policy could plunge the Middle East into endless civil and regional wars, facilitate the return of terrorist organizations now facing defeat and ultimate destruction, and, in time, threaten US national security on a grander scale. And that, in turn, could force the US into wars bigger and costlier than the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq that Pelosi regards as mistakes.

You can find the entire article here. Thus does Nancy Pelosi seem to make strange bedfellows, as I find myself in apparent agreement with the Saudis on this point.

Update: Not surprisingly, at least one group inside the U.S. explicitly applauds Pelosi for her attempt at an alternative foreign policy.

Read More...

The United States as an Ally to the UK

In the wake of the Iranian UK-hostage crisis, I was appalled by many things, not the least of which were Nancy Pelosi refusing to allow the House to condemn Iran and support the UK, as well as numerous opinion pieces in the British press - including the conservative press - which opined that the U.S. was not assisting the British. I found this belief to be most distressing.

True, the U.S. government announced nothing publicly, but as I wrote at the time in response to those allegations, Nancy Pelosi does not yet run our foreign policy, no matter what she may think. There was no doubt whatsoever that the U.S. had passed word to Tony Blair that we would support the U.K. by any means he requested, including with the full force of our military. The utterly craven wing of the Democratic party aside, I could not see America doing anything less for the loyal ally that Britain has been to us.

And as it turns out, that belief has been fully vindicated. This from the Guardian today:

The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

This was precisely what we should have done. And to those in Britain who seemed to believe that the U.S. would leave Britain to its problem while offering no help, I hope this is a bit of a slap of realism in the face. There are literally only a handful of nations left in the Western world whose governments are motivated by at least a patina of idealism, loyalty, and long term goals above and beyond pure self interest - Brtitain's is one, the U.S. another. Do not go looking for any on the continent of Europe. The EU - and the UN - have already spoken to that.

Read More...

Friday, April 6, 2007

A Perfect Islamic Storm . . . Part II

At Gates of Vienna, they have a follow-up to their earlier sobering post forecasting a coming civil war in Europe based on hard numbers of Muslim immigration and other extensive demographic data. See here. Now they have followed with another post that, while not a hard number forecast, is equally as intelligent and sobering. This on the growing seriousness of the situations from Michael Mans, a European author, and on the increasing liklihood of European civil war becasue the current crop of politicians, for the most part, flatly refuse to acknowledge the problem, let alone take remedial action:

And then there are the new politicians, modern thinkers and historians. They emerged after the dreadful Second World War. ‘Remember the war, the holocaust, the colonies and slavery.’ After Adolf, things moved rapidly. We studied our own recent Western history and were appalled by it. And often rightly so. The conclusions were: “never again, and from now on we will love, and must love, everyone and everybody’. Above all, the conclusion was “we are all equal, and since we have been so bad, we are somewhat less equal and have to pay for it.’ The new politicians, thinkers and historians had mainly concentrated on recent Western behaviour and forgotten about what had happened elsewhere or why. They did not see the many similarities or worse.

They also forgot the bigger picture of history over longer periods. Above all, they forgot human nature. All this could be excused if a (re)learning process was visible, but the opposite seems to be true. The more problems become visible, the more the new elite keeps hammering on the old, erroneous conclusions of love by and for all.

It is ironic that this new elite uses exactly the same phrases, displays the same behaviour, as the studied, analysed and consequently despised people and peoples in the past. They force ideas, doctrines and behaviour upon populations which are not liked, often unnatural, and even hated. This inevitably leads to war, or in our case, civil war.

You will find the post from Gates of Vienna here. Do also read the comments. The comments are as intelligent and thought provoking as the post.

Read More...

Will Turkey Stay Secular?

Turkish elections will be held May 16, and the secular nature of Turkey's government instituted after World War I by Attaturk, may well be in the balance:

As the countdown proceeds towards the May 16 presidential election in Turkey, a sense of panic pervades Turkey's secular circles, which fear for the secular and democratic nature of the Turkish republic. The possibility that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will bid for and win the presidency heads the national agenda, with daily polls, wagers, and guessing games.

According to the Turkish constitution, the president is elected by parliament; at present, the AKP party, whose roots are Islamist, holds the majority in parliament.

To date, Erdogan has been secretive about his candidacy, saying that the AKP will disclose its presidential candidate on April 16, a month before the election.

The thought of an Islamist occupying the highest position in the land has thrown the country into turmoil, and has deepened the rift between Islamists and secularists - and this is reflected in Turkey's divided media.

Business circles, NGOs, and the general public have been expressing their wish for nominating a candidate by national consensus, so as to prevent chaos and instability.

Many of the AKP government's Islamization attempts during the past four years have met with rejection and vetoes by the current president, the staunchly secular Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who has acted as a force for checks and balances. This will be lost if he is replaced by Erdogan.

It is thought that if the AKP adds the presidency to its monopoly on the executive and legislative bodies, it will constitute a serious threat to the core principles upon which the modern Republic of Turkey is built. Such absolute, unchecked rule will even give the AKP the power, in the period between the presidential and general elections, to change the constitution and make Turkey into a religious state.

While some secularists are looking to Turkey's strong military, as the custodian of the republic and of the constitution, to intervene as a last resort, the senior commanders are remaining silent on the matter of the presidential election and on internal politics, with reference to the democratic process and in line with demands by the E.U. to lessen the military's influence.

Read the rest of the article here.

Read More...

Krauthammer - The Hostage Situation Throws Harsh Light on EU and UN

Charles Krauthammer has authored an article today, claiming that the British have been humiliated and that Iran acted with impugnity. I do not concur in those assessments in as much as I think the UK will be doing business differently in the future. It will not be leaving quietly with its tail between its legs. And as to Iran, they gave the soldiers back before this got to the point of lobbing bombs. That said, I do not think that they will escape the ramifications of their acts in the long term. See here.

But then Mr. Krauthammer gets to some cogent observations, specifically as to the nature of both the EU and the UN Security Coucil, that are well worth noting:

Where then was the European Union? These 15 hostages, after all, are not just British citizens but, under the laws of Europe, citizens of Europe. Yet the European Union lifted not a finger on their behalf.

Europeans talk all the time about their preference for "soft power" over the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time. What was the soft power available here? Iran's shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits, trade and technology. Britain asked the European Union to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The European Union refused.

Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free-trade zone, but as a political entity it is a farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. "The Dutch," reported the Times of London, "said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue." So much for European solidarity.

Like other vaunted transnational institutions, the European Union is useless as a player in the international arena. Not because its members are venal but because they are sovereign. Their interests are simply not identical.

The problem is most striking at the United Nations, the quintessential transnational institution with a mandate to maintain international peace and order. There was a commonality of interest at its origin -- defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The war ended, but the wartime alliance of Britain, France, the United States, China and Russia proclaimed itself the guardian of postwar "collective security" as the Security Council.

Small problem: Their interests are not collective. They are individual. Take the Iranian nuclear program. Russia and China make it impossible to impose any serious sanctions. China has an interest in maintaining strong relations with a major energy supplier and is not about to jeopardize that over Iranian nukes that are no threat to it whatsoever. Russia sees Iran as a useful proxy in resisting Western attempts to dominate the Persian Gulf.

Ironically, the existence of transnational institutions such as the United Nations makes it harder for collective action against bad actors. In the past, interested parties would simply get together in temporary coalitions to do what they had to do. That is much harder now because they believe such action is illegitimate without the Security Council's blessing. The result is utterly predictable. Nothing has been done about the Iranian bomb. In fact, the only effective sanctions are those coming unilaterally out of the U.S. Treasury.

Read the article here. That last paragraph in paraticular should give pause to those who recall, not too long ago, John Kerry and his Democrat cohorts saying how U.S. foreign policy must be multilateral and must make full use of international bodies such as the UN. Indeed, many on the left judge the legitimacy of any international act on whether it bears the stamp of the UN. For the U.S. every to capitulate to that position would be suicidal.


For my own part, I think we need to at least look at dusting off the Iran Freedom Support Act and see if we cannot convince the EU countries that their loyalties - and bottom line - are best served by cooperating against Iran.

Read More...

Be Careful When Confronting the Left With Unpleasent Facts . . .

They respond . . . and respond, and then respond some more, just all with very little coherence and an overabundance of vitriol. Or to put another way . . . it's not nice to show facts that suggest the hypocrisy of the Goracle. See here. I guess if you are rich enough to afford the carbon credits while the rest of us have to drastically change our lives, you get a free pass from a certain segment of society.

Hattip: Instpundit

Read More...

Thankful for Hillary Fact Checkers


Please see Don Surber here, where he reminds Hillary of some facts she seems to be getting wrong in her descriptions of the art of compromise, Bill style.

Read More...

Self Inflicted Wounds . . . .

There are so many things that we should be talking about today . . . the surge - is it working; the Iranian nuclear crisis; what will happen if we significantly draw down in Iraq; - those are three things that pop immediately to mind. What we do not need are lead headlines in the Washington Post like:

Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted

Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

By R. Jeffrey SmithWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, April 6, 2007; Page A01

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

As a lead story, this is flatly ridiculous. This is rehashing old news about which there was only minimal disagreement to start, and which has zero bearing on whether to leave Iraq, or what to do about Iran. The Post should be roasted alive for running this as a lead . . .

Except that they were giving an opening by Dick Cheney, who mischaracterized what is known about al Qaeda operating in Iraq prior to 2003 and then uses it as the primary argument for keeping our troops in Iraq.
The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Read the entire story here. This is insane. Yes, Zarqawi was in Iraq - but northern Iraq inside the no-fly zone where Hussein had no control. Stupid acts like this only provide grist for even more insane statements by Pelosi and company. It gives them a straw man argument they can easilly discredit while ignoring the truly salient arguments. This is a self inflicted wound. Somebody needs to reign in Mr. Cheney. Sit him in the room with the Democrat's House Intelligence Committee Chairman and give them both a briefing on Iraq, for God's sake.

Read More...

The Hostage Crisis Ends . . . So Where Are We?

The hostage crisis has come to a surpassingly anti-climatic end. We were treated to the sickening spectacle of a smiling Ahmedinejad making a “gift” to the UK of the hostages “for Easter.” Does anyone believe that was Iran's true motivation? So where does this leave all the players in the Iran UK-Hostage Kabuki dance?

Iran –

1. They did themselves no favors by this act of hostage taking. They let the hostages go after twelve days for the same reason they apparently took them – i.e., no clearly discernable logical reason. Most of the world will likely look on this rouge action by Iran – one which fits right in with their historical pattern of such actions – and have to wonder if the U.S. is not right, that Iran can under no circumstances be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Update: Walid Phares has his own analysis up of the detailed logic of the mullahs. See here. As does Victor David Hanson. See here.

2. A few, such as the hard left in Britain and our own hard left appearing in the New York Times, argue that Ahmedinejad’s agreement to end this charade of Iran’s own making demonstrates that Iran is amenable to diplomacy. They reason that we should forgo the military option against Iran over the nuclear issue, withdraw our carriers from the Gulf, and, darn’it, just start acting nicer. I kid you not. See this NYT editorial and this one from the UK’s Guardian. They could have been written Ahmedinejad himself. Such a position defies belief. It ignores Iran’s rouge nature in causing this hostage crisis, their incredibly bloody history in much of the death and destruction occurring to this day in the Middle East, and Iran's history of both duplicity and failure to engage in any diplomacy over its nuclear program. The words craven, contemptible, and out of touch with any semblance of reality are just a few of the descriptive terms appropriate for that crowd.

3. This event clarifies, as well as any, Iran’s power structure when it comes to foreign policy and the acts of the IRGC. Ahmedinejad is a mouthpiece, nothing more. The person calling the shots is the Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei and his band of mad mullahs. It is quite interesting that Ahmedinejad was effectively muzzled by the mullahs throughout this whole event, until he was allowed before the camera's at the end to announce Iran's "grand gesture" of "good will."

4. Iran took this action likely in an attempt to rally support for their cause at home and abroad. They found neither. As the WP explained:

. . . Iran is also likely to pay a long-term price for the detention drama, again appearing to undertake rogue actions in violation of international law, experts and officials said. In the end, Iran recognized that the crisis was beginning to exact a cost, as it came under pressure even from allies and other Islamic countries, officials and experts said. Even Syria urged Iran to release the Britons, Syrian and U.S. sources said.

"They are so consumed with short-term issues -- how to undermine the West and how to gain leverage -- at the expense of long-term strategy. They have undermined themselves," said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "They're playing the immediate moves of checkers and not the long-term strategy of a chess game. In the long term, it undermines their ability to attract foreign investment and have good relations" with the outside world.

Tehran was also unable to rally significant public support for another long-term showdown like the 1979-1981 hostage ordeal involving 52 American diplomats, experts added. "There was no nationalist bounce out of this," said Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "All the usual people you'd expect to be frothing at the mouth simply weren't."

5. The USS Nimitz, a third U.S. Carrier Group, is enroute to the Persian Gulf at this moment. I am waiting to see if it acts as a replacement for one of the two carriers already in place, or adds another to their number. In any event, I think Iran made a tactical error with this one. Overall, the likelihood that Iran will face a military strike on its nuclear facilities and other strikes aimed at its economic infrastructure went up palpably with this hostage taking.

The EU –

The EU established their bona fides as worse then utterly useless by refusing to help one of their own members against a regime that ultimately threatens every one of the EU members themselves. See here. Also see Krauthammer today here. The EU holds the key to shutting down Iran, stopping their nuclear program in its tracks. And we hold the key to making the EU do that. I suggest we all start a campaign to convince the Republicans to dust off the Iran Freedom Support Act and see if we can’t sanction every EU and US foreign subsidiary doing business in Iran today. It would take political courage – something that seems in short supply these days beyond Bush and Lieberman – but it is the next logical step.

Britain

1. The Brit's are more then a little upset. This is a people who learn about Nelson and Trafalgar while still suckling at the tit, and they remember with pride Britain’s travelling half way around the world to spank Argentina when they tried to seize the Falklands. The majority, judging from the news coverage, are not in a mood to play games with Iran again. They are asking all of the right questions (See Updates here). Iran will never get another free shot at British soldiers, sailors or marines again.

2. What this means for Britain’s long term deployment in Basra, Iraq is an open question. Even as they draw down, it appears that Iran is picking up the pace of its actions in Basra. I do hope this gives the Brits the kick in the ass they need to become as deadly efficient in clearing out Basra of the mullah’s infestation as I know that they can be.

Overall:

The US needs to continue doing what it is doing in terms of targeting Iranians inside Iraq as well as seeking regime change inside Iran and hurting the mullahs everywhere else that they are weak. If anything, this event shows that Iran is feeling the heat -- which usually is a good sign that it would be appropriate to turn the heat up a lot more in the coming weeks.

Let's leave the final words to Amir Taheri, the Iranian author speaking in the UK's Times today:
The seizure of the British naval personnel is the latest episode in a low-intensity war that the Islamic Republic has waged against the West for almost three decades. In this war, Iran has killed hundreds of Western, especially American and French troops, in suicide attacks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. More recently, its agents have killed at least 200 American troops and an unknown number of British soldiers in Iraq. Its influence against Nato in Afghanistan, against President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and against Lebanon and Israel, through Hezbollah and Hamas, are well known.

So far, the West’s response has been timid and occasional. The mullahs play a long-term game, acting as carpet-weavers, knotting one mischief at time, day in and day out. They know that their fragile regime, hated by a majority of Iranians, would not survive a full-scale clash with the West. This is why they deal their poison in small but steady doses, enough to weaken the foe but not too much to mobilise Western opinion in favour of full confrontation.

The debate on what to do about the mullahs hits a deadend because it is limited to two options: regime change or surrender. Those who blame the West for the world’s evils urge surrender, in atonement of sins supposedly committed against Iran over centuries. They hope that once the mullahs are given everything, they would start behaving reasonably. This argument ignores the fact that the Khomeinist regime’s political DNA would not allow it to act reasonably. A scorpion does not sting because it wants to misbehave but because it is programmed to do so.

When it comes to the regime-change option, the usual suspects who still cry for Saddam Hussein would be up in arms. President Ahmadinejad knows that no American or British leader can garner popular support for preemptive war against Iran.

The alternative, however, is not one of surrender or regime change. The Western democracies could give the Islamic republic a taste of its own medicine — and engage it in the kind of low-intensity warfare that Iran itself indulges in. The mischief must not be cost-free. It would be resisted though diplomatic and economic means as well as through support for the democratic and reformist forces inside Iran. Throughout history, adversaries end up by adopting aspects of each other’s strategy.

The Islamic Republic wants a Khomeinist Middle East. The “Infidel” want a democratic, pro-West Middle East. The two visions are incompatible. Eventually, one must win as the other loses. As the British celebrate the return of their hostages they would do well to decide which vision deserves support.

Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Thursday, April 5, 2007

The Creep of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam

If you wish your children and grandchildren to grow up in an America like the one you know today, where there is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and security from coercion in either, then it is incumbent upon every American to take a stand and speak out against Wahhabi / Salafi Islam and its encroachments aimed at working fundemental changes to American values and society. If you do not believe me, at least believe the Salafist and former terrorist Twafik Hamid.

And believe the Gates of Vienna who are tracking meetings being held by the Department of Justice in their First Freedom Project - essentially a series of community meetings involving the DOJ and concerned "citizens." What is happening is that the Wahhabi and Salafi groups - CAIR, MPAC, MAS, and ISNA - who have very specific agendas are attending these meetings to further their goals. Their aim is to pressure the government to change the laws of America to insulate their now dominant sect of Islam from criticism, and to grant them what amounts to protected legal status. If this happens - if say the End Racial Profiling Act passes through Congress, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in deep trouble.

The link to Gates of Vienna above contains a thorough explanation and a report on the last First Freedom Project Meeting by Paul Green. Please, by all means read it - and take appropriate action as outlined therein.

Read More...

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Pelosi in a Hijab . . . An Apt Metaphor For the Democrats in Congress

Today, Democrat’s in the House Armed Services Committee banned the use of the phrase “Global War on Terror.” I am not sure if they think it's over, or they just do not want to be reminded that we are facing a global threat from radical Wahhabi / Salafi Islamists. As one republican aide said, the Global War on Terror, if not over, has at least attained the status among Democrats of “The War That Must Not Be Named.”

When you get right down to it, the words "Global War on Terror" are not the only words that seem to have been banned from the Democrat's lexicon. The other words you do not hear pass the lips of our peace-(and-politcal-power)-at-any-cost Democrats these days are "surge" or "Let's have a briefing from General Petraus." Perhaps if the Dem's asked ABC, they would find that even ABC thinks the surge is having a "large and positive effect" today. Guess the Democrats will have to stop watching that station lest the ugly head of reality intrude upon their world.

None of this should be all that surprising really. The House Armed Services Comittee are just a bit ahead of the curve is all. The reactionary wing of the Democratic Party is now in charge, by its own admission, and the Democrats certainly seem to be dancing to the tune, even when the topic is the Iraq War. Their thinking has turned the corner from concerns of national security to concerns for partisan political gain. Though to be fair not all liberals think that way. At least one had the courage of his convictions and refuse to be cowed by Kos and MoveOn.org. Then again, he is not a Democrat anymore.

The Democratic Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, who not all that long ago was arguing that we needed more troops in Iraq, is now proposing to cut off all funding for our military over there. What a difference one election and an emboldened far left wing make. And on the House side, Pelosi and Murtha are leading the charge to get us out of the war in Iraq. Murtha is claiming that if we just get out of Iraq, the Iraqis will be able to clean the mess up themselves. If only U.S. intelligence agreed with him. Then there is Nancy Pelosi claiming as recently as two weeks ago that Iraq is "separate from the war on terror." You have to wonder if she has ever heard of al Qaeda - because she sure does not seem to understand their position on Iraq.

It is a bit funny that Pelosi and Murtha say that we need to leave Iraq because, among other things, our military is falling apart at the seams. Our military is undersized and there are shortfalls in equipment. One might think that the extra 20 billion dollars Murtha and Pelosi found and then stuffed into the latest supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq could have addressed these shortfalls and been spent to purchase new combat equipment and to enlarge our strategic reserve forces. Instead it went for combat peanut storage and the strategic spinach reserve. Go figure.

And it wasn’t all that long ago that Nancy Pelosi installed a man as head of the House Intelligence committee who does not even know or understand the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam. Honest to God, I did not think there were still many Americans living in the four corners of the U.S. who did not know that. And here Nancy is, able to find one who is actually a member of Congress – and promptly puts him in charge of Intelligence. Its moments like these that one has trouble deciding whether to laugh or cry - or both.

But there is no global war on terror now that the Democrats control the Congress. And it’s a good thing, I guess, otherwise Democratic plans to unionize all of our airport security screeners might sound like a pretty silly idea.

The War on Terrorism we were fighting was, I always thought, ultimately against the radical sect of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam that is at the root of terror. Yet we have Nancy Pelosi herself, along with Henry Waxman, introducing legislation – supported by CAIR, the main Wahhabi / Salafi civil rights organization in America - that would severely effect our ability to maintain a high level of security against that threat through the End Racial Profiling Act.

And thus we come back to it - Pelosi in a hijab. What better metaphor for the Democrats today could there be?

Read More...

Nancy Goes Dhimmi

This from the Reform Party of Syria:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was seen roaming the streets of Damascus flaunting a Hijab. The Hijab worn by women across the Muslim world has come to symbolize either one of three things: 1) a symbol that men control women by forcing piety, or 2) a return to religiosity because of oppressive rulers, or 3) a fashion statement. If you ask any expert on the Middle East, you would get any one of three answers. The ones who usually claim it is a fashion statement are the political rulers who usually oppress people in general. A Hijab is NOT a confirmation of the rights of women in the Middle East but rather a symbol of their suppression.

As a Muslim, I fully understand respect of our religion by visiting US officials and I applaud that respect. Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not only to oppression but also to lack of women's rights in the Middle East. Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and those who aspire for women's freedom in the Muslim countries many years back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle East is showing.

Assad could not have been happier because Syrian women, seeing a US official confirming what their husbands, the Imams in the Mosques tell them, and the society at large imposes on them through peer pressure will see in her wearing a Hijab as a confirmation of the societal pressures they are constantly under. No one will ever know how many women took the Hijab on after seeing Pelosi wearing it. The damage Speaker Pelosi is causing with her visit to Syria will be felt for many years to come.

I feel the need to shower every time I think that she hails from Baltimore, my own hometown.

Update: Whatever varying opinions we may have on this, Nancy is uniformly a hit among the radical Islamist crowd.

Read More...

Mommy Warbucks - Whither the Ethics Investigation?

This from Atlas Shrugs on Senator Dianne Feinstein:

Why did Senator Dianne Feinstein of California suddenly resign as chair of a powerful military appropriations subcommittee last week? That's the question much of Washington is asking, and liberal government watchdog groups are apparently not going to give her a pass on the issue.

They believe her withdrawal is linked to her subcommittee's allocation of millions of dollars in defense contracts to companies partly owned by her husband.

The story began two months ago when Metro Newspapers, a group of alternative weeklies in northern California, laid out an impressive array of defense contracts that had been awarded to Perini Corp. and URS Corp., both of which Ms. Feinstein's husband, financier Richard C. Blum, maintained an ownership stake in.

The articles detailed several instances in which Senator Feinstein apparently pressed for spending on anti-terrorism programs that benefited her husband's companies. In 2002, she wanted to know from Pentagon officials why Army bases weren't being protected. The next year, she demanded to know why funds allocated for anti-terror protection had not been spent.

As Cybercast News Service reports, "Just over a month later, URS announced a $600 million contract to provide services for U.S. Army bases that included anti-terrorism force protection."


On another occasion, Ms. Feinstein asked a military official when money would be spent on a facility at Hickam Air Base in Hawaii. URS later announced a $42 million contract to build the facility.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal group Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, told Metro Newspapers that the issues surrounding Senator Feinstein could be huge. "There are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest," Ms. Sloan said. "But because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein's conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts."

Adding to the mystery is that Senator Feinstein's office isn't talking or commenting much on her sudden resignation from a key subcommittee. You can bet that her silence will only encourage reporters to get to the bottom of her reasons for leaving.


I would be lying if I said I just do not understand why the MSM has not started investigating this.


Read More...

Kissing Ahmedinejad's Ring

I am watching the hostage release on CNN as the British sailors and marines are being paraded single file up to Ahmedinejad to thank him for his hospitality. In a few days, I am sure that it will be possible to put this entire charade into perspective. There are many questions that the Brits must answer concerning their Rules of Engagement, there allowing small groups of soldiers to act without adequate cover or support, etc. Now they must also explain why 15 sailors and marines would become willing accomplices in Ahmedinejad's propoganda war.

The sailors and marines, unconscionably placed into a horrid situation by their commanders, have not distinguished themselves. While one or two of these sailors appearing on national television is to be expected, I never expected to see an officer willingly take part in the televised theatrics, which occurred two or three days ago when a lieutenant in the Royal Marines appeared on Iranian television. And what we are being treated to at the moment is the entire contingent parading up to Ahmedinejad, thanking him profusely and with many smiles, all in a ceremony where Ahmedinejad just gave a decoration to the IRGC commander in charge of the unit that took the Brits hostage.

Let me put this in perspective. I had the honor of knowing James Bond Stockdale. Vice Admiral Stockdale was the most decorated man in the history of the United States Navy. He also had been a prisoner of war. The North Vietnamese tortured him (the real stuff, not waterboarding or the Abu Ghraib faux torture that has the liberals wetting their panties) and was subjected to years of solitary confinement. The Vietnamese on several occasions offered to give him easier treatment if he would only appear on television and denounce the war. He refused, and on at least one occasion before he was to be shown on television, he actually beat his own face with a piece of wood to prevent the Vietnamese from using his image in their propoganda effort.

I do not expect that type of heroics to be shown by the average human, and I include among that nunber the 15 hostages still in Iranian control. But I cannot beleive my eyes watching these 15 sailors and marines honoring Ahmedinehad, each duly marching up to him and thanking him. Is there not one among there number that will not refuse? My respect for Britain and Her Majesty's military is dropping by the minute. I will attempt to keep an open mind for the next week or so until hearing from Britain's military spokesmen and the sailors and marines themselves. But my gut reaction to all of this is not promising.

I sincerely doubt that the willingness of the sailors and marines to participate in Ahmedinejad's propoganda will ever be addressed by Blair directly. But what Blair can do is address how and why this hostage taking was allowed to happen. The Commander of the HMS Cornwall needs to be disciplined and relieved of command, and Blair needs to publicly announce the steps he is taking to insure events such as this will not happen again. I think that necessary for the UK, the UK military, and for the mullahs in Iran who need to be disabused of any notion that the West does not have the stomach for military confrontation if Iran is going to push us to the wall either by events like this or by their continuing drive to create a nuclear arsenal.

Update: There is an excellent article in the UK Daily Mail that lays out precisely what needs to be done now by the Brits. And another here from The Telegraph. All the right questions are being asked. I suspect that a lot of the answers won't be pretty, but that is of no matter so long as things get fixed - and publicly so.

Update: And here, the Brits are questioning the how and why the sailors and marines degree of cooperation with Iran.

Read More...

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

WSJ Having Fun With al-Reuters

This is at once quite humorous (WSJ) and, at the same time, incredibly insipid and partisan (al Reuters). From James Tarantan at the WSJ:

The Bad News Is the Good News Is Right President Bush has done a good job in the war against al Qaeda, Reuters reports. Seriously:

"Bush's administration has crippled al Qaeda's ability to carry out major attacks on U.S. . . .

Even as al Qaeda tries to rebuild operations in Pakistan, experts including current and former intelligence officials believe the group would have a hard time staging another September 11 because of U.S. success at killing or capturing senior members whose skills and experience have not been replaced.

But of course you know this is really bad news. The dispatch is titled "Bush Success vs. al Qaeda Breeds Long-Term Worries," and the text we omitted from the lead paragraph reads, ". . . but at a political and economic cost that could leave the country more vulnerable in years to come, experts say."
One of those "experts" is Michael Scheuer, who was last seen describing the Holocaust Museum as part of a Jewish conspiracy to control America:
"Look at al Qaeda's plans," said Michael Scheuer, who once led the CIA team devoted to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. "They're very simply defined in two phrases: spread out America's forces and bleed the United States to bankruptcy. I'd argue America has been under attack successfully every day since 9/11 from that perspective.

"If you're looking at it from the cave, or wherever al Qaeda is hiding at the moment, you have to be pretty happy with the way the world is moving," he said.

Our favorite, though, is the closing quote in the piece:
IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke said the chance of an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil has grown based on the militant network's increasing references to the American homeland in public messages.

"Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," Venzke said.

There is no denying Venzke is right. If an al Qaeda attack is in the future, then it is closer now than at any point since 9/11. Venzke has stumbled onto something profound: the linear and sequential nature of time.

There are other disturbing implications as well. If you survived 9/11--and this is true no matter who you are--you are more than five years closer to death now than you were then. Reuters should look into this aspect of the story. No doubt they can find some experts to explain that it's President Bush's fault.

Read More...

A Former Terrorist Speaks Out On Wahhabi / Salafi Islam and Tells the West Not to be Silenced

Tawfik Hamid, a former member of Ayman al-Zawahiri's terrorist organization, Jamaal Islamiya has written an editorial in the WSJ making several important points. Dr. Hamid points out that Wahhabi Islam, (that he calls Salafi Islam - a differnece in terminology, not substance) is at the root of the radicalization of Islam, that Islam needs to evolve and modernize out of the strict Wahhabi dogma, and that this imperative requires assistance by the West who need comprehend the anti-liberal nature of Wahhabi Islam and then, one, refuse to be silenced, and two, unapolegetically criticize Islam when and where warranted. Only through such actions can the West assist those Muslims who want to see Islam evolve and modernize. Think of his message as the polar opposite of CAIR's - itself a Wahhabi / Salafi organization.

Once you have read Dr. Hamid's article below, please see here, discussing Wahhabi / Salafi Islam in the context of attempts to silence the West.

The Trouble With Islam

Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.

BY TAWFIK HAMID
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went Wrong?" Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.

But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.

These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological "rootlets" of Islamism, the main tap root has a name--Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria--which happened in the last few decades--or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict

Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.

The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.

Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."

All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.

Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.

Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.

For this article as it appears in the WSJ, please see here.

Read More...

Grand Ayatollah Sistani Nixes Maliki's Proposed De-Baathification Law

This is a set back. The NYT is reporting that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has let it be known through his assistants that he does not support the current De-Baathification plan proposed by Prime Minister Maliki. That plan, designed to bring Sunni's back into the government fold and stem their support for the insurgency, is a critical component of establishing stability and quelling the violence in Iraq. According to reports, Sistani's voice of displeasure over the law means certain defeat for the measure when it is voted in Parliament. Further, the NYT is reporting that Sistani's veto came after a meeting with an opponent of the bill, Ahmed Chalabi, who apparently used this technique as an end around Maliki and he Parliament. This is not good news. Read the article here.

Read More...

U(K)tter Bull – Answering the Independent’s Claim that the U.S. is to Blame for the UK’s Hostage Crisis

The article “The Botched U.S. Raid That Led to the Hostage Crisis,” appearing in the British newspaper, The Independent, is a just a horrid hit piece. It's rank speculation masquerading as fact with a twist of moral equivalence that turns reality on its head. In the scenario posited by the Independent, hostage taking Iran is simply an innocent victim who has struck back only after unreasonable provocation by a bellicose and reckless U.S. It’s dangerous and utter nonsense.

The Independent claims that Iran’s kidnapping of 15 sailors and marines was a response to an unjustified U.S. provocation - a “botched” raid it claims was aimed at securing two high ranking Iranians, the head of intelligence for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) and the deputy head of Iran’s National Security Council. The Independent tells us that these officials were openly in Iraq for meetings with Kurdish leaders on “bilateral security issues.”

As the Independent describes it, the alleged U.S. attempt to secure these two men has “provoked a dangerous escalation.” Moreover, the Independent asserts that the raid was unjustified, describing it as the moral equivalent of “Iran . . . kidnap[ing] the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighboring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan.” The raid ultimately netted five people the Independent describes as “junior liaison agents,” but not the two senior Iranian officials supposedly targeted.

The premise that Iran is an innocent victim that the U.S. should be leaving Iran alone is ridiculous. The Independent is either wholly ignoring the larger picture surrounding Iranian actions, or they have they been asleep for a few years and need to catch up on current events. There is precious little of anything innocent about Iranian involvement in Iraq. Nor is there anything innocent about Iran’s surge towards acquiring nuclear weapons. By ignoring these, the Independent distorts reality and engages in a suicidal game of moral equivalence.

As to Iran’s involvement in Iraq, there is no question of the theocracy’s complicity in the death and mayhem going on inside the country. For example, see here and here. And that mayhem is not just aimed at Americans and Sunnis – and Shias for that matter, it’s taking the lives of British soldiers in Basra also. See here.

Such acts are a provocation to the US and UK -- a real one, involving blood and brain matter splattering across streets, limbs lost, and hearts taking their final beat. In various forms, it has been going on since 2003. And the instruments of that bloodshed are the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force operating inside Iraq. Such provocation demands an adequate response. It justifies not only covert action against Iranian interests, but also overt actions if the U.S. or U.K. were inclined to take it.

Two, there is nothing innocent about Iran and the pending nuclear crisis they are imposing on the world. How dangerous is a nuclear armed Iranian theocracy? No less then the preeminent scholar of Middle Eastern history and culture, Bernard Lewis, spoke to the world on this issue some months ago:

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
See here. Then today there was this assessment from the brilliant scholar, Thomas Sowell:

Once Iran has nuclear weapons, that will be an irreversible change that will mark a defining moment in the history of the United States and of Western civilization, which will forever after live at the mercy of hate-filled suicidal fanatics and sadists.

See here. The threat posed by a nuclear armed Khomeinist theocracy is palpable and existential. George Bush has promised to meet it. He has flatly stated that he will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. I trust he has said what he means. Indeed, even Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made noises indicating that they would take military action to stop Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.

Everyday, we inch closer to open warfare with Iran as they refuse to give up their quest for a nuclear weapon. Iran has not responded to years of European diplomacy. Nor has the theocracy responded to sanctions. Quite the opposite, they have increased the speed of their nuclear program. If Iran is going to be made to stop, the mullahs must understand the price to be paid to continue on their current path will be be real and it will be severe.

Doing absolutely nothing beyond diplomacy and tepid sanctions leaves Iran’s theocrats with a belief that the West is a eunuch. And indeed, as any student of the Iranian Revolution knows, that is a cherished belief among the mullahs. One of Ayatollah Khomeni’s favored expressions was that the West “can’t do a damned thing.” Unfortunately for the world, Jimmy Carter was President when Khoemeni popularized that phrase. Interestingly, the U.S. hostages were released the day Ronald Regan was inaugurated as President. I have no doubt that there were limits to how far Khomeini was willing to test his thesis – and Regan’s inauguration as President marked one of those clear limits.

The only way we will stop Iran’s nuclear program short of open war is to make Iran’s mullahs understand that we are able and willing to engage Iran. As long as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei feels safe and secure, Iran will not turn from its path of murderous complicity in Iraq and the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Thus, unless we want open war in the very near future, we have to aggressively engage Iran on the margins and make them feel the pain. Put another way, in the larger context that takes into account Iranian direct support for warfare targeting the US and Britain inside Iraq, as well as the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons, the U.S. raids on Iranian high value targets are not only wholly warranted, they are a necessity born of self-defense.

But all of that is mere context, for having now justified covert actions against Iran, such as targeting their senior officials in Iraq, it matters not to the instant case as the Independent provides no reasonable proof that the "botched" raid happened as they allege. The sole proof the Independent offers to establish that U.S. troops were targeting the two senior Iranian official is a bald assertion by the Chief of Staff to the governor of Kurdistan Regional Government. It is more then curious that the Independent should fail to tell us how he acquired his knowledge or give us any other indicia of the reliability of his statement. Certainly the Independent would have included anything that might have buttressed his assertion. Since I seriously doubt the Kurdish staff official was included in the planning of the raid, we can safely assume that he is not stating first hand information. In other words, it is apparent that this “source” is speculating or repeating speculation as to the target of the U.S. raid in question.

Moreover, as a logical matter, I have a lot of trouble believing that the U.S. could have “botched” a raid targeting the two senior Iranian officials given the scenario painted by the Independent. The target location of the raid was in a secure area regularly trafficked by Kurds. The two Iranian officials were operating in the open. In such circumstance, it is more then difficult to believe that the U.S. would pull the trigger on a raid by its Special Forces when the alleged subjects of the assault were not present at the target location. Raids such as this are not spur of the moment operations. With the two officials making no attempt to conceal their presence, they would have been easy to track, and the raid would not have commenced until intelligence confirmed the location of the two men. In short, there is no alternative reason to support the Independent's claim that the raid was actually targeting the two senior Iranian officials.

Further, the Independent takes some cheap shots at the U.S. regarding the five Iranians seized during the raid, surmising that they were cleary inocent diplomatic staff:

US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, who have not been seen since, were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces". This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there were no Sunni-Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.
Neither you, I, nor the author of this piece has any clue what intelligence the U.S. was operating on when it took these five Iranians into custody. But that does not stop the Independent. Let me ask, if you wished to set up a headquarters for a covert network, do you want it at a location crawling with US and British forces, or would you prefer an area that is easily accessible, in reasonable proximity, and with far less security roaming about? The Independent’s speculation based on just geographical location is nonsensical.

Next, the Independent speculates as to Ali Khamenei’s motivation in taking the 15 sailors and marines as hostages. The author gives not one shred of evidence for his assertion that the taking of the 15 hostages was a strike in retaliation for the “botched” raid. The fact that IRNA portrayed the U.S. raid as targeting the two senior officials tells us nothing. There is more then one reason to take the fifteen sailors and marines hostage that make more sense then simple revenge for a “botched” mission by the U.S.

One, the kidnapping fell on the eve of a Security Council vote to impose more sanctions on Iran for their failure to halt their nuclear program. That seems too fortuitous to be coincidental. Thus, it is conceivable that this kidnapping is meant to slow the pace of pressure being brought to bear on Iran over the nuclear program.

Two, given that the UK was targeted and not the US, it is quite possible that Iran is attempting to drive a wedge in the alliance between the US and the UK. If so, then the Independent is doing the work for Ahmedinejad and company by writing articles such as this one today, blaming the US for the kidnapping – not Iran.

Lastly, the Middle Eastern scholar and terrorism expert Walid Phares has written that the kidnapping is most likely a gambit by Khamenei to draw a limited military response, and that the kidnapping is directed squarely at quelling internal dissent in Iran that threatens the theocracy. See here.

I could go on here, but, what it boils down to that nothing in this article by the Independent blaming the US for the Iranian kidnapping withstands even minimal scrutiny. In sum, this is a hit piece that blames the U.S. for the an abominable act by the thuggish Iranian theocracy. And this is certainly not the mullahs first act of kidnapping. Actually, kidnapping is a well established part of Iranian foreign policy. Iran has been involved in kidnapping over 1,000 people since the mullahs came to power in 1979. But I digress.
Is the U.S. targeting Iranians in Iraq and elsewhere? I certainly hope so. Does that make the U.S. morally guilty for any Iranian retaliatory act? The answer is yes only if you are an apologist for Iran, or so steeped in the doctrine of moral equivalence that you cannot see a difference between Iran and the U.S. If so, please see the differences here. At any rate, I am not sure which of the two categories the Independent fits into, but it is at least one of them.

Read More...

 

View My Stats