Peep this: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/22827/0477. "Nick Berg's Killing: 50 Fishy Circumstances, Contradictory Claims, and Videotape Anamolies." Haters! Kind of interesting though if you can ignore the implications - while many/most of the 50 can be explained away, are totally insubstantial, or are just false, amidst all the political symbolism that has been imputed to this event there does seem to be some kind of crazy backstory that we'll probably never learn.

"Who benefits" is a useful line of reasoning, but one must take into account the risks involved.

>>there is no denying that the September 11 attacks have served the interests of the Zionists more than they have any other group's.

This is undeniably true. The Zionists have massively profited both financially and politically from 9/11. However, suggesting that Mossad was behind 9/11 ignores the incredible risks such an operation would bring to Israel. If solid evidence of Mossad involvement got out, a Second Holocaust would surely occur. No short-term political benefit would be worth that risk.

I despise Mossad, but they're WAY too organized and intelligent to do anything this stupid.

Consider this: to use nuclear weapons, carpet-bomb cities full of civilians, or engage in unrestriced submarine warfare requires more than misguided ideology, misreading of religious canon, or a lack of job opportunities. These acts are catalyzed by prolonged immersion in cults of hatred and demonization - cults with many sources, and many manifestations. We’ll be examining the ingredients and expressions of these cults of hatred in our monthly briefing.

Maybe soon we can understand why our grandparents acted the way they did.

Jumblatt, the longtime Druze socialist politician ,militia leader and all-around bad guy in Lebanon is of course, not an Islamist- not being a Muslim. He may however, also be reflecting the outlook of Syria's Alawite minority Baathist regime - no friend of either the US, democracy or Israel.

Left to his own devices I'm not sure how Jumblatt would regard the Islamists. Probably a latent hostility since everything about radical Qtubist-Sunni ideology would consider Druze to be apostates or infidels

Thanks, TJ, for today's completely useless excercise in moral equivalency!

If you cannot see the difference between American actions in WWII and Islamist actions in the present day, then I'm not sure you can be offered anything but pity.

With regard to "Moderate vs Militant Islam - who's winning" - you present a lot of interesting anecdotes. But I'd like to see some statistics as well. In particular, I'd like to see trend lines over the last 20 years, annotated with various foreign policy decisions that seem relevant.

Removing Saddam did have the direct effect of removing the financial support to the families of Palestinian bombers. I wish that the Bush administration would emphasize this point. It makes their case that Iraq was a direct supporter of terrorism.

The administration choose to completely ignore this point in their PR because it is likely to make the US's foreign policy look too coordinated with Israel. After all, we are supposed to be pursuing the US national interests.

I find it sad that we can spend our military in Bosnia (clearly outside our direct national interest) and get credit from the liberals and international community, while when we sacrifice in Iraq for the benefit of Iraqis and long term US interests we are castigated for supporting Israel?

While it is clear to me that any Israel benefits from GWII were not the driving factor in going to war, I DON'T think Bush should deny these side benefits, simply to appease some critics.

I think it is time to stand up and count the benefits of GWII:

• NO terrorist support from Saddam to
  the Palestinians

• NO safe harbor from Saddam for AQ and
  related groups.

• Decreased financial support (oil) to Jordon from
  an unfriendly, dangerous Saddam. Support can
  continue on more friendly (to the US ) terms.

• Removal of the Iraqi WMD production capacity
  -- Either for Saddam's use or
  -- Sale or transfer to other parties

• In the long term, an increase in the supply
  of oil.

• Removal of a military threat to neighboring
  nations and their supply of oil. (Completing
  GWI objectives in a final form)

• In the long term, oil money is removed from
  an evil dictator's arm acquisition agenda.
  -- Removal of one customer of N.
  Korean missiles.
  -- Removal of a financially plausible
  candidate to purchase Pakistani Nuclear
  weapons or knowledge.

• In the long term, democracy is brought to an
  Arab, Muslim nation

• In the long term, the threat to the Kurds
  is diminished

• In the long term, establish a US ally in the
  region, allowing US policy toward our current
  "allies" to shift in response to anti-US
  behavior

It remains to be seen if we accrue the benefits I describe "in the long term". Those painting a doom and gloom scenario in Iraq (and for its future) are I suspect contributing to the diminished likelihood of gaining these benefits.
Let's hope that Bush's long term "plan" or "strategery" for Iraq bears fruit.

--Fred

Obe - I didn't read T.J. Madison's post quite the way you did. In fact I would agree with him that hatred did play a part in that he cites. It is the recovery from such hatred that I pointed to in my reference to the P.J O'Rourke article.

That said - T.J. - your last sentence can be read a number of ways, none of which seem particularly optimistic to me. Clarification would nonetheless be welcome.

mark safranski: My understanding is that while the Druze consider themselves Muslims, most Muslims don't recognize them as such. Jumblatt's call for the martyrdom of the youth demonstrates some salient aspects of Islamism in my mind.

TJ- ever hear of Pearl Harbor? The rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? Need I go on?

Fred K: First, the Palestinian suicide bombers' survivors continue to receive dishonoraria from Saudi Arabia, so the fall of Saddam only partly affects them financially. I have to tell you, I don't think that $20,000, even considering how much further that sum goes in a hellhole refugee camp, is a big factor in suicide bomber recruitment. Not a zero factor, just not that big.

In my opinion, Saddam was giving money to the Palestinian terrorists not so much to support their campaign, but because those Palestinians are considered heroic in Iraq (notwithstanding whatever Chalabi told us), and Saddam was hoping some of their popularity would be reflected back through his benefaction. Compare the Mafioso building the church…

To gain popularity in Iraq?
Weve seen examples of considerable resentment against Palestinians in Bagdad. Or in the arab world generally? Or in the PA territories, where Saddam was supporting a Baathist party, and playing for influence.

SH was always playing to a larger stage than just Iraq.

To gain popularity in Iraq?
Weve seen examples of considerable resentment against Palestinians in Bagdad. Or in the arab world generally? Or in the PA territories, where Saddam was supporting a Baathist party, and playing for influence.

SH was always playing to a larger stage than just Iraq.

P.J has a brand new book out (Peace Kills). The Iwo Jima article is the post script of the book. Its unlikely it'll appear online.

Andrew,

Granted, I doubt that the money to the Homicide Bombers' families (from SH or Saudi Arabia) really mattered that much, but then again, if it didn't matter that much why do they bother to offer it?

Your point that this funding stream is not the only one is well taken. I'd like the next administration (JK or GWB) to try to address the Saudis more intensely. Perhaps Iraqi as an ally will make this more feasible (one can hope for the unlikely).

Of course, the E, the UN, and even the US sends money to the Palestine Auth. which is tantamount to funding the bombers. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, or fill in relavent details)

Cheers

That Fritz Hollings.

What a nutcase!

BTW, I think the "crazy backstory" to the Nick Berg murder is that the fedayeen guys who did it drugged him, killed him, cut his head off, and edited the video.

Liberalhawk, I think you're right. I should have said that Saddam was paying the suicide bombers to enhance his image throughout the Arab world, not just Iraq. I think that was much more important than whatever incremental incentive his donations made in bomber recruitment.

Fred 2, offhand, I'd say that while graft is endemic to the Palestinian Authority, it's not going to suicide bombers. In a certain sick sense it might be better if it were. Hamas got a lot of credit on the ground for putting money into social services (including taking care of the families of suicide bombers) while Palestinian Authority officials were living it up and sending money to Swiss banks. One could hardly expect whatever moderate Palestinians there are to coalesce around this gang of brutal crooks.

Al Jazeera lies.

Bollocks.

• The al Jazeera story isn't directly about the Berg video, but about sceptical reactions to it: witness the title, "Bloggers doubt Berg execution video".

• [In one way the title is inaccurate; the article doesn't confine itself to bloggers' reactions, but also gathers up sceptical remarks from the discussion groups, the press, etc.]

• At some points it's not clear whether the article is merely reporting other people's claims or making its own. But at the points Lewy14 particularly refers to -- the cui bono inuendo and the description of the throat cutting -- it's explicitly reporting "some discussions" or what "some claim".

• So Lewy14's claim that al Jazeera lies or resort to fabrication about the Berg execution is itself clearly false. [They might possibly be lying or resorting to fabrication about internet reaction, but that's not what Lewy14's claiming.]

• While the Jazeera article is poorly referenced, it's true as a general proposition that plenty of scepticism has been aired about the video. See e.g. Wikipedia or Kuro5hin for roundups.

• I don't know how much of all that stuff is true -- I expect a lot of it is flaky -- but some points do have serious support. In particular, Asia Times reports the executive director for surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and a fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators, in support of the theory that the victim had died already before his corpse was decapitated; and they cite "an apparent lack of massive arterial bleeding" as one reason.

• [Even if, as the medical gentlemen believe, "video depicting the decapitation appears to have been staged", that doesn't say anything about who staged it or why].

File under "false Western charges against al Jazeera". Who will hatewatch the hatewatchers?

praktike,

I sense a latent argument in your post on Hollings. Perhaps you could elaborate on the relevance of your linked article to the Hollings piece.

Bottom line: there are a few parts of Hollings piece in which he crossed the line into paranoia and anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, it's silly and downright counterfactual to argue that Iraq was undertaken at least in part to secure Israel.

The document to which I linked was put together by many of the long-time advocates of the Great Iraqi Adventure: Perle, Feith, Wurmser as a national security strategy for Israel.

Aside from some instances of astonsihing ignorance (esp. regarding Hashemites), it's very interesting.

Why did we care about Saddam's missile range? Hint: it wasn't to protect Canada.

I see no problem with this, as Israel is a key ally of ours, but I think we should be aware of the tradeoffs and difficulties involved.

andrew

Im not sure that SH's having a political motive, means that the money was not important. Saudi funding to AQ seems to have been motivated by a desire to avoid attacks on the kingdom, NOT by a desire to see successful AQ attacks elsewhere. Nonetheless it mattered.

My understanding is that if youre a wouldbe suicide bomber, youre obviously not concerned about your own future prospects, but making sure the family you leave behind is taken care of matters very much, and is an important consideration in recruiting. Now you can quibble all you want about how important it is - I see no empirical evidence to indicate its NOT important, and ive seen reports from Israeli sources that it IS important.

What is also significant is that the funds went to HAMAS suicide bombers, showing SH's ability to cooperate with Islamist groups, when it suited his purpose.

Praktike: Exactly. Plus, the Israel connection is why these great and brilliant realists, these clear-headed analysts, fell all over themselves to support Charlatan Chalabi.

Liberalhawk: Saddam's been deposed for a year, so no rewards. I think the evidence suggests that whatever diminuition in suicide attacks we've seen comes from the Wall. Not a shortage of volunteers.

Andrew,

I certainly agree with you that any diminution of suicide attacks comes largely from the wall. But that doesn't mean the cutoff of money from Saddam has had no effect. It's also impossible to deny that money comes from other sources, which I along with all of us, would like to see dried up. But because we didn't dry up all sources of funds does not mean we should not have dried up any.

The entire economic output of the arab world is barely equivalent to Spain's. Is that why Spain was bombed, out of jealousy? Why does not Al Jazeera cover this?

We know that Al Jazeera lies, as a matter of policy. Al Jazeera dooms its arab viewers to more long years of ignorance, hatred, and bloodshed.

Andrew: im sure it results from a number of factors. I dont think anyone one was saying that the benefits in the reduction of suicide bombings in Israel due to the removal of Saddam by itself makes the Cost benefit worthwhile, just that its one point to consider.

now can anyone please point to what in the original thread this whole long string of comments relates to? Seems way off topic to me.

praktike - Bottom line: there are a few parts of Hollings piece in which he crossed the line into paranoia and anti-Semitism. So we're agreed, he is a nutjob? Hollings wasn't making his argument based on the fact that Perle wrote a position paper for Israel eight years ago or that Saddam's missles couldn't reach North America. Hollings advances the idea that Wolfowitz wanted to spread democracy in the ME to secure Israel, but the quotes he attributes to Wolfowitz don't talk about Israel at all. Further, the IASPS paper you link to does not talk about democracy in the ME, it talks about an Iraq under the control of the Hashemites. Finally, Hollings does his own arithmetic and concludes that the Iraq invasion was done to secure a Bush re-election by winning the huge Jewish vote.

There is a bunch of stuff that's risible here, including the Hashemite fantasist nonesense in the IASPS document - But aside from the fact that Perle is cited by Hollings and is also an author of the IASPS document, I don't see any substantive support that the IASPS document provides for any of Hollings "arguments". Yes, Perle stated that getting rid of Saddam was good for Israel - he was writing a position paper, for Israel, in 1996. Perhaps I misinterpreted your initial "what a nutcase" snark but that is what I thought you were implying that somehow the substantive content of the IASPS document made Hollings less of a nutjob. Or is it the mere existance of the IASPS document which you feel might partially support Hollings?

In any case my intent here is not to defend Perle or relaunch the Iraq war. My intent is to characterize the nature of the nuttiness which Hollings demonstrated. If the IASPS paper really has a bearing on that I guess I need more explanation.

>>That said - T.J. - your last sentence can be read a number of ways, none of which seem particularly optimistic to me. Clarification would nonetheless be welcome.

Certainly. Let's start with first principles. I'm assuming that the moral goal here is to maximize human liberty. To a good first approximation, this involves minimizing the overall body count. I'm also going to invoke George W. Bush's favorite philosopher and assign the same fundamental value to the lives of all humans.

Now, most people don't like to do this. People don't want to assign a value of "one human life" to people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Osama, the Berg assassins, etc. They want to assign these people a value of zero. They also want to believe that these murderers are fundamentally different as people from us "normal decent people", who could never do such awful things.

I believe this is a serious error that almost inevitably leads to a higher body count.

To be sure, it may be necessary to kill these extremely dangerous people in order to save more lives. This said, people are almost never honest when using this reasoning to justify killing other humans. The justification is usually applied retroactively to rationalize away terrible crimes.

Let's take Allied atrocities in WWII for example. The historical justification for Allied murder of "enemy" civilians -- particularly ironic since these people were among the evil regimes' primary victims -- is that it was necessary in order to end the war sooner and save lives. Closer analysis of the situation reveals this claim to be bullshit.

The best example of this was the Allied bombing campaign in Europe. Most people assume that this campaign targeted German industrial production. In the case of the US bombing, this was largely true. As it turns out, US industrial bombing was completely ineffective -- worse than useless really. We have access to the detailed records of German war production and it appears that US bombing raids actually led to INCREASES in war production. The raids themselves did little damage to the steel factories, and the resulting boosts in morale and determination led to enhanced output. (The same was not true in Japan, where the wooden factories burned very well indeed. Late war firestorms, like Dresden, which occurred long after enemy war production became irrelevant, are in a category by themselves.)

The British bombing campaign run by Arthur Harris, on the other hand, primarily targeted residential areas. The goal here was to kill as many civilians as possible in order to "break enemy morale." This was wholesale murder, pure and simple, based in a thirst for vengeance. Even though the amount of bombs dropped by the US and England in Europe was comparable, the British killed nearly an order of magnitude more civilians.

This was an atrocity two orders of magnitude greater than 9/11, and had no military justification. Yet do we think of the men in the RAF as monsters, devoid of all moral value and worthy of execution? Of course not. Partly this is due to personal bias: the RAF was on "our team." Mostly though, this is because our shared culture allows us to see the British as "good people" who would act morally under most circumstances.

Essentially what had happened was that these ordinarily decent people, in joining the British war machine, had adopted total war logic. It is essential to observe that "total war" logic is the THE SAME as the logic of "modern" Islamic terrorists. The enemy, now broadly defined as the entire population of several nations, weren't valued as people anymore. At best, they were obstacles to be eliminated on the path to victory. At worst, they were demons who all "had it coming."

Similar reasoning can be applied to the US firebombing and nuking of Japan, only with even more racist hatred. As to the "military necessity" of the use of nukes on civilians, I'm going to go along with such leftist peaceniks as MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Bradley in concluding that the use of nukes was completely unjustified.

We see similar issues (on a much smaller scale) today. Let's take Fallujah, for example. Here, some guerillas killed four US mercenaries, out of the misguided view that this would help "liberate" their country/region/town/whatever from some nonexistant US oppression. Then an angry mob formed to tear apart the bodies as payback for various real and imagined grievances (which the four mercenaries likely had nothing to do with.)

Now lots of people in the US howl for revenge. When phrases like "maintaining US credibility" get brought out, that's usually just code for "those bastards have to pay for daring to resist us." Bush sent in the Marines, and several hundred people got killed. It's unlikely that most of those killed were involved in the corpse desecration at all. Now an ex-Baathist general is in charge of the city.

Did this help? Did this result in fewer people getting killed in the long run? Does this result in Iraq, the US, or any other place being safer?

I claim that in order to properly defeat terrorists and "hate groups" of all sorts -- Islamic, Soviet, Fascist, Japanese, Allied, etc. -- we must first abandon stop hating, disrespecting, and dehumanizing the enemy. We must remain focused on the goal of less body count, and regard with suspicion notions of justice and vengeance that would distract us from this objective.

>> If you cannot see the difference between American actions in WWII and Islamist actions in the present day, then I'm not sure you can be offered anything but pity.

But I can see a clear difference. Islamofascists have murderered of order 10,000 people, while US unjustifiable homicide -- not necessary for achieving ethical US victory conditions -- was of order 400,000 people.

For now I'll be nice and not count the ~1 million Eastern European refugees and anticommunist satellite army POWs who were forcibly repatriated to Stalin and certain death.

I'm sure the allied mass murderers meant well.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so we should judge people by the predictable consequences of their actions, not by their intentions.

>>TJ- ever hear of Pearl Harbor? The rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? Need I go on?

Indeed, the Japanese leadership and military were murderous bastards. On the scale of barbarity and depravity, they acted with ruthless efficiency. Clearly they needed to be stopped. This in no way excuses any violence or murder not directly necessary for neutralizing the threat the Japanese government and its agents posed to human liberty.

Similarly, no amount of Nazi atrocities justify the Rape of East Prussia, etc.

As to the rape of Nanking:

I know all about John Rabe, the Living Buddha of Nanking, who, along with the rest of the Nanking Safety Zone committee, saved the lives of 300,000 people. This was done mostly through chutzpah, including several instances of using his Nazi armband as a holy symbol of diplomatic authority to convince Japanese soldiers to stop raping and pillaging.

A strong argument could be made that Mr. Rabe is the greatest paladin hero in recorded human history. Yet very few know of his existence.

T.J., thanks for your responses. They contain alot of things I would agree with, and some that I'd take issue with.

I would caution you (and everyone else) against refighting WWII (that goes for re-launching the Iraq war, refighting the Vietnam war, etc). This can quickly get off topic and there is no lack of venue for those discussions.

That said, I think the strategic bombing campaign is definitly relevant to the topic of hatred.

I'd suggest a focus on the ways that the Allied powers recovered from the effects of hatred, and achieved reconciliation.

I'll be busy for the next short while and will have a longer response later. In the meantime, everyone play nice.

T.J. Madison, As consequentialist as you are, wouldn't you say that it's projected trajectory that counts most in moral evaluation? The Allied war crimes are an aberration, the result of being driven to distraction by the relentless aggression of an evil enemy. (I don't mean to excuse them fully, but years of being pounded are a mitigating circumstance.) The Allies did not eliminate the entire German and Japanese population after surrender. Al Qaeda's trajectory, on the other hand, is to eliminate us by the millions.

Yes, the predictable results of intentions are what counts, but the nature of the intentions itself is often largely determinative of those results. This is why the ordinary technique of evaluating intentions without regard to consequences is at least moderately reliable. We very often do what we intend.

T.J.

Call me what you will, but GWB's favorite philosopher notwithstanding, I don't put much value on the life of someone who's trying to kill me. I'm funny that way. If that makes me a hatemonger, well then I guess I'm a hatemonger.

lewy14-

Let's go back to the original post to which I was responding, in snark form:

More difficult to classify is the recent opinion by Senator Fritz Hollings that Bush's goal in Iraq was to provide security for Israel [hat tip: Lunchbox]. Prima facie it is difficult to classify this as "hate mongering" - but the "who benefits" continuity with the Saudi pieces should be evident, and troubling.

The point of my snark, essentially, was that there is plenty of evidence that the Iraq war was in fact, undertaken at least in part to provide security for Israel.

I don't see how this is controversial really. It's the tone and conspiratorial nature (Jewish voters!) of Hollings' piece that is problematic, not his assertion that Israel's security was an important motivation for the war.

Given that the authorship of the paper in question correlates fairly well to the Pentagon, I'd say it's not crazy to assume that the views expressed in that paper were views advanced within the administration.

praktike, I would dispute the degree of correlation of the IASPS document with "the Pentagon", but I'm not really interested in that right now.

When you say "there is plenty of evidence that the Iraq war was in fact, undertaken at least in part to provide security for Israel", what do you mean exactly?

I can think of one meaning which is fairly innocuous: if the view you would attribute to the "neocons" is that the enhancement of Israeli security is good for American interests, then OK. The key here is whether those members of the government (from Bush on down) were acting in good faith to advance American interests as an end, and Israeli interests as a means to that end.

If what you are saying is that there is plenty of evidence that the Iraq war was precipitated by members of government motivated (even in part) by the security of Israel as an end in itself irregardless or in spite of the (potentially bad) consequences for America, then that's a very serious charge. This would involve the betrayal of sworn oaths - a crime - for those in government. The fact that some people in (Feith) or on the periphery (Perle) of government once wrote a memo eight years ago (for an Israeli politician) indicating they thought getting rid of Saddam was good for Israel is not something I'd accept as evidence of this.

It's one thing to suggest that the Iraq war was undertaken to benefit Israel - as long as the assumption is that those who advanced and pursued that idea were intending to benefit Israel as means to American security. It's quite another thing to suggest that they did this in spite of considerations of American security and interests. Hollings' view is the latter, and the validity of the former view does nothing for his status as a nutjob.

(Of course, one can hold the view that those members of government who acted in good faith were nonetheless wrong in their assessments, but that's another argument (in another thread)).

T.J., I've thought hard about how to respond to your posts without rehashing the second world war. And I don't even begin to want to defend the strategic bombing campaign - in fact I'd note that the idea that it was excessive and even criminal is becoming more and more mainstream. So let me just suggest that in my opinion, vengance as a motivator for our actions (particularly in Iraq) plays a substantially smaller role than it seems to in your opinion.

As to the body count, if what you imply is that we currently stand as 40x more abhorrent than the Islamofascists, I'm afraid I can't agree. I'd have to echo Jim's post (and Tony Blair's speeches). If the Islamofascists lag, it is only because they lack the means.

Give Bin Laden a thousand B29's, or a barrel of anthrax, or a dozen nukes, and would you really be in doubt as to the consequences?

If you were the citizen of a state defeated in war, would you really be indifferent in a choice between Zarquawi and Paul Bremmer as your new governor?

Are intentions to be entirely discounted?

Lewy,

While admirable, I think that Western support of Islamic moderation is doomed to failure. A moderate form of Islam would be a Christianized form of Islam. I think that Islamic purists will carry the day in the end because the signs of decline in the Christian based Western world are obvious. Why, the purists will ask, should the Islamic world adopt Christian remedies to Christian problems when the Christian world is in obvious decline?

I think their are three resolutions to this civilizational conflict:

1. The Islamic world becomes more moderate which in my view means it will become more Christianized. Both worlds benefit through positive-sum coooperation.

2. The remnants of Christendom destroy the Islamic world.

3. The Islamic world destroys Christendom.

Obviously, resolution number 1 is the most desirable. I also think it is the least likely. If the Christian world wakes up in time, hopefully we can achieve solution number 1. I see few signs of this awakening. Assuming we sleep through the window period for resolution number 1, there is still a longer window where we can resort to resolution number 2. If we slumber through both window periods, we will have resolution number 3 imposed on us.

These are the stakes.

Meanwhile, back in America, where the Clintons' new adherence to CENTRISM is the same as saying America is already Communist and Socialist, with Hillary's and CHelsea's studmuffin AL GORE on yet another anti-Bush critical rampage before a MOVEON.ORG rally, everyone from WEST WING to PRAVDA is directly or indirectly hinting at someone killing President BUsh, or something bad happening to BUsh, as the only righteous method of stopping Dubya's mad policies of imperialism, Fascism, and anti-Globalism! SO, WHOM HERE IS GOING TO BE fIRST TO SIGN UP FOR CLINTONIAN AMERIKA'S PEOPLES RED ARMY, or to tell Janet Jackson her nipples aren't required by the Central Committe anymore, as any and all such anti-societal behaviors is now contrary to the needs/norms of proper Secular Leftist Communist Amerikan organized society!?

>> Al Qaeda's trajectory, on the other hand, is to eliminate us by the millions.

Hmm. It seems unlikely that they could ever get the means to do this, even in a worst case scenario. Even a solid 20 kt hit on NYC would probably only get ~500,000 people.

Non-state terrorism can kill measurable numbers of people, but it usually takes state terrorism to really rack up the body count.

For example, I'm much more worried about government bio-weapons research than about a few morons with anthrax. One nuclear weapon is scary, but the Soviet nuclear arsenal of 30,000 fusion weapons was/is scarier.

It seems unlikely that they could ever get the means to do this, even in a worst case scenario.

Yes. And this is so precisely because we find their intentions so wicked that we take great precautions to stop them from fulfilling them. But that makes your point irrelevant.

When evaluating the degree of wickedness of an intention by projecting the trajectory of its consequences, we aren't to take into account the efforts of other people to thwart the agent's attempts to fulfill it. For our evaluation is precisely aimed at determining the extent to which we should thwart those attempts.

What does Christianized Islam mean? Islam already reveres Jesus as a prophet?!

Maybe you mean secularized Islam. Otherwise, you have to argue that the decrease in religious wars from the 17th Cent. to today was caused by Christianized Christianity.

Lewy, I guess I have no idea as to how to ascribe motive to these guys.

All I know is that three authors of the paper were also very vocal and influential advocates of taking out Saddam -- Richard Perle, formerly chair of Defense Policy Board, AEI scholar, and media maven, Doug Feith, #3 civilian at the Pentagon, and David Wurmser, who was MidEast director at AEI, John Bolton's assistant at State, worked for Feith at the CTC, and has now moved to OVP.

I think one has to grapple with the notion that Israel is a great strategic partner in the region, and a complementary one at that, but a somewhat problematic one as far as terrorism goes. Someone without any sense of moral clarity would probably pitch Israel over the side, but we clearly can't and won't do that. And so far, our support for Israel hasn't affected our ability to work with the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Saudi Arabian governments, who are also our allies to one extent or another.

I don't point to the paper, incidentally, as the only evidence, but rather as the fundamental strategy articulated by these guys that has remained fairly consistent since its inception. And both Israel and the United States seem to have followed its broad outlines.

At any rate, I'm sure these folks firmly believe that what is in Israeli interests is in fact in American interests. They say so in the paper. I'm willing to take a few hits for Israel, but I have no problem saying that this is what we are doing.

(If it sounds like I'm dancing around your questions, it's because I am. I'm not interested in defending Hollings at all (and I actually hate the guy for other reasons), but rather interested in discussing the relationship between Israel and the US.)

>>T.J., I've thought hard about how to respond to your posts without rehashing the second world war.

My point isn't that the US is awful or that anybody has it coming or even who was right or wrong in old wars. My point is that these Islamofascists are not unusual or strange. They aren't inhuman monsters, not even OBL -- or Mr. Hussein. They simply have the tribal mentality, just like our ancestors and most of our fellow citizens today. This tribal mentality means that people not of the tribe/nation/culture/religion are The Other, resources to be exploited at best, obstacles to be eliminated at worst.

This mentality is very common and favored by evolutionary biology. Our ancestors were thieves and murderers, and it served them well. In today's "civilized" world it no longer serves us well. Failure to abandon this concept will get us to Wretchard's second conjecture. We don't need to go there.

>>So let me just suggest that in my opinion, vengance as a motivator for our actions (particularly in Iraq) plays a substantially smaller role than it seems to in your opinion.

I'm not so sure. I suspect John Q. Public -- who believes Saddam masterminded the 9/11 strikes -- wants payback against the raghead niggers who did this to "us". The leadership, amusingly, might be more ethical than the general population in this case. (Try selling that to Chomsky.)

The more US troops die, the more payback will become important. Fallujah and the prison torture stunts were the beginning of this. The more our troops hate and fear the Average Iraqi the worse things will get.

>>As to the body count, if what you imply is that we currently stand as 40x more abhorrent than the Islamofascists, I'm afraid I can't agree.

No, WE are not 40x more abhorrent than the Islamofascists. Unnecessary murder in the current Iraq war (discounting the sanctions regime for now) has been very low -- probably less than a thousand.

This said, the US soldiers and leaders of the WWII and Vietnam generation WERE 40x more abhorrent.

(And German, Soviet, and Japanese soldiers and leaders were >>200x more abhorrent than the Islamofascists. This is why I find the "the Islamofascists will destroy our civilization if we don't crush Them first" arguments amusing. 9/11 is a slow day on the Eastern Front.)

The important thing here is to realize HOW our ancestors were transformed from decent, hardworking, red-blooded Americans (and Germans, and Russians) into murderous vermin. If we can avoid becoming corrupted by warfare, if we can resist becoming Fascists ourselves by avoiding fascist means (torture, murder, etc.), we will have a much easier time winning.

American leaders and soldiers are not angels. They're Just A Bunch Of Guys. What differentiates them from the terrorists is that they're part of a institutional structure that discourages Ye Liveliest Awfulness under most conditions. When a war really gets going, the institutional restraints on US forces erode. Any responsible plan for the long-term commitment of US military power must take this into account.

>>I'd have to echo Jim's post (and Tony Blair's speeches). If the Islamofascists lag, it is only because they lack the means.

Yes, and among the means that they lack are the brains and the manpower. If any of them had a three digit IQ, stuff would be blowing up in the US as we speak. One of the surest ways to get Al Qaeda the means is to let this fight become more tribal. The more this becomes an Us vs. Them situation (especially when the Them isn't very well defined), the uglier things will get. This is why ethical use of violence must be extremely focused.

>>If you were the citizen of a state defeated in war, would you really be indifferent in a choice between Zarquawi and Paul Bremmer as your new governor?

In the short run, I'd pick Bremmer for sure. In the long run, I'm not so sure. I suspect the US Army's tolerance for the uppity ungrateful raghead niggers could wear out soon. When this happens the gloves will come off (more) and the bloodbath will begin, just as it has before. Hopefully this can be prevented.

Zarquawi might be more brutal, but he might also be easier to overthrow. Bremmer is backed by virtually limitless resources pillaged from his home country. Bremmer isn't accountable to either US taxpayers, who have no idea what's really going on, or to Iraqis, who could never acquire the means to get rid of him if he (or his troops) went bad.

>>Are intentions to be entirely discounted?

Above a certain level of incompetence and stupidity, yes.

T.J. writes: One nuclear weapon is scary, but the Soviet nuclear arsenal of 30,000 fusion weapons was/is scarier.

I disagree completely. Like many people I'm more afraid of a nuke in the hands of Al Qaida, because of the certainty that they would use it. The Russians are not out to destroy us, and the Soviets were deterrable. And if AQ does get hold of a nuke, who is to say there would be only one?

asdf: (praktike?) If it sounds like I'm dancing around your questions, it's because I am.

You had me at At any rate, I'm sure these folks firmly believe that what is in Israeli interests is in fact in American interests. That's what I was looking for. There's no further need to "dance around the question".

>>Yes. And this is so precisely because we find their intentions so wicked that we take great precautions to stop them from fulfilling them.

And what exactly are these "great precautions" we take? It's still a trivial matter to smuggle uranium into the country -- ABC News just did it for the second year in a row. Their story, and the government's attempt to harass them, makes for interesing reading.

If the terrorists try to enter the country, I'm sure we'll find them hiding under the 80 tons of heroin.

All this Homeland Security bullshit does is keep people employed. That's all.

As for stopping terrorism overseas, I'd be much more impressed if we stopped funding terrorists and hate speech. Example: the US government gives billions of dollars to the Egyptian government, which then runs INSANE anti-US/anti-Israel propaganda in state-run newspapers. Not "Israel should stop oppressing the Palestinians" propaganda but rather "Jews drink the blood of babies" propaganda. When my tax dollars stop paying for this shit, maybe I'll start believing someone in the USG is serious about terrorism.

DISCLAIMER:

Nothing I've said here should be taken as my opposition to Congress issuing Letters of Marque against OBL, or Congress Declaring War against countries like Iraq if they can be shown to be a meaningful threat. It should be noted that NEITHER of these things have happened -- a total breakdown of constitutional procedure. This was an early sign of gross negligence, buck passing, bureaucratic inefficiency, and outright treason.

>>I disagree completely. Like many people I'm more afraid of a nuke in the hands of Al Qaida, because of the certainty that they would use it. The Russians are not out to destroy us, and the Soviets were deterrable.

So in 1995 the Norwegian government launched a weather research rocket along a suborbital trajectory near the Arctic circle. This launch was public knowledge: the scientists and bureacrats filed the necessary paperwork with all the neighboring governments.

The Russian government lost the paperwork.

When the launch occurred, it appeared to SRF as if the US had fired a sub-launched IRBM. Yeltsin was summoned, and an emergency meeting was called to decide whether to launch a massive retaliatory strike.

About this time, the weather rocket shed its first stage. To Russian radar operators, it looked as if the incoming rocket was a MIRV.

Things got tense. With less than 5 minutes to spare the Russians managed to confirm that the rocket would not land in Russian territory. As a result, we were not all killed.

Since 1995, the Russian early warning system has badly deteriorated. As a result, the Russians have gone to "launch on warning" status, which means that if the 1995 incident occurred again, the Russians would launch immediately. Bush terminated funding for assisting the Russians in upgrading their EW systems soon after his election. Was this wise?

There is stuff out there that is scarier than Al Qaeda. Much, much scarier. If you're interested I will share more of it with you.

>>And if AQ does get hold of a nuke, who is to say there would be only one?

Because they're nuts. They'd use the first one they got as soon as they could. If they were smart enough to save up nukes, they'd wait until they had enough to wipe out Israel in one blow anyway.

T. J. Madison:

You will refrain from inflamatory terms for ethnic groups. Context is not a defense here. You know well what I speak of. You have been warned.

Further the cynicism and acrimony latent in your posts discourages me from engaging your points, what ever merit some of them may have.

If you post comments that might get this site filtered at certain firewalls for obscenity, for instance, we reserve the right to act in self-defense.

Hollings' crypto-conspiratorial remarks about Israel were stupid. They weren't, however, stupid automatically, any more than critics of affirmative actions are automatically racist. (My own views on affirmative action are pretty heterodox given a generally leftist bent.) They were stupid because they got the facts all wrong.

First, it strongly appears as if the Israelis were just as wrong about the state of Saddam's army and weaponry as we were. I don't think there's a shred of evidence that Israel fed us disinformation. Second, Hollings has it 100% backwards. What made Ahmed Chalabi so welcome at AEI was not his anti-Saddamness, anti-Saddam exiles ran a dime a dozen, but his con job that he could lead an Iraq that was simultaneously nominally democratic, pro-American, and pro-Israel. Good grief, his nephew and close political associate is literally in business with a dual national USA/Israel lawyer whose Israeli home is in one of the fervently nationalistic West Bank settlements. (Said consulting business appears to be the drop box for bribes in return for Iraq contracts.) What sort of a reception do you think a settler would get in Falluja?

But Chalabi didn't come to us from Israel. He appears, indeed, to come to us from Iran, and his pro-Israel patter is every bit as false as his WMD revelations. But the direction flow went the other way around: Chalabi was a project that Perle, Wolfowitz (an Israel/Palestine dove by neocon standards), Feith (an Israel/Palestine hawk, even by Likud standards), et. al. adopted to create their dream of a peaceful Middle East with Israel as its economic and geopolitical center. Not some clever scheme hatched in a secret Negev base.

Consider this my formal apology for offending people here and unintentionally violating the policies of this forum.

It should be clear from the context of my posts that I meant no disrespect to Arabs, Africans, or any other humans, but of course you are correct that automated systems cannot make this distinction.

In the future I will exercise greater caution.

Thanks, T.J.

If you think it reasonable and worthwhile to replace the offensive terms with "Iraqis" please do so. Once again, my apologies.

I despise racism, bigotry, and tribalism in all their many forms, probably more so than most. If anyone inadvertantly concluded otherwise as a result of my statements, that would be most unfortunate.

>>Further the cynicism and acrimony latent in your posts discourages me from engaging your points, what ever merit some of them may have.

Perhaps you are right. Many years of study of The Evil That Men Do has jaded me considerably. I must even admit that the Berg assassination didn't really affect me at all, although I understand why others became quite upset. While watching the video my thoughts were, "Yawn. Yet another squad of schmucks murdering an unlucky bastard because of some insane notion that the victim was one of the Them. Why is this newsworthy? It's only one guy. Thousands of people get murdered in the Congo war every week, but it's not news. I wonder why that is?"

This said, my jadedness, rudeness, and generally disagreeable nature have no bearing as to the accuracy or lack thereof of my ideas on how to advance human liberty. It would be unfortunate if this got in the way of us discussing the situation in such a way as to refine and improve our understanding of how to advance our mutual goals. To the extent that this is a protocol issue, I'm eager to rectify it.

It should not be assumed that I am not open to changing my ideas about how the world works in the presence of better theories and data.

I must even admit that the Berg assassination didn't really affect me at all....

I'm afraid I had the same jaded reaction as yours. However, I'm not quite so jaded as you. This is because I always recall that we can reasonably hope that many, many people will have good lives. I've learned that for this reason utter pessimism is unwarranted by reading the - rather jaded yet anti-pessimistic - books of John Kekes, the underlying theme of which is Facing Evil.

Utter pessimism is certainly unwarranted. We are still alive, and where there is life, there is hope. The sum total of human knowledge and wisdom is getting larger every day. Britney Spears is still cute, and no amount of horror should be allowed to diminish our appreciation of that fact.

Ultimately, however, optimism vs. pessimism is irrelevant to the primary objectives. We must fight on regardless.

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival.

There may be a worse case.

You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

- Winston Churchill

> Congress Declaring War against countries like
> Iraq ... It should be noted that NEITHER of
> these things have happened -

Oh please. Since you can't show us where, in either the Constitution or in federal law, a declaration of war must contain a certain phrasing--since such a thing most assuredly does not exist--then please stop already with this most silly argument.

Andrew J. Lazarus,

Maybe you mean secularized Islam.

No, I mean Christianized Islam. Secularization is inherent to Christianity. It is the Christian solution to a Christian problem. Render unto Caesar and all that. Secularized Christianity is redundant. Islam, on the other hand, is BASED on the concept of unity between church and state.

This isn't what they teach you at college, is it? When the left talks of secularization, they are really talking about their Marxist Christian-rein policy which is a very different thing.

>>Oh please. Since you can't show us where, in either the Constitution or in federal law, a declaration of war must contain a certain phrasing--since such a thing most assuredly does not exist--then please stop already with this most silly argument.

Well, the constitution certainly doesn't allow Congress to delegate the decision on whether or not war is to be made to the Executive. Yet that's exactly what happened. Ron Paul tried to get the resolution delegating the war-making power to the Executive amended into a Declaration of War, and failed. Your argurment might make sense for the Gulf of Tonkin, but this situation is much closer to the Enabling Acts.

(We should also remember Clinton, who sent troops to the Balkans even though the resolution authorizing the use of force FAILED TO PASS. WTH?)

It's easy to see why this is so. The sleazeballs in Congress want it both ways. If the war goes well, they were behind the President all the way. If the war goes poorly, well, they delegated the decision to the President, and they made the wrong decision.

Legally, there is no war going on. This has already been used by the Administration to justify denying people POW status.

It's all very sleazy, and totally unnecessary for any legitimate purpose. You could solve the world's energy problems with turbines connected to the Founders' corpses right now.

Andrew Lazarus,

Besides the fact that Hollings' statement was stupid, it was a blatant case of Jew-hatred, IMO. Would you disagree?

Also, w/r/t the funds for the suicide-murderers, Saddam was by the far their largest benefactor. While Saddam provided around $25K, the Saudi donation was more like $1K. Israeli sources report that the lack of Saddamite funding has led to a decrease in the number of suicide-murdering volunteers, though I suppose you wouldn't believe them anyway.

HA,

I believe I understand you - and would concur on the broad points - but then, I think Andrew's comment about "Christianized Christianity" has merit as well - he probably meant it sarcasticly (forgive me if I'm misattributing motive Andrew) but I think has some valid meaning...

Every generation, it seems likes to think its situation is unique. So with us. But this cliche shouldn't blind us to certain thinsg that may well be unique. WMD in jehadi hands, for one. One could count on the Soviet to at the least act rationally in their own self interest. Even that fundamental assumption underpinning MAD is blown away when it comes to those who glorify martyrdom and rant and rave about islamicizing the universe.
Islam is inherently expansionist by its nature, coexistence with other faiths is anathema since in a muslim majority land, only islam can hold sway. In this radical islamrepresents a threat fundamentally different in character from what rationalizing may suggest - "its poverty/ illiteracy/ lack of democracy/ unemployment etc etc that is driving jehadi attacks".
Let's face it, we're ina war with islamofascism. Denying it's a war carries consequences - foremost being that one isn't ready to do what it takes to win the war, until of course, its too late in the day.

"I despise Mossad, but they're WAY too organized and intelligent to do anything this stupid."

gee, in the next thread you were suggesting that Mossad could have assassinated Saddam as an alternative to invasion. You despise them, but you want to use them.

"The point of my snark, essentially, was that there is plenty of evidence that the Iraq war was in fact, undertaken at least in part to provide security for Israel."

There were so many good reasons to take out Saddam for our own security and the good of the world, that you don't need to bring up Israel. Therefore if one does bring up Israel, one's motives are naturally suspect.

"I'm not so sure. I suspect John Q. Public -- who believes Saddam masterminded the 9/11 strikes -- wants payback against the raghead niggers who did this to "us"."

I disagree. I think your elitist disdain for John Q Public is unwarranted. Your average Bush supporter understands roughly how Saddam, WMDs and terrorists are related.

>>gee, in the next thread you were suggesting that Mossad could have assassinated Saddam as an alternative to invasion. You despise them, but you want to use them.

If it ever came out that Mossad was behind 9/11, their country is history. If Mossad has anyone with a three-digit IQ, they could never run such an attack. If Mossad had been caught trying to hit Saddam, the leader of a country they were already at war with . . .

Mossad is bad, but Saddam was Worse. Lesser of two evils and all that. Mossad is also (usually) competent. We certainly pay them enough already, we might as well have gotten something out of them.

>>I disagree. I think your elitist disdain for John Q Public is unwarranted. Your average Bush supporter understands roughly how Saddam, WMDs and terrorists are related.

The polls would seem to suggest otherwise. Polls can be very misleading, of course.

Lewy,

Andrew's comment about "Christianized Christianity" has merit as well

I agree. For example, Christianity became more "Christianized" after the Reformation because the temporal power of the church - at least the Catholic church - was diminished.

HA, you seem to be arguing that the diminuition of Church power in the Reformation (not to mention the Enlightenment) was some sort of necessary evolution of Christianity. I'm extremely skeptical, given the consequence that the first twelve centuries of Christian history are no longer truly Christian. I viewed "Christianize Christianity" as something of an oxymoron, and I employed it not sarcastically, but as reductio ad absurdum.

The one phrase "Render unto Caesar" is a pretty thin reed for this. Was Emperor Henry II being un-Christian when he kneeled in the snow at Canossa? Generally, I see Lili's attempt to distinguish Islamo-fascism from Christian fascism (you know, BTW, that the Spanish Church was a key ally of the literal fascist, General Franco?) should be based on contingent historical events, and not on examination of their respective Scriptures. (I don't know how you could incorporate Israel into such an analysis, because the role of religion in Israelite religion was similiar to the role of Islam in the Muslim states today, nor were the ancient Israelites averse to imperialism and forced conversion.)

I suggest two other ways to look at this: what would a visitor to Earth in 1400 C.E. from the Martian democracy say about Christianity different from what you say about Islam? Or, secondarily, suppose that instead of the shahade, Muslims begin to recite the Nicene Creed. What and why would anything improve?

Ariel, the answer is that I believe it is highly possible but not certain that Hollings' remark should be taken as anti-Semitic. Certainly the trope of cunning and manipulative Jews has a long anti-Semitic history. Put against this is the curious fact that more likely than not, Hollings' analysis is absolutely true with one humongous exception: Chalabi is an Iranian agent, and the professions of Zionophilia that he made to sucker the pro-Israel neoconservatives were lies. On Hollings' formulation, the association with Iran is the charade, and the association with Israel is veridical. Hollings appears to be wrong, but I think it would be foolish to suggest that the Mossad would be incapable or unwilling of equalling the Iranian clandestine services in running such an operation.

That should of course be Henry IV. Preview is your friend.

Andrew,

I think you could evaluate Hollings' remarks for potential anti-Semitism by taking a look at his other statements in the past. They would provide a certain amount of context for this particular statement.

I don't have links offhand, but from what I remember, Hollings is moderately well-known for consistently making statements that have anti-Semetic overtones. I certainly doubt anyone could point to a statement like "Hitler had the right idea," but the general thrust of his comments would qualify as anti-Semetic. When searching for meaning, it's not necessary to view this statement in a vacuum.

Sam, I think you are absolutely correct about needing to evaluate this in the context of other things Hollings as said. Frankly, I don't know about him one way or the other here.

Andrew J. Lazarus,

I viewed "Christianize Christianity" as something of an oxymoron, and I employed it not sarcastically, but as reductio ad absurdum.

I understand what you are going for. But the real absurdity was that your reductionism was inadvertantly revealing.

The simple fact your reductionism reveals is that separation of church and state is theologically supported in Christianity, but not in Islam. Furthermore, Christianity held no temporal power during the first three centuries of its existance. Islam on the other hand enjoyed temporal power practically from the moment it was conceived. The formative years of the respective faiths were when the relationships between church and state were established. We're talking about foundational theological concepts here, not merely "thin reeds."

The Reformation was less an evolution of Christianity and more a reversion to the formative years of Christianity when the church stood apart for the apparatus of state.