Back to the issue at hand. They have the following ledes:

"Apartment Glut Forces Owners to Cut Rents in Much of U.S. ... While rents have continued to rise in many big cities on the coasts, including New York and Los Angeles, they are falling in more than 80 percent of metropolitan areas across the country." --NYT, David Leonhardt, November 29, 2003

and

"Poor Workers Finding Modest Housing Unaffordable, Study Says... With the rise in housing costs outpacing that of wages, there is no state where a low-income worker can reasonably afford a modest one- or two-bedroom rental unit, according to a study issued today by the National Low Income Housing Coalition .... "When low-income families are paying so much of their income on housing, they are left to skimp on other necessities like food, medicine, clothes and time spent with children," said Sheila Crowley, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition." --NYT, Lynette Clemetson, September 9, 2003

Here's the deal. The housing market isn't "a" market, it's a collection of submarkets, each of which has links of varying strength to its neighbors. The submarkets are defined loosely by cost and location (there are other social/cultural selectors as well, but these two really drive the markets), each of which serves to isolate a submarket somewhat from its neighbors. In my personal case, I can't legally move (under the terms of my Marital Settlement Agreement) from an area roughly one mile on a side - but other people are also connected to a location, by schools, jobs, or family ties. They can't simply pick up and move to another region of a city, much less another a city, because of job issues or social ties. This means that they can't transparently make the economically rational choice to move from, say Los Angeles to Pahrumph Nevada. They do - at increasing rates, as many of the low-housing-cost regions see some measure of population inflows. But the reality is that many low-housing-cost regions are also low-wage regions, so the choice isn't quite so easy to make. And within a geographic area, there are a series of horizontal markets defined largely by price (although obviously the low-cost ones tend to cluster in or within neighborhoods). And it's here that we see the explanation for both articles - apparently contradictory but equally true. At the top of the rental housing market is luxury or near-luxury housing, which competes with for-sale housing for tenants. They have the means and credit to buy a home, should they choose to, and when interest rates are low and the housing markets are strong, they do - sucking much of the demand out of the top of the market. Below that - all the way to the bottom, if we choose - is a series of markets of people who realistically are not going to be confronted with the option of homeownership anytime soon. The pressing issue in those markets is simply affordability (which gets tweaked, as Mickey notes, but only because the rents in the marketplace are so high and costs of new development so expensive that otherwise no landlord would rent to certificate holders and no developer could afford to build new affordable housing - note that I'll question whether they should build new affordable housing, but that's a policy argument for another day). Make sense? So in the submarkets appealing to high-wage workers, they are abandoning rentals for ownership (probably a good thing). In the submarkets available to low-wage workers, they are increasingly crunched between flat incomes and rising rents. Both are true, and there's nothing to bust anyone over, so move right along...

« ok, I'm done now

The other question I got yesterday is, "Do you really think that rock and roll brought down the Iron Curtain?" And I said no, I don't because the Iron Curtain was pulled down by efforts on both sides, government and people on your side and people trying to influence things on our side. But I do believe that rock and roll played a key role. This is what I am going to be explaining to you, why I think so. And I'm sorry if I will be too personal but I do think that the things we're doing, you know, diplomacy, is not made by diplomats, it's made by people. Successful diplomacy is about people. So therefore I'll try to get close to your hearts and your minds and probably the best way to do it is to tell you my personal story and how I got here. But before I start, I'd like to thank this wonderful museum and Terry, who is now a good friend, his colleagues at the museum, who have embraced this idea. I want to thank the Mayor through John; thank you very much for that nice message, I want to thank the Congressman, the Senator, and the Governor for the nice messages. I was four when Russians tanks rolled down the streets of Budapest. It's a strong memory I have. I was just a kid and I didn't really understand what was happening. But it did leave a strong mark in my mind. I must say that I had a great family – a great father, mother, a brother and a sister, who helped preserve a life for me. That was pretty much like yours; they were very protective. This family took me to Denmark in 1960 where my father was trade representative, I had the luck to go to an American school – that's probably why I picked up some English and Danish, and I had the honor to just live the ordinary life of an ordinary guy on the streets of Copenhagen. Here is how it all started. Let me just write this on the blackboard. (Writes "All My Loving" on the blackboard.) You know this too? This was the first Beatles song that I ever heard, at a party at school. It caught me and I said, this is my music. And it hasn't let go since. While I was in Denmark, particularly in '66 and '67, like the Danes embraced the rock music at its best, like the Danes got to know Cream, Jimmy Hendrix, Zappa, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin and you name it, I got to know them as well. I was listening to this kind of music day and night. I didn't know what the underlying message was and I didn't care. I just thought this was something that I had to embrace. In 1965, I bought with the help of my father my first guitar. Can we show this slide? How about that? I want to thank my wife for smuggling [this photo] from Budapest. I didn't know she had it and she said "Are you sure you want to show this?" And I said "Maybe it is good." It was a great guitar, it's a copy of a Fender Jaguar. I had a great time until in '67 we moved back to Budapest. Budapest at that time was not a very funny place. It was a pretty tough, dark, and gloomy place. It was just ten years after the 1956 revolution which was broken by the Soviets. Still, society was quietly and slowly coming alive. But it was a very tough place to be, especially for me who'd got used to freedom – freedom in the way I dressed, freedom in the way I communicated, freedom in the way I talked to people, and freedom in the way I picked up my music. The music that I thought so much of was simply not available in Hungary. I stayed a year with an aunt and uncle of mine who turned out to be a very conservative communist. And honestly, they didn't get it when I started to explain about Good Vibrations and the Four Tops and the Spencer Davis group. She didn't understand. And my brother and I, we had a big old Bakelite radio that I got from my father so we could listen to Western radio stations and we used to listen to that at night. Listening to that music at night was very important to us to keep track of what was going on in the West. One night as we were listening to some real nice stuff, the old man came in, very angry, and took away the radio. Next day we asked for an audience and we said "Sorry for having listened to this music so loud," and he said "The problem was not that it was loud. The problem was that you were listening to a Western radio station." That was something that really hurt us – I was 14 and my brother was 16 – being told you're not allowed to listen to music on a Western radio station that we always used to listen to. That was real tough. And we got to understand very quickly that this Hungary is not very similar to the Denmark where we used to live. Still, you had to keep going and it was so important for me, my continuing to keep in touch with the music scene in the West. It kept us sane and kind of made us part of the free world. We would listen to Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, and above all, to Radio Luxemburg. We used to listen to this stuff at night and as we listened to this radio, as we listened to Radio Luxemburg, we were suddenly out of our bodies and our soul was part of the free world. We would join our peers in the West. We would be part of the scene that was so natural for all of you here in the United States or in England or Denmark or Holland or elsewhere in the free world. As I returned to Hungary, I was a good student. I don't know if I was smart but I always had good grades and that was in order to get things out the way so I could do my music. I did a lot of practicing, formed my own band, and got in touch with the Hungarian music scene which, strangely enough, started to grow immediately after the rock explosion in the West. The instruments were lousy, so I was a cool guy, I had great instruments. Instruments in general were no good but some guys somehow managed to get great instruments and they produced some good sound. And it was so good to be a part of this. That's where I met my old-time very best friend, Gabor Presser, who was my mentor, was my great friend – he's still my best friend, and he's still a great musician. You know, it was interesting that you all ask how we got hold of this music. Of course, there was no records to be had. Here, you heard Led Zeppelin on the radio, the next day you walked into a record shop and bought it. In Hungary, we couldn't do that. Therefore, when we got hold of records, it was so much valuable. It was much more meaningful to us – it was not just something to consume, to buy. It wasn't just owning it; it was way beyond that. No one Hungarian had all the records, but somehow Hungarians together managed to get all the records. We would copy these records. I hope the copyright guys don't listen now because, honestly, whatever the reason, they would have clamped down on the Hungarians copying this stuff. But we would walk into this record store that would make one single copy of a record and sell it to us. We would tape it and then spread it five hundred times. That was kind of nice. That was really important to us. One way or another, we were very much part of the scene. And there were some funny situations, too. You know the Led Zeppelin song called "Dazed and Confused?" You know, it goes (humming). When I heard that on Radio Luxemburg, the funny thing was that they had somehow put it together with this song from Three Dog Night called "Mama Told Me (Not to Come)." Right? And there was a lot of fading because of the distance of radio. I was shocked when I first heard the Led Zeppelin record, there was no "Mama Told Me Not to Come" and there was no fading, so the record was no good. But that was a part of our lives. And you know what? The quality didn't matter. What really mattered is that we were part of it. I created my own band and it was kind of a strange band. Can we have the next photo? This is me sitting at home in Budapest with my beloved guitar I still have, trying to figure out how to play some stuff from Traffic and all those guys. We used to play Cream in '67, '68 and '69. I would do Rory Gallagher, I would do some early Fleetwood Mac stuff. It was really very special because I'd always thought this was at the avant-garde of rock music. In 1969 however a band led by Stevie Winwood called Traffic, which I loved so much, came to Budapest. I had no idea how they got there and it was the strangest thing because I would know all the Traffic tunes by heart, you name it and I could sing it and I try to play it. "Mr. Fantasy" and "Medicated Goo," or whatever. Can we play a piece of music? (Music.) Thank you. I think that was kind of cool in '69. Preparing for this lecture, I told my colleagues to try and get hold of Stevie Winwood because here is what happened in 1969. With the help of my father, I figured out where Traffic would be staying, which hotel, and after the concert I'd hang out at the hotel and Stevie Winwood shows up and it is like, I don't know, may I say it is like God showing up? And I started talking to him and we had some words and he said I'm sorry, I got to go, but I figured out that maybe it would be a good idea that I act as a guide for the rest of the group. So I took Jim Capaldi, the drummer, and Albert, the road manager down to Lake Balaton – which, by the way, is a place you've to got visit sometime – and we hung out for a couple of days. I was very really into something very special, talking to these people. That left a lasting mark on my attitude to music. Here is what happened: A few weeks ago my guys came back and said Stevie Winwood is playing in Washington this weekend. We got hold of Stevie Winwood and I went down to see the concert, a great concert. We started talking about what happened 35 years ago. He said "Yes, I remember. I didn't go to the Lake with you because I had to go and listen to some gipsy music." And I said "Steve, how did you get [to Hungary]?" He said "I don't know because we didn't go to any of the other East European communist countries." "Can you give me an explanation?" He said "Call Chris Blackwell." So I called Chris Blackwell, who was then their manager and I asked, "Chris, what the hell was Traffic doing in Hungary?" He said, "Look, I think you had some opening in '68 because no one else would take us in but Hungarians were crazy with this music and somehow the authorities allowed this to happen." I didn't know then, and it didn't click, that was exactly the couple of years when the system lightened up a little, culture lightened up a little, economy lightened up a little, and of course Hungarians embraced as much as they could from the free world in this short opening which only lasted until 1972. But it was also something interesting that I have to tell you, and it didn't click before I talked to Steve Winwood: Hungarians didn't understand the text [of any of the rock tunes]. And I just suddenly realized that it was not the text but the power of music, the power of a couple of guys standing on stage with a Stratocaster, with a Fender bass, a guy playing on organ, a drummer playing a Gretsch drum set, that really made Hungarians think this was something very important. So while the authorities tried to limit through the propaganda machinery the impact of this on Hungarians and obviously also on other Central Eastern Europeans, there was no way to stop the onslaught of the message of freedom through rock and roll. That was the most powerful instrument to convey the message to my generation about the free world. I do believe today, what the satellite and VHS was for the '80s and what the Internet is today, was rock and roll and rock music in the '60s and the early '70s. It was about sending a strong message of freedom through the Berlin Wall to us who were living behind the Iron Curtain. [After these experiences] I had really gone into this music scene and I was going to be a rock musician. But my good friend Gabor Presser said, "You're crazy if you do this, and you'll go even crazier if you stay behind and try to play your kind of music. You simply can't do it; this is not for you." […] But then he told me, you go on to university. But before that some interesting things happened. The first supergroup was formed in the West, called Blind Faith – great news in the world. Blind Faith with Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker from Cream, Rick Grech from a group called The Family, and Stevie Winwood would sing and play the organ, and it was a great thing. Of course, it was important for us to follow, so my friend Gabor formed the Hungarian "supergroup," [Locomotive GT] and I am proud to tell you that I played on their first record which I think made rock history not only in Hungary, but also in Eastern Europe at large. To an extent, it is still the only band that ever made any success in the West. Can we play the second music? And can I also have the next picture? (Music.) I just wanted to have you listen to this because this is 1971, Budapest. Skunk, I don't know how good that was, you tell me later, but I think the hearts of all these guys, including myself, went into that music. We wanted to make music come as close to the best of the best in the free world as we could. (Pointing to slide.) This is in fact at a studio in Budapest and I am practicing for this album. And the funny thing was – you should understand that the lyrics were censored. We always had to scratch out something. We always had to change the words. When we spoke about the freedom of man or the freedom of the world, they would put something foolish into the text. They didn't realize that the music itself was more powerful than the text. They didn't realize that the real power lay in the music. So therefore my fellow musicians, those who came after us, they tried and expanded our little freedoms as much as they could. Sometimes they would hurt us, sometimes they wouldn't. Sometimes they would "understand" what we were doing, sometimes not. But I think I can probably say that we tried step by step to get closer to [the mainstream of rock in the free world]. And maybe we did succeed. In 1972, I was going to defect from Hungary. I said, this is not the world I want to live in. I remember in 1972, I was standing in the railway station in Copenhagen and I called my mother and I said "Mom, I am not coming home." And she said "Son, okay, you're not coming home, but then I and Dad and your brother and sister will not be able to live the lives we want them to live." So I went back. And frankly, I didn't regret it because in 1974 I met Nada, my wife. That was a big deal and I think I enchanted her by starting to – I remember we were sitting in a bus and I started explaining to her about the new George Harrison hit "Bangladesh" and, you know, I described it to her from all angles. I think I was successful because she changed a lot through my convincing. But I also want to tell you that in the meanwhile there was a hardening of the system and two guys from the band Locomotive GT that we have just heard defected to the United States. The drummer [Jozsef (Joe) Laux], and my great friend and hero the guitarist Tamas Barta. The saddest of all stories is that Tamas arrived in the United States and figured out that he will not be the great star that he used to be in Hungary and he will not be able to make it here and he ended up being shot in Los Angeles. It's a sad story but he really never was able to leave Hungary spiritually. Wanted to embrace so much the free world, the West. And this collision of the lack of freedom and wanting to be a Hungarian led to his fate. I miss him still. Some years later – can we have the next slide? – I was engaged in youth exchange, I was pretty proud to move on and promote cooperation between East and West. I had long hair when Nada got to know me. It was pretty exciting. And you will understand that the guys that started to grow up on this powerful music, the guys who embraced this music and through this music embraced Western culture, the culture of freedom, slowly realized the world was starting to change. You remember, in 1975 the Helsinki Conference happened and I think we Hungarians were the ones who really tried to push it to the limits. This was pretty much about opening up to the free world. It was about East and West slowly growing together, and it was the guys who had grown up on this music that slowly began to infiltrate the ranks of power. And I seriously believe they opened us to the world, them wanting to end the Cold War, them wanting to hold hands with Americans, with Brits, with Germans, with Danes, with Norwegians. They were the ones with whom I had spent so many years walking in the streets of Budapest, talking about this music, and talking about us being part of the free world. In 1988 – and that's a big jump; I am not trying to give you history lesson, just trying to tell you what this whole thing meant to me – so in 1988, Amnesty International was on a world tour, and that was the year when I knew the Wall will be torn down and we will put an end to the Cold War and Hungary will soon be free. Amnesty International was brought to Hungary by Sting, Peter Gabriel, Tracy Chapman, and Bruce Springsteen. Just imagine the powerful message of Bruce Springsteen singing "Born in the USA" at the stadium in Budapest and 80,000 Hungarian kids roaring and saying, yes, we're together. That was the year when I was 100 percent convinced that [communism] will be over soon. My friends in the West reacted in disbelief, but I was right. What stronger message than the message that came through rock music can you imagine? In 1989, the world moved on and Hungary was free again. You might wonder, what next? My personal life, the music that I embraced all my life has played an incredible role of since. I have a very easy rapport with my friends and colleagues in the West, primarily in the United States. I got to know friends who are working for the U.S. government when we suddenly figured out that we were listening to the same kind of music. I name one song, you name the band. That's how I met your ambassador to Moscow [Alexander Vershbow], who used to be my friend and colleague in NATO, and he used to be a rock musician when he was a kid, still plays. And as we grew closer, as Hungary started to move into NATO, the closer this friendship grew. We jammed together and this really made our friendship close. We both agree that this is something that has to continue to glue us together. I believe that rock music is not imperial, not imperialistic. Mozart used to belong to the Austrians. Does anyone ask anywhere in the world – in China, in the United States, in Brazil, in Moscow – where Mozart came from? You couldn't care less. The music that Traffic played, that Cream played, that Jimmy Hendrix played, that "Skunk" Baxter played belongs not to the United States or to the UK any longer – it belongs all of us. This is a glue. Rock music has been influenced just as much through our efforts for freedom, by the pride of the people in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America as much as you have influenced our peoples in Europe, in Asia, in Africa and in Latin America. Rock and roll music is universal; it is a universal language. It's easy to embrace. It speaks to the people. That is why it was so useful and meaningful in penetrating communist society. Because it was understandable for all the peoples. It was not aristocratic, it belonged to all of us, the man on the street – the little guy who was walking on the streets of Budapest and the little guy who was walking on the streets of Warsaw or Prague. Just like the little guy walking in the streets of New York, Los Angeles, or Cleveland. Try, if you haven't tried it, the excitement of strumming a Stratocaster. I think that's the closest you can get to heaven before you really get there. Rock is about freedom, rock is believing in our freedom and the freedom of others. I reject the attacks that I hear on rock and roll music. I really think this culture, this museum that Terry Stewart and friends have given us, that the musicians have given us, will remain a lasting pillar in our relationship. I want to make sure that I use this opportunity to thank on behalf of many many millions of Hungarians, Russians and Czechs and Poles, East Germans for what you have given us in hard times, when you were the light for us, when you were the vehicle to the free world for us. Thank you Jimmy, thank you Eric, thank you Johnny, John, Paul, George and Ringo, thanks to Jeff, thanks to Steve Winwood and all the others. You have formed our minds, you have formed the mind of a generation. We are now in the West ourselves. Thanks God you did not let us down. Rock is not a commercial success – rock is a cultural success. You have kept millions going. You have kept millions and millions hoping. You have warmed up the hearts of many millions of people behind the Iron Curtain. The message went through the airwaves and through the Iron Curtain, it went through the Berlin Wall. It was a bridge. Now before I conclude, let me play a little piece and I want you to do a little guessing. I want you to guess who these guys are that were playing. (Music.) Thank you, that was the message of freedom and you tell me later who that last guy was. Can you guess it? Who was it? Well, that was me [playing "Crossroads"]. Thank you so much. (Applause) Thank you. Skunk and I will be happy to answer questions related to this topic. Q1: Your message in terms of the impact that rock and roll had in Hungary's culture and politically was very strong. Today, we're faced with the difficulty of Middle Eastern cultures. Are there any similarities to this situation? AS: Absolutely. That's why I said I don't think rock and roll is imperialistic. It has been influenced by so many – I remember in 1967 I met with Ravi Shankar in Budapest. A great talk – he didn't know what the hell I was doing there. I was there because of his rock involvement. They have influenced Western music. So has the music from my country. So there's nothing wrong with interaction. Those who say that through rock music we are importing an imperialistic attitude are wrong. I think those who are rejecting rock music, popular music, blues music in the Middle East and elsewhere are really scared of its power. A strong culture will not be defeated; it will be enhanced and it'll only be better. And I do believe that the Muslim world should and could influence our cultures just like there is nothing wrong with us influencing and meeting their cultures. It's not about pushing the other down, it's about holding hands. It's about the freedom of man. Skunk? JSB: It adds another color to the palette. Sting about two years ago took a Persian lead singer with him, and much of his music was influenced by the Middle East. I know that it sounds like we are coming up with an original idea; it is and it isn't. There's even codification. There's a gentleman I'm sure you are familiar with, Joseph Nye, who teaches at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, who wrote an incredible essay in the Foreign Affairs quarterly about eight years ago, which I read, called "Soft Power." Yes, the United States is militarily and economically strong but what's the real power? It's the power of the culture. And just as we melded all the different kinds of music in our culture, as soon as media and as soon as communications became worldwide again, that music took and picked and chose and drew from every other influence. And sooner or later we're going to have that same kind of mind-meld with the Middle East. But as you know, there's a tremendous amount of fear. The one thing that the fundamentalists of any religion or any philosophy are most frightened of is individuality and freedom. And they're going to fight this tooth and nail. But what happened with Andras? The Berlin Wall was made of cement, barbed wire, landmines, dogs, guns, rifles, but it didn't make any difference. As I said when I came out of Moscow at that time, you could build any ballistic missile system but you can't build an anti-groove system. And everybody wants French fries, blue jeans, and Elvis Presley. (Laughter and applause.) Monday: More Q & A Session with Skunk and Ambassador Simonyi

« ok, I'm done now

"Rocking for the Free World: How Rock Music Helped to Bring Down the Iron Curtain"

(Transcript of Hungarian Ambassador Andras Simonyi's speech at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland on November 8, 2003) Terry Stewart: Good Evening. No no. I know this is a Hungarian event tonight but in Cleveland when you say good evening or good morning it's like in the black gospels, you get a response. So good evening... Very good. You are quick learners. This is going to be quite a night, something very different. I had some of the media ask me how different it is and I said it is totally different because we are so lucky to have somebody of the rank of the Ambassador here to talk about rock and roll. But it is something we do every day, because we believe one of the reasons the museum is here is to remind people that this is an art form that has changed the world dramatically. A lot of parents do not want to hear about that sometimes because all they hear about it is loud music and they say "Turn it down!" but it is a music that's brought people together, starting in the segregated South, where I grew up, with the coming together of the rhythm 'n' blues in the '40s and '50s and playing a major role in the civil rights, women's rights and the green peace. The story you can hear tonight is a very strong and dramatic one, and one that was lived and experienced by the individual who's going to be here tonight. So we are very lucky to have that, and it really underscores the big part of our mission about the influence of the authority of something called rock and roll. Which really is an African-American art form that collided eventually with country music and bluegrass and it comes now under the heading of rock and roll and that's what we celebrate here every day.... I also have the distinct honor tonight to introduce a gentleman who is going to eventually introduce you to the Ambassador. He is quite an individual – he is a true rock and roll renaissance man. He has played with two of the greatest rock bands of all times, Steely Dan and the Doobie Brothers, and now he is a consultant, an advisor to the Defense Department. I thought I had a strange life being an engineer, a banker and being in comic books and rock and roll but I think he has got me beat. So would you give a warm round of applause of welcome to a great musician and a gentleman who's taken a different path: Jeff "Skunk" Baxter. (Applause) Jeff "Skunk" Baxter: Thanks very much. Thank you for coming and the formal side is: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. And the rock and roll side: Welcome Cats and Catrinas to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. What we're going to try to do tonight is I want to introduce a man who's become a very good friend of mine in a very short period of time. We're going to discuss the idea, what may seem strange to some people, and some people will say "Well, Skunk, does Admiral McGuiness call you Skunk?" Yes, he does. What we are going to talk about tonight is the fact that there is really no distinction between all the different pieces of the life that we lead. And it is all about a journey. And as Terry said, from the sharecropper days when black Americans first heard their words recorded on a record, they heard it on the radio, they realized there was a world outside the world where they were, got together, started going upriver, went to Memphis, went to Chicago, started recording music, touchy western artists started hearing that, started going to gospel churches, listening to gospel singers play, and all of a sudden something happened. It's like a pallete. And the pallete originally started out with one or two colors. There was a little bit of gospel, and a little bit of country, and a little bit of R 'n'B, and a little bit of blues. And then all of a sudden the pallet became wider and deeper. Classical music, African music, folk music, jazz, classical music. I'll give you an example. Is anybody familiar with the song Pachelbel's Canon? You probably heard it at every wedding you've ever been to. Do you realize that the chords to Pachelbel's Canon are exactly the same chords as in Percy Sledge's "When a Man Loves a Woman?" And to some of the Righteous Brothers' songs? What are we talking about is a theme that runs through everything that we do. And that's music. Andras is going to tell you a little bit about his experiences with music – and it's an interesting path. We are meeting at a bridge. My side of the bridge was as a quote-unquote "rock star," playing rock and roll music and making records that the Ambassador would get a hold of in one way or another and listen to. His side of the bridge – and he will tell you a lot more about it – he is coming from a country that was basically under a repressive regime. So how do we come together? Well, let us see. The guy who brought us together was a gentleman named Dan Poneman, who works with Brent Scowcroft. Dan used to be on the National Security Council and Danny and I started working together because I do missile defense and counter terrorism and a few other things we can't talk about. We met on a business thing and it also turns out that Dan plays guitar and has a band. So the next thing I know he introduces me to this guy who is an ambassador, takes me to his Embassy and I go downstairs and I think "Ah, it's going to be the usual suit and tie, yes, Mr. Ambassador." But he's up there with a Fender Telecaster, rocking away. And I'm going "You know something? This is the way it was supposed to be." I know it sounds a little strange but understand that when I went to the Soviet Union – and I mean not Russia, but the Soviet Union – in 1987 with the Doobie Brothers with Bonnie Raitt, Carlos Santana and James Taylor, it was the first time an American rock and roll show had ever come and played an outdoor concert in the Soviet Union. You go to a concert today and you see guys with jackets on that say "security." Well, there were two thousand shock troops there with armored personal carriers and automatic weapons. That was there version of concert security. They had not figured it quite out yet. But what happened is when we started to play, every single person in that audience knew every word to every song that we did – and our songs were illegal. I'll tell a quick story and then I'm going to bring the Ambassador up. I'd like to stir it up a little bit. I was writing letters to a Russian guitar player and I was doing what I'd read in the boy scout manual – you write a letter then in between the lines you write in lemon juice and then he holds it over a candle and OK, I'll meet you at the front of the Gum Department Store at 1:30 in the afternoon, and they smuggled in a bunch of recording equipment. Did the handoff – of course the KGB followed me into the Gum Department Store. I ducked into the ladies room, went out of the window, down two flights of stairs, and I managed to get back to the hotel. But the idea was we were trying to bring freedom. After the concert there was a young boy up on stage and I'd brought a ton of gear. We gave away everything that we had and this young man said "Do you have anything that I can use to be a guitar player?" And I looked around and I found a little box and I said "Here, this is all I've got but please take it." And he stood up and he pulls a gold crucifix off of his neck and hands it to me. I said, "Hey, don't be dumb, the KGB is everywhere." He says "I don't care. This is all I have. This means so much to me that you did this, thank you so much. This means freedom, you are coming here, it is a tremendous thing in my life." The hairs on my arm still stand up every time I think about this young kid, who basically took a chance on going to jail just to show the kind of appreciation that he had for the folks who were coming to play. We're going to talk about this a little more. I'm going to introduce the Ambassador, then afterwards we'll do some Q and A so you guys can fire away. Now I'd like to introduce a guy that I got to know about six, seven months ago. We've had an awful lot of fun, we did CNN yesterday, we have done a couple of other interviews and stuff, and we have an evil plan which he will explain to you a little later. So without further ado, one of my favorite people on the planet now, the Ambassador from Hungary, Andras Simonyi.... Tomorrow: Ambassador Simonyi's Speech / Guest Blog.

« ok, I'm done now

Guess who's Coming to Dinner… bq. "The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required." This is one of the hardest pieces of information in the memo to swallow. For one thing, bin Laden left Sudan in May 1996 for Peshawar, Pakistan before forming an alliance with the Pashtun Taliban. So there is a definite chronological discrepancy here unless he returned to Sudan at some point over the summer. Al-Qaeda possessed (and still does) ample infrastructure within the country even after bin Laden's departure through its ties with the National Islamic Front. However, any travels that he did make would have to be short ones, as most if not all available sources list him as operating out of first Pakistan and later Afghanistan during this time period. The other part that I find rather bizarre is this whole notion that al-Qaeda wanted expertise in bombmaking in 1996, which is certainly odd given that the court testimony of American al-Qaeda leader Ali Mohammed in the embassy bombings trial (the records of which can be accessed here at the bottom of the ICT profile on the organization) states that al-Qaeda did indeed start looking for explosives expertise following the failure of the 1993 WTC bombing and hence turned to assistance from the leading Shi'ite Khomeinist organization Hezbollah and forged a partnership with both the Iranian government and Hezbollah operations chief Imad Mugniyeh to work together to target American interests that same year. Al-Qaeda leaders and mid-level operatives received explosives training in the Bekaa Valley, which would seem to suggest that the organization had already gotten was looking for in this regard. On the other hand, this comes from the same source as the anecdote about bin Laden staying at the home of a member of House Thani . That enhances the source's credibility because I doubt that the US (for diplomatic reasons) or the Qataris (for obvious reasons) is going to be very liberal with who they leak that particular piece of information to. Maybe there's a way to harmonize this account with existing data, but right now I just don't see it. bq. "The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation." This is also stretching it somewhat, unless there's some kind of evidence that either Iraq or bin Laden requested to the Saudi al-Qaeda cell that carried out the Khobar Towers bombing for it to take place on that date. Then again, dates are important in terrorism, as can be seen from the fact that 9/11 was very likely chosen to commemorate the defeat of Turkish forces in Eastern Europe in the 1600s that marked the end of the expansion phase of the Ottoman Empire. Can We Take This Czech to the Bank? bq. "The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office. CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information." This is likely one of the most contested pieces of evidence that I have ever seen argued back and forth across blogosphere and has formed the crux of many mainstream media efforts at "debunking" a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. That Atta ever met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani is still in dispute and I have seen what I consider to be credible arguments in favor of both scenarios, so I'm more or less agnostic on this one. However, as this story from the March 16, 2003 edition of The Guardian notes that the Czech government evidently believes that al-Ani did have contact with Atta during his time in Prague. The Slate version of a similar story is more ambiguous in this regard, but it does give this fascinating tidbit: bq. "The Czechs reviewing these visits in retrospect further assumed that Atta's business in Prague was somehow related to his activities in the United States, given that large sums of laundered funds began to flow to the 9/11 conspiracy in June 2000, after Atta left Prague." Those funds could possibly have been those given to Atta by the Iraqi intelligence that are mentioned in the memo excerpt, but there is nothing definitive here from open source documents. S.A.M. I Am bq. "Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere." The reference to Zarqawi having obtained portable anti-aircraft S.A.Ms from Iraq is a new development, but would seem to square with reports in the UK in February 2003 that an Algerian al-Qaeda affiliate (probably the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat) was targeting Heathrow Airport. As Powell and others, myself included, have noted, Zarqawi relied extensively on the existing GIA and GSPC infrastructure among the Algerian expatriate community in Europe to plan crude chemical weapons attacks on European targets that, had they succeeded, would have probably killed hundreds of people. If he was coordinating these attacks with the blessings of the Iraqi government (in the hopes that a renewed terrorist offensive would refocus global attention away from Iraq?), it would make sense for the Mukhabarat to assist him in this regard. Iraq, al-Qaeda & WMD bq. "During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training. CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh's timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and "poisons." Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi (which looks to me like a nom de guerre, it means "son of the Libyan sheikh" if my rusty Arabic is accurate) is one of the top al-Qaeda leaders identified by US intelligence pre-9/11 (CNN listed him among the top 12, suggesting that his claims should carry just as much weight to interrogators as Abu Zubaydah or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). He was captured by the Pakistani military on January 3, 2002, and is said to have run the organization's training camps in Afghanistan from his base of operations at Khalden camp. This is extremely significant because it means that both Darunta camp run by Abu Khabab (the origin of the dog gassing video that was shown on CNN) as well as the unnamed training facility near Herat where al-Qaeda's crude nuclear laboratory was locate, may have had Iraqi connections. The memo is unclear here (at least to me) as to whether al-Libi or the unnamed "al-Qaeda associate" (a term, incidentally, that is frequently used by the CIA to describe Abu Musab Zarqawi) was tasked to travel to Iraq in 1998 to establish a relationship with the Mukhabarat to obtain chemical weapons for the network. The reference to two al-Qaeda operatives traveling to Iraq beginning in December 2000 was evidently thought credible enough by CIA Director George Tenet to include in his February 11, 2003 Worldwide Threat Briefing in which he stated, "... This information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources." In my own opinion, we can probably assume that al-Libi is the al-Qaeda associate in question who characterized the relationship between the organization and Iraq as "successful." In addition, it is now apparent at least to me that al-Libi is probably the interrogated source of this related story from August 9, 2003. Final Thoughts So where does this leave us? Discreprancies and disagreements in a minority of the cases aside, the raw information contained within the memo appears to be very much in agreement with what can be learned from a careful study of open source material concerning the same topics. This does not resolve all of the issues involved with the memo, nor is the open source documents the preferred means through which to verify intelligence to begin with, it's simply the just best that we have available right now. At the absolute least, however, it leaves those of us who supported the existence of such connection like myself content in the knowledge that our scenario fits the facts at least as well as any other hypothesis, theory, or conundrum that I have seen presented to date.

« ok, I'm done now

IRAQ BRIEFING * The Iraqi Governing Council is shutting down al-Arabiyyah in Baghdad and raided the network's offices. * Hezbollah has established a presence inside of Iraq but has refrained from attacking US forces - so far. * Iraqi-American Rend Rahim Francke has been appointed the new Iraqi ambassador to the US by the Governing Council. * Japan is considering sending air and sea units to Iraq while the nation continues to weigh the prospect of deploying ground forces to assist the US. * I have noted before that Iraqi insurgents were posting videos of their antics online at various websites ideologically tied to al-Qaeda, but now it seems they have decided to go mainstream by sending a video of a SAM attack to the Paris-based magazine Le Nouvel Observateur. * The Salvation Army reports on their reconstruction work in Missan province, near the Iranian border. * Jay Garner, the initial US administrator in Iraq, is explaining how rivalries between the State Department and the Pentagon affected post-war planning in Iraq. * The wife and daughter of Baathist leader Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri have been captured in Samarra, 70 miles north of Baghdad. IRAN REPORTS * The IAEA has condemned Iran over covering up its nuclear activities, but does not intend to report the Islamic Republic to the Security Council. * The US is reportedly happy with the IAEA decision, which is a compromise between the US, UK, France, and Germany that states that no further perfidy on Iran's part is going to be tolerated. * Expediency Council chairman Rafsanjani, meanwhile, is saying that Iran will not accept any decisions that it deems to be in conflict with its "nuclear energy rights." * Iran, meanwhile, is dismissing a resolution from the UN Human Rights Committee highly critical of the Islamic Republic. Introducing the resolution was Canadian deputy UN ambassador Gilbert Laurin, who referenced the tragic death of photographer Zahra Kazemi. * Iran has handed over 7 KADEK to Turkey in what is likely a PR offensive to divert criticism from Ankara regarding Iranian complicity in the recent bombings in Istanbul, as both groups that have been fingered for carrying it out (the Islamic Great Eastern Raiders' Front and the Turkish Hezbollah) are backed, armed, and trained by Iran. * EurasiaNet is reporting both mass discontent and eerie quiet in Tehran as part of an explanation as to why the hardliners may well win the next round of elections. However, not everyone is so pessimistic. * Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has decided to personally oversee Israeli efforts to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Whether or not this is going to result in an Osiraq-style attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is unclear at this time. * Michael Ledeen talks about Italy, Turkey, and the US and how the recent attacks in Istanbul and Nasiriyah have achieved the exact opposite of what they were intended to accomplish - if we play it right. * Mansoor Ijaz, meanwhile, is citing what he calls credible reports stating that bin Laden has sought refuge in Iran along with his second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. This is certainly possible, given what we know about Iran's relationship with al-Qaeda, but I somehow have a hard time of imagining bin Laden and his top deputy passing themselves off as Shi'ite clerics. All the same, a good rule of thumb with bin Laden is never to under-estimate the man, his resolve, or his willingness to ally with any party, state, or organization in order to achieve his objectives. US HOMELAND SECURITY BRIEFING * Arx Americana takes note of the threat of al-Qaeda car bombs against the United States. * Members of the Lackawanna Six sleeper cell are now talking with US officials, who are of course very interested in what they have to say. THE WIDER WAR * Numerous individuals, myself included, have noted al-Qaeda's interest in cultivating bases in Africa, far away from the eyes of Western intelligence agencies. Now we're learning a little more about these bases as well as one of al-Qaeda's allies on the continent - Salafist Group for Call and Combat, better known by its French acronym of as the GSPC. * Al-Qaeda's highest-ranking operative in Yemen, Mohammed Hamdi al-Ahdal, has been captured outside of San'a. He is succeeded by Abu Ali al-Khandahari, who reportedly oversaw the direct merger of the Islamic Army of Aden and the Yemeni Islamic Jihad with al-Qaeda several months ago. * 5 US soldiers were killed in a helicopter crash just outside of Kabul on Sunday. * Pakistan has declared a cease-fire in Kashmir and India is reportedly following suit, though there is no word yet on whether or not the two dozen or so organizations operating there (at least 4 of which are part of bin Laden's International Islamic Front) are going to abide by it. * From Bali to Istanbul, nearly every major terrorist attack since September 11 has had one common denominator to it: the attackers were all alumni of al-Qaeda's Afghan training camps. In addition, the Istanbul suicide bombers also spent time in Pakistan, likely fighting in one of al-Qaeda's affiliates in Jammu and Kashmir. * Afghanistan and Pakistan don't seem to be the only places to receive al-Qaeda training, however. According to an interview with one Turkish jihadi, al-Qaeda was also training fighters in Georgia and Chechnya. * The US presence in East Africa is having an effect in regards to the war on terror, with 25 senior al-Qaeda leaders captured or killed over the course of the last year according to Brigadier General Mastin Robeson. * The UN is assessing the security in western Eritrea following a series of attacks attributed to the Sudanese-backed Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami, better known as the Eritrean Islamic Jihad. * US officials in Southeast Asia are saying that Jemaah Islamiyyah is back on track following the loss of Hanbali. This comes as Thailand reports that over 128 al-Qaeda operatives traveled through the Kingdom (and I would class the Egyptians and JI members as al-Qaeda as well unless one wants to quibble about semantics, bringing the total to 144) in the last 3 years. * JI spiritual leader Abu Bakar Bashir, meanwhile, is saying that it's all Australia's fault that he can no longer deliver his rants against the large number of people that he hates to his fellow inmates at the Salemba prison. * We try to end on a lighter note if possible. Now I'm all for social diversity and what not, but do we really have to ban master/slave references in terms to computing devices in Los Angeles County?

« ok, I'm done now

This'll be fun, but it's also strategic. Here's a little more about Uncovered: MoveOn.org doesn't usually sponsor documentary films, but this movie is a really important one. It's built around interviews with over 20 intelligence and military experts, many of whom are speaking out for the first time. True to the MoveOn ethic, director Robert Greenwald lets the facts speak for themselves. And the results are pretty shocking. Uncovered combines expert interviews with extensive research to go behind the walls of government. Interviewees include: * Joe Wilson, the former Ambassador to Iraq who exposed that the famous "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union address about uranium in Niger were false. In retaliation, senior White House officials appear to have blown the cover of Wilson's wife, an undercover CIA agent. * John Dean, White House lawyer for President Nixon during the Watergate scandal. * Rand Beers, former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for combating terrorism. * David Albright, a physicist, nuclear weapons expert, and former weapons inspector with the IAEA Action team. * Rt. Hon. Clare Short, the British Member of Parliament who recently resigned her position as Tony Blair's secretary for international development because Blair did not support a UN coalition to rebuild Iraq." Just to whet your appetite, the film's poster is at: http://action.moveon.org/meet/content/UncoveredArt.pdf So please RSVP by signing up at: http://action.moveon.org/meet/selectmtg.html?event_ids=416"

Think I ought to go? Or should I host my own party?

« ok, I'm done now

I only have the mental/temporal capacity for one dialog at a time, so I have to move the Calpundit discussion ahead a bit before I really engage here. I'd like to suggest that folks go over and take a look, and that the author, who goes by 'obliw' take a look at some of my older stuff on terrorism as well. At Armed Liberal: Romanticism & Terrorism Terrorism Pt. 1 The War on Bad Philosophy Here at WoC On Being a Liberal Hawk It's Not a 'Schtick,' Kevin

« ok, I'm done now

PAKISTAN AND INDIA * Pakistan still plays host to a large variety of extremist terrorist groups including remnants of the Taliban. Worse still Pakistan hosts many camps for various terrorist groups which not only strike at India but coalition forces in Afghanistan, S. Asia/S.E. Asia, as well as Russia and Chechnya. You can see a map of terrorist training camps in Pakistan here. This does not count the radical Madrassas or Islamic schools which some describe as others borders. It is frightening to think that these two nuclear powers often switch from covert war and insurgency/counter insurgency to artillery exchanges so often that it is not even reported by major news sources in South Asia. * Indian security forces killed five top Lashker – e – Taiba (LeT) terrorists in Kashmir. The LeT commander for the area was also killed; he was a resident of Pakistan. * India is building a base and planes to deploy unmanned Israeli built reconnaissance aircraft to monitor the Chinese Navy but already uses unmanned aircraft purchased from Israel to monitor its borders with Pakistan and China. * On an unrealted note, Niraj has an interesting article about India's birth rate and the country's attempts to control it. INDIA AND CHINA * India and China have continued what appears too many as emerging special relationship moving beyond economic agreements to performing joint exercises this month between the two powers navies. * While Pakistan is uncomfortable with China and India’s emerging relationship, seeing it as a major threat, many are skeptical of India and China really becoming so close so quickly. It is easy to forget India and China fought a war in 1962, have had border skirmishes, and much of India’s nuclear program is not to defend it self from Pakistan but rather China! TERRORISM IN SOUTH ASIA * Victorino Matus has an interesting article on Al Qaeda in Asia with a focus on how the U.S. should help the Philippines. Asia and South Asia as we have mentioned before are major areas for training, funding and general support of Islamic fundamentalist terror. This month Australia announced the freezing of accounts linked to Hamas. * Unfortunately it looks like Al Qaeda affiliated Jemaah Islamiyah and other groups are gathering to carry out new attacks in South Asia. ETCETERA * Nepal recently fought against Maoist insurgents declaring a cease fire in August. Yet the Nepalese government is still fighting and dealing with Maoist insurgents often in ways that raise serious doubts and concerns for their tactics. * Pakistan has been complaining loudly on Britain’s lack of response to its demands for an explanation for the MI5 bungled attempt to bug Pakistan’s high commission office in London. * The BBC has a nice web site that focuses just on the Indo-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir and some readers may find this a useful resource in learning more about this conflict and security in South Asia in general.

« ok, I'm done now

Benjamin goes on to describe the sermons and public statements of Muslim clerics, "delivering pronouncements that approach Osama Bin Laden's in spirit, depicting America as the head of world infidelity whose presence in Iraq justifies jihad," the popularity and frequency of which are surely indicative of the United States' relative success in the war of ideas. But then Benjamin commits an all too common error: bq. "Rumsfeld might also consider polling data, such as the June results from the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which shows majorities in seven of eight Muslim nations surveyed believing their countries are militarily threatened by the United States-again, much as Bin Laden argues." The assumption is that we're losing the war of ideas because the majority in 7 of 8 predominantly Muslim countries feel threatened by the United States. The Pew Global Attitudes Project has some polling numbers that are far more revealing of Muslim antipathy toward the U.S. than the ones cited by Benjamin, but that's not important for our purposes - Benjamin's contention that large majorities of Muslims dislike and fear the U.S. is not subject to dispute. Rather, what should be in dispute is Benjamin's assumption that because large majorities of Muslims dislike and fear the U.S., the U.S. must therefore be losing the war of ideas. Permit me to suggest that Benjamin's assumption is fatally flawed, and that the U.S. can and likely will have no choice but to win the war of ideas without winning the love and admiration of the Muslim world. The War within the War I'll concede that finding yardsticks for success in the war of ideas is an exceedingly difficult proposition. Still, gauging success or failure by asking people in some of the poorest and most powerless countries of the world what their feelings are toward the richest and most powerful country in history seems like a highly suspect methodology. Anti-Americanism is a fact of life well beyond the Muslim world, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Much has already been written on that subject, to which I have nothing to add except that the objective fact of Muslim anti-Americanism does not necessarily doom the U.S. in the war of ideas it is fighting in the War on Terror. To the contrary, those who focus on the universally negative attitudes toward the United States and its policies held by Muslims as a "metric" of success in the war of ideas are putting the cart before the horse. The war of ideas is not a global popularity contest with George W. Bush running against bin Laden for prom king. The war of ideas is an attempt to alter the fundamental thinking of the Muslim world (and particularly the Arab portion of the Muslim world) so that concepts antithetical to radical Islam (chiefly democracy, secularism and civil rights) become highly prized while those concepts from which radical Islam draws sustenance (chiefly "victimism," Islamic supremacy and jealousy of western success) become valueless. In the end, it would of course, be preferable if Muslims also loved the U.S., but that unlikely outcome is unnecessary in order to prevail in the war of ideas. Instead, we should concentrate on how ideas antithetical to radical Islam are faring in the Arab and Muslim world. Reports From the Front Lines In that regard, the Pew Global Attitudes Project gives much reason for hope. Consider that the study also found that: bq. "Despite soaring anti-Americanism and substantial support for Osama bin Laden, there is considerable appetite in the Muslim world for democratic freedoms. The broader, 44-nation survey shows that people in Muslim countries place a high value on freedom of expression, freedom of the press, multi-party systems and equal treatment under the law." That's unquestionably a positive sign in the war of ideas against Islamism, which by definition refutes freedom of religion and expression, multi-party elections and equal treatment under the law. In those countries where Islamists have actually managed to fully secure the reigns of government, freedom of expression and the press, multi-party systems competing for real power and equal treatment of all are usually the first things to go. Those facts are self-evident even to Muslims. History also shows that Islamists have had little appeal in free societies that value freedom of speech, freedom of religion and multiparty elections. Islamists have only prevailed in societies where those values never took hold in the first place. What the Pew Global Attitudes Project evidences is that the weapons we wield in the war of ideas are far more powerful than those of the Islamists. So powerful are those weapons in fact, that they likely transcend the antipathy with which Muslims hold the U.S. as the wielder. Accordingly, the connection between the successful penetration of pro-democracy and freedom ideals into the Muslim world and a positive view of the United States in that same Muslim world would seem to be tenuous at best. It is even possible for the United States to prevail in the war of ideas and still be detested in Arab and Moslem countries. Indeed, so long as the United States remains at the apex of the world, that is, in fact, the most likely outcome of the war of ideas. Sadly, jealousy of the powerful is a prevailing force even in free societies. The difference is that victory in the war of ideas will ensure that such jealousy will be unlikely to result in violence and terrorism perpetrated against the U.S. and its citizens. Free societies are simply much less hospitable to violent movements even when that violence is directed at other countries. We do not, for example, fear attacks by Brazilian terrorists despite the fact that the Pew Global Attitudes Project indicates that the Brazilians have unfavorable attitudes towards the United States (only 34% favorable) in similar proportions to for example, Lebanese (only 27% favorable). (Pew Survey June 2003 p. 19) The Lessons of History The United States has already won a war of ideas at least once in the Muslim world, that's why we are no longer confronting a communist threat on top of the Islamist one we currently face in the Middle East. Nevertheless, our victory in that war of ideas did not result in an outpouring of love for the United States among Muslims. To the contrary, our victory over communist ideas actually resulted in an increase in loathing for the United States all over the world. (Apparently, nobody likes an uncontested champion.) Yet, our victory in the war of ideas against communism cannot be disputed. Thus, when we consider which side is winning the war of ideas as a component of the War on Terror, care should be taken to divorce the appeal of the message from the appeal of the messenger. Were we selling cornflakes to the Muslim world, no doubt we would seek the most beloved spokesperson in the Muslim world as our pitchman. In contrast, the products the U.S. is "selling" to the Muslim world in the war of ideas—freedom, democracy, civil rights--thankfully sell themselves and do not demand that the U.S. be viewed with admiration or even grudging forbearance by Muslims in order for those ideas to prevail. Other metrics will have to be devised in order to accurately measure America's current success or failure in the war of ideas.

« ok, I'm done now

...wait! I can IM him!

me: TURN IT DOWN!! him: Turn what down? I can't hear you, the music is too loud... me: OK, I'm shutting down the router then. him: NOOOOO! Ok, I'll turn it down...

...and he did. Order is restored within the household, thanks to internet messaging protocols.

« ok, I'm done now

From Qatar to Khobar

"Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others."

At least part of this can be verified with open source material, as ABC News has previously reported that Qatari Interior Minister Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani is an al-Qaeda supporter, as is fellow royal Abdul Karim al-Thani. These two men have harbored both Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Musab Zarqawi, two of the highest-ranking members of al-Qaeda's leadership council, the Shura Majlis, and continue to fund the organization despite the emirate's status as a "key US ally." Then again, once you take this into account it becomes a lot easier to see just how al-Jazeera manages to get its hands on all of those tapes... In any event, accepting that either member of House Thani have harbored al-Qaeda leaders in the past, the idea that they would also being willing to play host to bin Laden is not truly all that hard to fathom. Facts like these that were disclosed to the general public less than a year ago certainly adds credibility to this piece of data that allegedly comes from as far back as 1996. One further thing to point out is that the Khobar Towers bombing took place on June 25, 1996 and killed 19 Americans, so if bin Laden was in Doha to coordinate the movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, this is unquestionably what they were being moved there for. Our "Friends" The Saudis bq. "According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia." I'm sorry, I could hardly contain may laughter when I read this entry in the memo. The Saudi National Guard, as I noted in my Riyadh bombings in retrospect analysis, is the Saudi equivalent to the royal guard and is responsible for the protection of House Saud. They have also been thoroughly infiltrated by al-Qaeda and apparently provided the explosives used during the initial Riyadh bombings. Then again, if anybody knows what al-Qaeda is up to, it would be them... The U.S.S. Cole bq. "Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement." This is a little ambiguous, but Vincent Cannistraro told the BBC the same thing shortly after the Cole bombing, citing that al-Qaeda had been in contact with the Iraqi military. On the other hand, UPI via ICT quoted a former CIA official in saying that the Cole bombing looked more like the fruits of al-Qaeda's robust ties to Iran and Hezbollah than anything else. Malaysian Connections bq. "According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee." Shakir was present at the al-Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, chaired by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and attended by such notables as Tawfiq Attash Khallad, Hanbali, and two of the 9/11 hijackers. According to this story from USA Today from October 2, 2002, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir was present at the time of the Kuala Lumpur summit in Malaysia and is, among other things, a buddy of WTC bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef who was able to return to Iraq unmolested in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. No word on whether or not he was getting a pension and a villa from Saddam Hussein like Yousef's other associate, Abdul Rahman Yasin. In short, we can probably say with good probability from just open source documents that Ahmad Hikmat Shakir was where this tidbit of US intelligence states that he was, thereby adding to the accounts' credibility in other regards. Thursday: Part VI - Back to Iraq, & Some Conclusions

« ok, I'm done now

A visit to Iraq makes it clear that no one is really a current expert on this country. Too much is changing. Even if most prewar statistics had been valid, they would not be valid now. The security situation is evolving by the day. The local and provincial leadership elites are in a state of flux, and the Governing Council is deeply divided and has not yet taken hold in terms of winning popular support. The economic situation may be improving in broad terms, but the day-to-day of ordinary Iraqis varies sharply by area and by individual, and much of the aid program is just beginning to take hold. More broadly, political, economic, social and military forces have been unleashed by the fall of Saddam Hussein that are only beginning to play out and which will take years to have their full effect. No Iraqi can credibly predict the end result, much less an outsider. In fact, trying to understand the uncertainties at work is probably far more important than trying to make assessments and predictions which cannot be based on past knowledge, current facts, or stable trends.

and continues:

The US can, however, also lose for internal and political reasons, and these may prove to be as much, or more of a threat. The ways the US could lose are: --A popular perception in the US that the war after the war is pointless, casualties and costs are too high, and nation building cannot succeed. So far, the Administration is preparing for such a defeat by underplaying the risks, issuing provocative and jingoistic speeches, and minimizing real-world costs and risks. The weakness of the Governing Council, a failure to convince the Iraqi’s that the US is committed to a true and early end to occupation, and a failure to communicate the scale and future impact of the US aid effort, currently increase the risks.

and:

Grand strategy is the key to victory, and victory or defeat is tied as much to politics as to warfighting. This means the Bush Administration faces some hard choices. It seems very unlikely that the current level of fighting will be over before February at the earliest, and may well continue until June or longer. Some casualties and major incidents seem like to occur through the November 2004 election and may well go on as long as the US is in Iraq. Any effort to “spin” these unpleasant realities out of existence is going to broaden the credibility problem the Administration has developed by underplaying the risks before, during, and immediately after the war. The sooner the Administration prepares the American people and its allies for a long period of low intensity conflict and continuing casualties, the better.

That's what I've been trying to say for months, and that's very much what I mean by 'showing determination.' Go read the whole article.

« ok, I'm done now

Behind Door #1... Your first option is to accept that the real meaning of the statements is the actions they support, or the behaviour patterns and preferences displayed over time. This is depressing, because real dialogue becomes the equivalent of winning the lottery. But sometimes it's true. Think "Type I" for solipsism, or "i" for "ignorant" of you like. George Orwell's "objective pro-Naziism" is one manifestation, and so is A.L.'s diagnosis of liberals who value preening moral purity, self satisfaction, and comfort above all else. Orson Scott Card's "On Lying" also talks about this type. Hey, some left-liberals really don't understand what makes their civilization tick, but they've been taught to treat it the way an abusive parent does - or they may actually hate it. Some right wingers really are selfish pricks who don't give a damn, or can't tell the difference between economics and governance, or go certifiable at the mention of the word "c-l-i-n-t-o-n". Or there may be some kind of very personal agenda at work, in either case. It happens. Reason almost never works here, only external pain severe enough to force internal turmoil and questioning. Fisking won't cause one's opponent to change, but it may back others of a similar persuasion away from that position and help feed the external pain level associated with it. It's an efffective boundary setter for dialogue if used sparingly and well, and an effective way to train and motivate the troops if you're completely on the other side. Dialogue Solution: tune Type Is out quickly, and fisk only when presented with a can't miss target (N.B. not can't ignore, can't miss). Focus your presentation on those who have not yet made up their minds, or are on the other side but reachable. If there are too many Type Is around, the best you can do is sow serious doubts and cause some people to leave that area. Even a new willingness to 'venture outside' on occasion and meet you in a better online place is a big step forward. If Calpundit is losing its status as that kind of better place, there's only so much you can do. The site owner has to conclude it's a problem, then deal with it. Backchannel and private sharing of examples from the comments around your dialogues may get you an ally - but remember, he has a lot of readers. Managing that many and still creating a good atmosphere is hard, and the difficulty increases faster than readership does. P.S. Anyone with ideas re: how Winds of Change.NET can avoid this trap as it grows, please use the Comments section. Door #2: Dealing With Type IIs... Type IIs are, as the symbol suggests, people willing to engage in dialogue. You build better places, and support others who do, for them. The stronger this support structure is, the easier it becomes for people to migrate from both sides into "dialogue zones." Which may help sharpen your understanding of what you're really trying to build here at Winds of Change.NET, and via support for a network of liberal-centrist bloggers. Some of those Type IIs are people you can just pick up and dialogue with, because they're already close to your starting point, or have a lot of similar background knowledge, or harbour serious doubts already. But sometimes, even with Type IIs, their worldview is so different from yours that the only way to begin a dialogue is to start from fundamental premises rather than specific proposals, or even overall analysis. Let's Start At the Very Beginning Which means your dialogue with Calpundit wouldn't even start from "what's to do in Iraq." It would have to start with topics like: * "Traditional notions of state sovereignty should remain absolute in an age of ethnic genocide, state terrorism and WMDs: discuss" * Why do humans fight wars? (no, that's not too basic) * "What role does military force play in the modern world?" * "Who should make decisions about the use of American military force, and why?" Which may lead to... * "What would have to change at the U.N. in order for it to become an effective body with respect to security issues? How likely is this?" * The idea that terrorism is a product of poverty. * "What is the role and importance of cultivated hatred in the Islamic world, and how can it be addressed effectively?" Etcetera. And while you're having at those questions, the only way to do effective dialogue is to keep hammering back to fundamental premises to avoid diversion, always ask for evidence (esp. "where has this approach worked in the past?"), and offer counter-examples that show different approaches working or that shine a tough light on bad generalizations. Meanwhile, of course, one must be extremely fair and open to influence oneself in order to influence sincere others. The absolute best guide I've ever found for this kind of work is Owen Harries "A Primer for Polemicists" in Commentary magazine, Sept. 1984 (PDF | Text). The Deeper Discourse That's the top level of the discussion, but it isn't the most important one when addressing groups with which one shares some common bonds. That title belongs to the deeper work of searching and probing for the underlying emotions and attachments in dialogue partners. It's about finding that language to really speak to each other, and to probe for areas of common understanding one can build upon. Many of your centrist friends could fairly be characterized as "Kosovo liberals," for instance - that was the "Darmok & Jilad at Tenagra" event that changed the way they talked about international relations. 9/11 worked for others like ex-peacenik leftist Tom Paine. Etc. Still, let's face it: this is not even remotely easy to do. I've always found it extremely energy consuming, and respect those who will engage in it (tip of the hat here at Winds to praktike in particular). Being able to execute the techniques well in live situations is like learning a martial art, and practitioners of aikido, defensive tai chi, and jiu-jitsu in particular will be able to see a lot of parallels. I Have Bad News, and "Good" News... So, Does This Really Work? Not necessarily. The bigger the worldview difference, the less shared ground, the harder dialogue gets. Then you throw in personalities on top of that, for good or ill. Some folks are just Type I, after all. Others simply refuse to do dialogue, it's either foreign or beyond them. A.L., you & I can think of commenters right here on Winds who were really trying to do dialogue as they saw it, and it was just... like Stevie Wonder trying to drive a motorbike, y'know? So there you have it. For Type Is, dialogue won't work. For Type IIs, it might work but enormous energy is required if you're venturing as far as "alien worldview" territory. Ironically, the thing that helps most is pain from the external environment. If there's enough pain from the external environment, it creates an inner questioning that's much more receptive to questioning from outside. It also helps sideline or eliminates the Type Is who would otherwise serve as influences to keep the examination from happening, by making other less likely to listen and by replacing their ideological support systems with alternative structures. The fractal similarity of this dynamic to our economy, and to the larger conflict we're engaged in, are left as exercises for the reader. Shouldn't surprise, though - all are driven at their core by the same aspects and dynamics of human nature. UPDATE: Dean Esmay has a good response that extends some of the ideas here. Note that he uses this word in its original sense: "The liberal wants to find the truth, no matter where it leads him. If he encounters disagreement, the liberal wants to understand the other's position, with an open mind toward some exciting possibilities.... The goal, always, to find the truth, or, failing that get as close as possible to the optimum solution."

« ok, I'm done now

What I mean by 'determination' isn't so much in the day-to-day policy arena as in the overarching goals and in how we communicate those goals. A bit more Churchill and a bit less Hamlet, if that makes any sense. And my point in doing that is that I genuinely believe that we are in a dialog between peoples, a dialog that is in ideas and words as well as blood. The hope is that through handling one well, we won't need to handle the other. Speaking of which I went over to Calpundit's comments section and walked away kind of depressed. It's not that they don't like me - hell, lots of people in the real world don't like me, which tells me that I'm an actual person as opposed to a Beanie Baby - it's that I really and truly just don't get the worldview that they are speaking from. I spend a lot of time on the left side of the media and blog world, and am increasingly finding islands there where the words are English and yet I just don't understand the concepts laid out in those words, and I'm finding that depressing and frustrating, given my goal of creating constructive dialog. That's my problem - I ought to be smart and flexible enough to understand arguments I may or may not agree with. And I need to do some work on that; there are too many people sharing a beliefset for there not to be an argument there, and I need to figure out what the hell those arguments are and what it is about them I object to so strongly. Meanwhile I'm reading boatloads of energy papers, and will get around to writing something about it soon.

« ok, I'm done now

The meetings between bin Laden and Hijazi in both Sudan and Afghanistan were reported in the The Guardian on February 6, 1999, more than 4 years before the US invasion of Iraq. The article in question cites numerous US intelligence sources, including Vincent Cannistraro (remember that name - we'll come back to him a little while later) as confirming that the meetings did indeed take place. bq. "A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan." This was also alleged by Collin Powell during his presentation to the United Nations Security Council. Then there is this curious account (via Instapundit) that states that an Iraqi paper from November 14, 2002 that names Iraqi intelligence officer "Abid al-Karim Muhamed Aswod" as being "responsible for the coordination of activities with Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan," which would certainly seem to identify at least one of the officers mentioned in this excerpt. Queer Eye and the Iraqi Guys? As for these next few: bq. "According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998." I can't find any open source material to verify this one, one way or another. bq. "Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim "elements" to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader [Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998." Farouk Hijazi keeps on popping up as the liasion at all of these meetings, so he should be able to corroborate most of this now that he's in US custody. bq. "Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam's explicit direction." Given the fact that Hijazi is still breathing 4 years after the alleged meeting took place, my own suspicion is that if these meetings took place, they occurred with the blessing of the Iraqi authorities. The Guardian's account is emphatic in this regard, and we all know that Saddam Hussein was not one to suffer disobedience lightly. bq. "Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations" Corroborating sources are more often than not a key piece of evidence within the intelligence community because, especially in situations like this, they increase the odds of truth unless they're a victim of either the "telephone" or the "echo" syndromes. We can confirm at least two meetings with Hijazi just through open sources, so that establishes at least a partial link in the chain right there. bq. "Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden." Hijazi reportedly offered bin Laden assylum in February 1999, so if accurate this would be the second occasion on which such an offer was made and could reflect a desire on the part of the Iraqi leadership to bring bin Laden and al-Qaeda far more under their control than the current relationship would ever have allowed them, though this memo notes that the source was only considered, not actually made. And if the name and position of Khalid Janaby is accurate, we now have the name of the second Iraqi intelligence officer working under the cover of the embassy in Islamabad. Wednesday: Part V - World-Wide Jihad

« ok, I'm done now

FTAA TALKS * After having started with great expectations, the meeting last week that was designed to lead to the creation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) by 2005, resulted in aan agreement that is rather diluted. As Andrés Oppenheimer notes, the Declaration of Miami signed by the participants on Thursday essentially creates a two track system: one for countries that are enthusiastic about signing comprehensive bilateral agreements with the USA and others that are more interested in moving cautiously towards more limited agreements. * Oppenheimer attributes this limited agreement to concerns and political pressures from constituencies in Brazil and the USA - the two co-chairs of the meeting - about the possibility of having another failed trade meeting after the failures at Cancún, Seattle and Port-Of Spain Trinidad. He's certainly not alone with that sentiment. Marcelo Rinesi puts a humorous spin on what the conversation between the Brazilian trade minster and the American trade minster may have been like. * The week before, the Ibero-American Summit took place in Santa Cruz, Bolivia with leaders from the Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries in the Americas as well as Spain and Portugal. Much of the focus was on aid and developing infrastructure, health care and education in the poorest countries. A number of good ideas were put forth including the idea of allowing debtor nations to reduce debt payments by investing in infrastructure. Marcela Sanchez directs some criticism at the USA's Millenium Challenge Account and its reliance on directing aid funding based on, among other factors, per capita incomes. While laudable, this leaves out much of Latin America as many of the countries have national per capita incomes greater than the threshold, but have major income disparities from one region to the next as the map of Brazil in this post shows. HAITI * As Haiti moves towards its bicentennial on January 1, the Aristide government maintains its grip on power while more than half of the population is unemployed and about half are malnourished. Repression has increased and so has violence, but don't just take my word for it. Read this op-ed peice from the Miami Herald by Raoul Peck. Peck directed the fine film Lumumba and was Minster of Culture in Haiti in 1996 and is not part of those referred to as the morally repugnant elite who overthrew Aristide in a coup in the early 1990's. * As all too often happens, it appears that Aristide has adopted many of the tactics of those he fought against in te 1980's and 1990's. His nation needs freedom, justice and aid, not repression, impunity and continued suffering. Although the Inter-American Development Bank just approved another $25 million loan, one can only wonder how likely any other lenders will follow if Aristide continues to ratchet up the oppression and the violence, malnutrition and suffering continues. BOLIVIA * The recently resigned former president of Bolivia, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada recently struck back at his critics in this Washington Post op-ed in which he made a compelling case for Bolivia's need to develop and takes his chief anatagonists to task (rightly so, in my opinion) for not offering any alternative. * Yet ten years ago when Sánchez de Lozada was a private businessman, he, among others, successfully sought to sabotage an attempt to develop lithium mining in Potosi, Bolivia that would restored some of the riches that this largely depleted mining center once had. Why would he do this? Because he was cut out of the deal according to Álvaro Rejas, who was minister of mines and energy at the time. Glass houses and stones all over again. * This post from Miguel Centellas who lives in La Paz, has some of the latest information on what's going on in Bolivia now. GUATEMALA * The polls held true to form and Efraín Ríos Montt finished third in the presidential election in Guatemala two weeks ago, thus eliminating him from the possibility of being in a run-off that will take place between Oscar Berger and Álvaro Colom, the first and second place finishers, respectively. * While this is encouraging, Guatemala is also a major drug transhipment point and has numerous clandestine groups involved in protection of the drug trade, including former military officers. As Alejandro Rodriguez, a political analyst in Guatemala said, “The justice system here is incapable of finding a solution to organized crime because a lot of the criminals are inside the government.” There's still a lot more that needs to be done. COLOMBIA * After several resignations and some further housecleaning, President Álvaro Uribe seems to have his cabinet and his major commanders in the military set for now. After his cost-saving and tax-raising referendum was defeated last month and, with resignations coming in dribs and drabs over several days from his cabinet as well as an opposition candidate elected as mayor of Bogotá, some were wondering if Uribe's influence was waning. * One success that Uribe may claim is the agreement by the Cacique Nutibara block of the United Self-Defense Forces (the right-wing terrorist group known by its Spanish acronym, AUC) to agree to demobilize on Tuesday, November 25. I remain skeptical of this plan as I explained and explained yet again. Nevertheless, I would imagine for a population that is tired of being caught in the middle of the violence, this must seem like good news. To his credit, this past weekend Uribe, at a town meeting, accused a police unit of being so close to the right-wing death squads that they drank together and that the death squads charged protection money from local businesses with no interference from the police. * Meanwhile, after the recent Bogotá bar bombing, which certainly seems like the work of the FARC (the leftwing terrorist group that will complete forty years of existence next year), the US Embassy in Bogotá has banned its staff from the Zona Rosa district of Bogotá and has expressed concern that Americans are now being targeted. * Two of the hostages being held by the leftist National Liberation Army (ELN in Spanish), Reinhilt Weigel of Germany and Asier Huegen Echeverria of Spain have been released after seventy-four days in captivity. They were among eight foreign hostages taken on September 12. One of the hostages, Matthew Scott, escaped in harrowing fashion the day after the kidnapping and walked for twelve days to freedom. According to Roman Catholic church officials who helped negotiate the release, the ELN has promised to release the remaining five hostages by Christmas. Vamos a ver . . . VENEZUELA * Facing the collection of signatures starting on Friday for a recall referendum against him, Hugo Chávez has decided to play a game of tit for tat and start collecting signatures for the recall of opposition legislators. Miguel Octavio, is unimpressed and has some pictures to show why. He even notes that Chávez, who signed the petition with a great flourish and, like so many politicians, used baseball clichés while he did so, signed in such a way as to render his signature invalid! Someone needs to fire that advance man. . . NEW LATIN AMERICAN GROUP BLOG * I'm pleased to announce the birth of a new Latin American Group Blog called Southern Exposure. We have contributors in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina/Paraguay Barcelona and two in New York, including myself. Click over, check us out and let us know what you think. As I'll be enjoying the Brazilian sun over the Christmas holidays, the next installment of Randinho's Latin America Briefing will be January 27, 2004. Let me extend my holiday wishes to everyone! Meanwhile, regular updates concerning Latin American events can be found at Beautiful Horizons.

« ok, I'm done now

JK: Just got an email from reader Jake Ewing, with an update...

Anyone else find it curious that the Dean blog has... 1) Shut down comments on the Ted Rall post without explanation (I have *never* seen this happen on the Dean blog without it being announced) 2) Substantially changes the meaning of the intro statement, changing the word "explains" to "considers": Ted Rall, in his Universal Press Syndicate column today, considers why so many third party voters are coming to Dean: 3) Deleted a key paragraph from Rall's endorsement: "Maybe it's premature to endorse Gov. Dean. But right now, given the information we have available, he's the preferred candidate of us Anybody But Bushies." 4) Summarily removed Rall's name from the title.

The definitive original posts is archived by Prof. Volokh. In addition, here's the Feedster capture of the post: Rall: Howard Dean for President From: Blog for America - hide - show: all images links rss Ted Rall, in his Universal Press Syndicate column today, explains why so many third party voters are coming to Dean: Howard Dean has the best chance to beat Bush.Brilliant, aggressive and moneyed... Dr. Dean has a corner on the single... http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002368.html - 41 words similar posts - cached - translate - published 10 hours, 41 minutes ago

« ok, I'm done now

IRAQ BRIEFING * Two U.S. soldiers were killed in Mosul and their bodies were reportedly mutilated, while a third U.S. soldier died from a roadside bomb. * Suicide bombers attacked police stations in Baqubah and Bani Sad, killing 17 in another blow against Iraqis deemed to be cooperating with occupation forces. * Some good news from Germany, as Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called for debt relief and forgiveness of Iraqi debts. While Germany has little to offer in the way of troops, their diplomatic support could be a significant assist for U.S. efforts to rebuild Iraq. * Zeyad has information on plans for 10 December anti-terrorism protests in Iraq. Hat tip: Instapundit. Arx Americana has more in "An Ordinary Iraqi" and "The Real International Answer", featuring some interesting links from The Mesopotamian and Healing Iraq as well. * The Iraq-al Qaeda question remains open to question, as Newsweek says the case is not yet closed despite the Stephen Hayes memo purportedly linking the two (Hat tip: Instapundit). Dan Darling has been doing a 6-part analysis of his own on this subject: Part I, Part II, Part III. * Which "cards" have we captured so far? The CENTCOM list. And the visual version of "Ba'ath Poker." * The troops are still there. So is the Winds of Change.NET consolidated directory of ways you can support the troops. American, British and Australian. Anyone out there with more information, incl. the Poles and Czechs? [updated Nov. 2, 2003] * Don't forget Chief Wiggles' Toys for Iraq drive! IRAN REPORTS * Iran continued its quest for improved relations with an official condemnation of the bombings in Iraq. The question remains, of course, if Iran has turned off its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah. * Or other terrorist support, like the reports al Qaeda ordered the Saudi bombing from Iran. * On the other hand, Iran may be making the right moves, as the U.S. has dropped its demand the IAEA declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. * And if you're looking for a more direct link to what the average Iranian is thinking, check out iranFilter, a collaborative Iranian blog. Hat tip: Instapundit. U.S.A. * The World Trade Center PATH station reopened this weekend, marking an important step in the return to normalcy for New York City. * JK: Rivitman has an idea for a new Army division. I like it, and would add this: it would begin as one American brigade, which would form the core of a force of international volunteers under U.S. command, in a Foreign-Legion type arrangement with citizenship eligibility at the end of a 10-year service term. THE WIDER WAR * The Argus has a great link wrap-up of the Georgia situation. Hat tip: Instapundit. * It's a bad month for American helicopters, as five U.S. soldiers were killed in a chopper crash near Bagram. The soldiers were participating in Operation Mountain Resolve, a U.S. operation intended to take on Taliban and al Qaeda remnants in eastern Afghanistan. * Donald Sensing reminds us that as much as al Qaeda hates the west, their primary goal is converting other Muslims to their cause. * The good news is, the these terrorists weren't too bright. The bad news is, there are probably quite a few more of them, and the odds are some of them will succeed. (Hat tip: Instapundit). * Case in point: Phil Carter is concerned al Qaeda is evolving in response to U.S. actions in the war. * Ariel Sharon is considering dismantling some Israeli settlements in an attempt to unilaterally get the peace process moving again. It's unlikely this will help the peace process again, but it may help protect a few Israelis from future terrorist attacks. Conversely, it may also encourage further terrorism on the belief terror is working. * Turkey is searching for international connections to the terrorists who bombed two synagogues and British targets in Istanbul. How Turkey responds to these attacks will be a bellweather for how well an Islamic democracy can blend the two constituencies. * Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld earned a rebuke from North Korea for calling the regime evil. After saying it would consider President Bush's written security guarantees, this sounds like another attempt by the North to keep western negotiators off-balance in hopes of scoring a better deal. * North Korea is telling Mongolia it predicts a nuclear-free peninsula, offering a counterpoint to the Rumsfeld rebuke. * Pakistan offered a unilateral cease-fire in Kashmir, offering the hope of cooling the tensions between the two nuclear nations. * Outsourcing jobs isn't just an American problem. On a lighter note, it seems British jihadis are losing suicide bomber jobs to cheap foreign labour! WSJ Best of the Web wonders if tariffs are the solution... Thanks for reading! If you found something here you want to blog about yourself (and we hope you do), all we ask is that you do as we do and offer a Hat Tip hyperlink to today's "Winds of War". If you think we missed something important, use the Comments section to let us know.

« ok, I'm done now

The Clinton Connection More to the point, the claim of al-Qaeda and Iraqi cooperation in the area of "weapons development" is extremely significant because, as you can read in either The Age of Sacred Terror, available via this link at the Federation of American Scientists, or this article from the 1998 edition of Non-Proliferation Review, they formed the basis behind the Clinton administration's decision to launch cruise missiles against the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan as a result of CIA intelligence that the facility was involved in the manufacture of a precursor to the deadly nerve agent VX for both Iraq and al-Qaeda. The Non-Proliferation Review piece is extremely critical of the Clinton administration's decision to attack al-Shifa, and may well add to American conservative polemics in regards to the missile strike (for a reasoned defense of Clinton's decision, here again I recommend a careful reading of The Age of Sacred Terror ). As even the Non-Proliferation Review explains, however, one of the rationales that the Clinton administration made for the strike was that the al-Shifa plant had ties to Dr. Emad al-Ani, an individual identified by the US as the father of the Iraqi VX program. Interestingly enough, the Non-Proliferation Review article also included this tantalizing statement: bq. "It [the Iraqi connection to al-Shifa] conforms in general terms to allegations made in a February 1998 congressional task force report authored by Youssef Bodansky, which claimed that Iraq had relocated its WMD assets and development to the Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and Algeria ... the credibility of the report is dubious at best." After looking at the footnotes at the end of the article, I dunno, maybe it might be time to revisit Bodansky's core thesis despite the improbable nature of most of his claims. Travels Beyond Sudan Another source of corroboration for the Clinton administration's position in regard to Iraq and al-Qaeda working together can be found in the saved Free Republic version of the November 5, 1998 and November 12, 1998 editions of the New York Times and Facts on File. bq. "This source's reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a "window" into bin Laden's activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran)." The Iranian connection with al-Qaeda is both long-standing and currently active given that over 24 of the organization's top leaders including its equivalents to secretary of war and secretary of finance are currently being sheltered by an elite organization within the IRGC answerable only to Ayatollah Khamenei. As far as bin Laden's travels go at this point, they remain largely a mystery from his arrival in Sudan in December 1991 to his departure in May 1996. Up until that point, there is little if any sign that the US had identified him as the man responsible for either 1993 WTC bombing or the killing of US troops in Somalia, to say nothing of his extra-curricular activities in sponsoring the formation of al-Qaeda affiliates worldwide and radicalizing existing Islamist insurgencies. Among those known travels away from Sudan during this period that are documented a trip to Bosnia in 1993 to survey the progress of al-Qaeda's Kateebat al-Mujahideen Battalion, which fought as part of the Bosnian Third Army against Serbian military and paramilitary forces. There is also an exceedingly mysterious trip in December 1995 to the Triple Border area of Latin America along with future 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The point is that there is no real way to verify any of this particular account with open source material because at the time in question, nobody outside of government agencies was really following the movements of either bin Laden or his top lieutenants. They literally could have been anywhere or met with anyone. Tuesday: Part IV: Into Afghanistan

« ok, I'm done now

Across town, another mother also is familiar with the Supercenter's low prices. Kelly Gray, the chief breadwinner for five children, lost her job as a Raley's grocery clerk last December after Wal-Mart expanded into the supermarket business here. California-based Raley's closed all 18 of its stores in the area, laying off 1,400 workers. Gray earned $14.68 an hour with a pension and family health insurance. Wal-Mart grocery workers typically make less than $9 an hour.

Calpundit also links to this story, and last night, had a guest post up from a grocery clerk union leader about the current strike, which concludes (I think these words are Kevin's):

Here’s the key question: Would you rather that these 70,000 middle class jobs become poverty level jobs filled by workers who have to turn to the taxpayer for healthcare and food stamps? That’s what the companies are proposing because that’s what Wal-Mart has. The CEOs of these three companies are just trying to keep up with the Waltons. Their combined operating profits have gone up 91% in the past five years...but Wal-Mart’s have gone up even more. Good lord — when is enough enough? At what price profits???

It's not just about grocery clerks. In another LA Times story today, we've got this:

BURLINGTON, Iowa — America used to need this town tucked into a crook of the Mississippi River. The assembly lines in Burlington and other factory towns nearby built the products that kept the nation moving — school buses, car batteries, backhoes, tractor-trailers. Workers put in 60- and 70-hour weeks to meet demand. The backhoes are produced in Mexico now, the batteries in Canada. Men and women who once defined themselves by what they built now support their families with unemployment checks. "There's not a market anymore for a guy who shows up for work and does his job well," said Devan Rhum, 37, a former factory worker. "All of a sudden, we've got our hands out. It's degrading."

What's it about? The Times story on Wal Mart says:

"We have split brains," said Robert Reich, U.S. secretary of Labor under President Clinton and now a professor of economic and social policy at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass. "Most of the time, the half of our brain that wants the best deal prevails." The connection may be lost on many, Reich said, but consumers' addiction to low prices is accelerating a shift toward a two-tiered U.S. economy, with a shrinking middle class and a growing pool of low-wage workers. "Wal-Mart's prices may be lower," he said, "but that's small consolation to a lot of people who end up with less money to spend." Others insist there is a net benefit whenever consumers can get more for less. "If you have lower real prices, you're saving money," said Arthur Laffer, a key advisor to President Reagan who is now an economic consultant in San Diego. "The prices' falling, in effect, raises the wages of everyone who buys their products."

Yes, but...that works well for the first few companies; the companies make more money, and lowering the price of goods improves the overall standard of living while only impacting a few workers. But there is a tipping point, where suddenly the number of workers who have gone from the middle-class downward begin to impact the overall economy - and we're not better off then. Calpundit says it well when he says:

So which is the better and more sustainable model? Increasing the overall affordability of goods by creating a larger class of people who can afford them? Or increasing the overall affordability of goods by squeezing the blue collar workers who make them and thus lowering prices? Both models work, but one works by building up the working class and the other works by tearing it down. I'll take Door #1.

Along those lines, this week's Business Week has a great article (subscribers only) on the decline of economic mobility. Because it's protected, I'll quote pretty extensively. (By the way, Business Week has taken over from Forbes as my favorite iconoclastic business magazine, and I'd encourage people to subscribe.)

The result has been an erosion of one of America's most cherished values: giving its people the ability to move up the economic ladder over their lifetimes. Historically, most Americans, even low-skilled ones, were able to find poorly paid janitorial or factory jobs, then gradually climb into the middle class as they gained experience and moved up the wage curve. But the number of workers progressing upward began to slip in the 1970s, when the post-World War II productivity boom ran out of steam. Upward mobility diminished even more in the 1980s as globalization and technology slammed blue-collar wages. MANY EXPERTS expected the trend to reverse as productivity rebounded during the heated economy of the 1990s. Certainly, there were plenty of gains. The long decline in pay rates turned around as supertight labor markets raised the wages of almost everyone. College enrollment boomed, too, and home ownership shot up, extending the American dream to more families. Low interest rates and higher wages allowed even those on the bottom to benefit. There was even a slight decline in the ranks of the very poorest families, as measured by asset wealth -- those with a net worth of less than $5,000 -- according to a study by New York University economics professor Edward N. Wolff. But new research suggests that, surprisingly, the best economy in 30 years did little to get America's vaunted upward mobility back on track. The new studies, which follow individuals and families over many years, paint a paradoxical picture: Even as the U.S. economy was bursting with wealth in the 1990s, minting dot-com millionaires by the thousands, conventional companies were cutting the middle out of career ladders, leaving fewer people able to better their economic position over the decade. During the 1990s, relative mobility -- that is, the share of Americans changing income quintiles in any direction, up or down -- slipped by two percentage points, to 62%, according to an analysis of decade-long income trends through 2001 by Jonathan D. Fisher and David S. Johnson, two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While two points may not sound like much, it's bad news given how much progress might have been made amid explosive growth. Essentially, says University of Chicago economics professor and Nobel laureate James J. Heckman, "the big finding in recent years is that the notion of America being a highly mobile society isn't as true as it used to be." In fact, according to a study by two Federal Reserve Bank of Boston economists that analyzed families' incomes over three decades, the number of people who stayed stuck in the same income bracket -- be it at the bottom or at the top -- over the course of a decade actually increased in the 1990s. So, though the boom lifted pay rates for janitors and clerks by as much as 5% to 10% in the late 1990s, more of them remained janitors or clerks; fewer worked their way into better-paying positions. Imelda Roman, for one, makes about $30,000 a year as a counselor at a Milwaukee nonprofit -- barely more than the $27,000 or so, after inflation adjustments, that the 33-year-old single mom earned as a school-bus driver more than 10 years ago. Says Roman, who hopes to return to college to improve her prospects: "It's hard to find a job with a career ladder these days, and a B.A. would be an edge." What Roman faces is an economy that is slowly stratifying along class lines. Today, upward mobility is determined increasingly by a college degree that's attainable mostly by those whose parents already have money or education. "It's clear that unless you go to college, you can't achieve a high trajectory in life. Education is the key to success in America today," says Aramark Corp. CEO Joseph Neubauer. He gives scholarship money to hundreds of disadvantaged kids every year through the Horatio Alger Assn., a group of successful Americans who try to help others make it, too. ... In turn, the lack of mobility for those who don't or can't get a degree is putting a lid on the intergenerational progress that has long been a mainstay of the American experience. Last year, Wichita State University sociology professor David W. Wright and two colleagues updated a classic 1978 study that looked at how sons fared according to the social and economic class of their fathers. Defining class by a mix of education, income, and occupation, they found that sons from the bottom three-quarters of the socioeconomic scale were less likely to move up in the 1990s than in the 1960s. Just 10% of sons whose fathers were in the bottom quarter had made it to the top quarter by 1998, the authors found. By contrast, 23% of lower-class sons had done so by 1973, according to the earlier study. Similarly, only 51% of sons whose fathers belonged to the second-highest quarter equaled or surpassed the economic standing of their parents in the 1990s. In the 1960s, 63% did. That's the pattern Michael A. McLimans and his family follows. Now 33, with two young children, the New Holland (Pa.) resident has spent the past decade working at pizza chains such as Domino's and Pizza Hut (YUM ). He made it to assistant manager but found that he could earn more, $9 to $12 an hour with tips, as a delivery driver. He and his wife, a hotel receptionist, pull down about $40,000 a year -- far from the $60,000 Michael's father, David I. McLimans, earns as a veteran steelworker. "I save every dime I can so my kids can go to college, which neither of us can afford to do," says Michael.

This matters a lot. Social and economic mobility is the key to American success, politically, economically, and socially. I cited this post in the Bellona Times a long time ago:

Midway through my much-aided private college education, the Reagan administration started making Academe a gated community. The results were apparent by the time I graduated, but I always figured, well, at least the state university systems are available. Talking to younger folks, though, I've hit plenty of anecdotal evidence that even state universities are now available only to those lower-class compeers who are willing to assume crippling -- I mean, legs-chainsawed-off crippling -- debt while simultaneously working like a dog and trying to study full-time. And reports like "Losing Ground" and "Unequal Opportunity" provide the stats: college has become an impossible choice for many Americans, no matter how many sacrifices they're willing to make.

In response, I said:

Social mobility. It is the magic glue that holds us together; it is the sense of possibility that each of us holds in our hearts, if not for ourselves, than for our children. And one of the consequences of SkyBox Liberalism is not only the ossification of class...you in your courtside chair, Mr. Nicholson, and then the neat hierarchy of wealth and fame leading upward to the corporate SkyBoxes that make this all possible, and above them, the proles in the nosebleed seats, kept in their place by the minimum-wage guards who keep everyone in their appropriate section...but the obvious "flaunt it, baby" statement of your gracious wave to the fans sitting in the rafters.

Why should you care? You should care for a lot of reasons. First, because the dynamic of Creative Destruction that keeps our economy strong is dying, replaced by Adam Bellow's genteel world of nepotism and privilege. That's not a good thing. Our economy is stronger than that of Europe and Japan because outsiders with energy and ideas can still build companies; that's harder to do in an economically and socially stratified environment. But most importantly, because it erodes the connections that tie us together as Americans.

The other [justification for managing the increasing concentration of wealth and power] is very practical and cold-hearted, and is something I hope to convince you to take seriously; to have the kind of political organization we have...where we grant legitimacy to an abstract body of laws and procedure...there needs to be a rough equality of power. There will never be a true equality of power; every effort to make it so has collapsed into madness (The Terror, Pol Pot). But one unique feature of the American system - and one of the keys to it's greatness is the ability of the small to stand up to the strong. This is important for many reasons; one of the most important is that it ties the small and powerless to the system with ties of legitimacy.

When I try and bring up these issues. I'm sometimes accused of trying to post-facto, justify the New Deal and Great Society and all of the baggage that came with them. I think that those who make those accusations operate from the mistaken assumption that the generalized prosperity and unity that we enjoyed from the 50's to the 70's was somehow a norm, and that we should take that as a baseline. It wasn't, and we shouldn't. The New Deal was (rightly or not) conceived as a way to ameliorate conditions for the poor enough to stave off a possible socialist revolution (or a national socialist one...), and the Great Society was developed in response to Harrington's "Other America" of malnourished kids. We face new challenges today, and we need to try and imagine and build responses to them; some of those may look like large government programs and some may not. But we have to somehow face these challenges, or we'll all wind up living in Neil Stephenson's book. JK Udate: This is funny - the next logical step in offshore outsourcing?

« ok, I'm done now

* Richard the Peking Duck continues his yeoman's work -- be it SARS, AIDS, corruption or oppression, Richard can be counted to shine a bright light upon the mainland authorities latest outrage. Lately he's been covering the central government's crackdown on anything that might be seen as internet dissent. You can find the Duck's most recent observations on that subject here, here and here. * And speaking of Richard, Hailey Xie, a young mainland Chinese blogger posting in English expresses her views on foreign criticism of her government, taking Richard as her example. * Hailey's thoughts on China's simmering AIDS crises are also worth a look. Her English can be eccentric, but her heartfelt posts provide an interesting insight into the thoughts of China's young people. * On the subject of AIDS (see how well I'm transitioning today), Adam Morris, at PRC News, notes the similarities between the PRC's reaction to the SARS outbreak and AIDS-HIV, and suggests that the authorities may be applying lessons learned during the former, to the latter. * Andres Gentry links to this disturbing first-hand report on the recent anti-Japanese, student riots in Xi'an. * Why Read This notes the revival of a policy from China's Maoist past, the forced migration of educated workers from the cities to the country's underdeveloped countryside. * Frank Yu takes note of China's adoption of a hard line anti-independence approach to Taiwan. China's change in rhetoric likely reflects its realization that, having witnessed Hong Kong's experience, the 'one country, two systems policy' is a dead letter as far as the Taiwanese are concerned. * The Old China Hand links to a piece revealing that, in a country where private gun ownership is prohibited and violent crime rare, rat poison has become a murder weapon of choice. * In the Hong Kong SAR, public attention has been diverted from the ongoing scandal surrounding the government's attempt to curb its own Equal Opportunities Commission from enforcing equality (about which more here), by the continuing adventures of Gucci, the wily crocodile who's been making sport of the government and the expert Australian trapper brought in to assist in his capture. Finally, the inimitable Hemlock proposes a unique but fitting disposition for certain proposals pending before the Hong Kong Legislative Council: bq. "[T]he motions themselves should not be amended – they should be rammed up their proposers’ backsides with red-hot pokers. One motion calls on the Government to lavish public wealth upon tycoons who move factories back here from the Mainland. The other, from the loquacious Chan Yuen-han, eschews blatant self-interest in favour of plain dementedness and asks our leadership to "...collect views from different sectors of the community for the purpose of reviewing and improving the existing policies relating to various industrial and commercial sectors and, having regard to the characteristics of the different sectors, implement the policies flexibly..." and make everything wonderful, to cut a long story short."

« ok, I'm done now

I Just Flew in From Peshawar and boy, Zawahiri! bq. "According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz." I am still trying to locate a hard news source for the original story of the al-Zawahiri visit to Iraq (some accounts that I found through Google referenced the visit as having occurred in July rather than February as stated here), but the visit is mentioned and the Iraqi vice president in question named as Taha Yassin Ramadan in anecdotes found on both BBC News from August 6, 2002 and a CNN story from September 5, 2002 that cites "coalition intelligence sources" as verifying that the meeting did in fact occur. Any alleged al-Qaeda training camp at An Nasiriyah would not be the much-talked about Salman Pak, incidentally, which is located just several kilometers outside of Baghdad. There was, however, an alleged biological weapons facility that was located in the marshes just southeast of the city. Other than that, I'm not aware of any significant al-Qaeda or Iraqi activity in An Nasiriyah, though the Iraqi daily al-Yawm al-Aakher reported on October 16, 2003 that al-Qaeda fighters were trained at both Salman Pak and an unknown location called "Nahrawan" that I suppose could be located in or around the vicinity of An Nasiriyah. The Iraqi paper goes on to claim that ~100 al-Qaeda fighters were sent to join "the 11th Company Division" (of the Republican Guard?) in Nasiriyah, the site of some of fiercest fighting of the war. Iraqi Kurdistan was not under Saddam's control at this point either, so any al-Qaeda training facilities established there would have to be done under the auspices of the organization's two major players in that region, Jund al-Islam which eventually evolved into Ansar al-Islam (the stick) and Komala Islamiyyah (the carrot). During his presentation to the UN Security Council, Collin Powell showed a slide of an al-Qaeda training camp located at Khurmal, which was jointly run by both Ansar al-Islam and Komala Islamiyyah that was alleged to have provided chemical weapons training to a number of largely Algerian al-Qaeda operatives under the command of Abu Musab Zarqawi who later showed up in a variety of terrorist plots that were thankfully thwarted by the authorities. I had assumed that Khurmal was converted into an al-Qaeda training camp to make up for the organization's loss of Afghanistan as a base in 2001, but it is altogether possible that al-Zawahiri had ordered the camp established in 1998 and that it was only later converted into a chemical weapons facility. Saddam's Open Door Immigration Policy bq. "An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel." This could easily be considered a casus belli in of itself. While there is no concrete open source confirmation of all of this, Collin Powell did allude to it during his presentation to the United Nations. According to The Independent (subscription required), much of this information came from a deputy of Abu Musab Zarqawi who was said to have been the mastermind behind the assassination of a US diplomat in Jordan in October 2002. I assume this none other than Moammar Ahmad Yussef, who fits the description of the Zarqawi deputy described in this article hook, line, and sinker. If one assumes that the individual now in US custody who served as the source of this report is indeed Yussef, he would certainly be in a position to know such information as one of Zarqawi's deputies. bq. "References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11." Actually, it doesn't make all that much sense in the aftermath of 9/11 given President Bush's aggressive formulation that we were no longer going to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them (unless, of course, they have spent the last three to four decades using their oil money to buy influence in Washington - but I digress...), especially if that nation had been currently the recipient of a low-level US military campaign (patroling the no-fly zones) over the last decade or so. Unless, of course, that at least some of the previous intelligence (and indeed the statement contained in the 1998 indictment) from the 1990s was considered genuine by US intelligence, in which case it would make a great deal of sense for bin Laden to try to enlist as many of his state allies as possible to serve as both safe havens for his network following the loss of Afghanistan as well as a force multiplier for the organization in any future conflict with the United States or other members of the anti-terrorist coalition. Nor is this type of activity inconsistent with other al-Qaeda actions during this same time period, given the network's interactions with other probable (in my opinion, definitive) state sponsors during this same window of time. Regarding the existence of al-Qaeda sleeper cells in Iraq prior to the war, on March 9, 2003 the New York Times revealed a leaked CIA assessment stating that al-Qaeda cells were active in Baghdad, Mosul, and Erbil (the lattermost of which was not under Baathist control at the time of the war) and were preparing to attack American forces. In addition, during the war there were numerous reports of accounts from Iraqi POWs that al-Qaeda was fighting with the Iraqi military near Basra that were later verified according to the paper that first broke the story to begin with. bq. "According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions." The PUK has long alleged a connection between Saddam Hussein and Ansar al-Islam, with various reports citing anywhere from $35,000 to $100,000 having changed hands between the two. On the other hand, the PUK balked at the idea that Komala Islamiyyah, one of its suzerainties that co-administered the al-Qaeda chemical weapons lab to Khurmal, had anything to do with the international terrorist network, leading some to believe that these accusations were politically motivated. I have no way to judge the accuracy of the various claims made by PUK officials, except to note that according to Time Magazine, US intelligence does indeed believe that Abu Wael, a member of Ansar al-Islam's ruling council, was a member of the Iraqi Mukhabarat, the question simply lies in whether or not the rest of the organization or its ultimate driver Osama bin Laden were aware of this fact. Saddam and the "The Islamic Army" bq. "A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader." According to Rohan Gunaratna's Inside al-Qaeda, the Islamic Army was one of the names used for the terrorist organization very early on in its existence before it was decided that the group would be known as al-Qaeda al-Sulbah ("The Solid Base," after the name of a book by bin Laden's mentor Abdullah Azzam), so this inter-organizational dispute would seem to date back to shortly after the Gulf War. One might want remember that bin Laden initially offered King Fahd the services of his organization in ending the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait as an alternative to the Western intervention that eventually became the Gulf War. Among the documents being referred to here is the November 4, 1998 indictment of bin Laden and his late military commander Mohammed Atef over the 1998 embassy bombings which, as Instapundit and others have noted, contains the following statement:

"According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said."

What can be discerned from all of this? The first is that claims of a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda are by no means limited to the run-up to war with Iraq. Indeed, all of this occurred during the Clinton administration. Monday: The Sudan Years

« ok, I'm done now

First, he makes claims about what Rob wrote that aren't true. Sanchez:

Step one: individuals in a democratic society bear responsibility for the actions (or failures to act) of their governments. This, as you may recall, is Osama bin Laden's justification for killing American civilians. It's asserted without argument. If it strikes you as plausible on face, notice that this is not the weaker claim that citizens are obligated to make a good faith effort to participate in the democratic process, vote for the best people given the information available to them, and so on. This is—and has to be for the purposes of this argument—a "strict liability" theory that looks at consequences. Bad policy enacted by the guy you voted against? Your fault. Some covert-op that only folks at the NSA knew about turns into a massive cock-up? You take your share of the blame as well.

Lyman:

Consider: Americans enjoy a democratic government which is, to a greater or lesser degree, responsive to our will. We are the authors of our government's actions. If I vote for someone whose platform is opening up the prisons, I am partly to blame for the victimization of innocents which results when all those murderers and rapists get turned loose. If I vote for a politician whose platform is unilateral disarmament, I am partly to blame for whatever military catastrophe results. If Americans are killed by terrorists that my government failed to hunt down and kill, I am partly to blame.

Notice a few differences? Julian's positions are two: either you buy into tribal blood-connection a la Bin Laden, or you have a procedural authorship that comes from your 'good faith effort to participate.' Rob isn't making that point at all. he's making the same point Schaar and I make, that we take on obligations by living in a society; some of the obligations are not of our choosing or making, but we bear them nonetheless. Next he attempts to drive Rob's argument off a cliff. Sanchez:

Step three: Therefore (and I use the term loosely) each of us has a responsibility to be especially concerned with the welfare of our fellow Americans, rather than with people in general. This is my favorite. If you tilt your head and put your ear to the screen, you can almost hear these lines hollering: "Hi! I'm the fallacy of composition! You may remember me from such arguments as John Stuart Mill's justification for utilitarianism, and Gladys the Groovy Mule." If you're bored and have some free time, see how many invalid arguments you can construct using this obviously incorrect form of inference. I'll get you started: Corporations have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders to be profit-maximizing. Therefore, shareholders must each act as profit maximizers in their own lives.

Gosh, Julian, I'm just not sure where to begin patching the holes in your argument. There's a whole literature on obligation and citizenship; Waltzer and Schaar would be good places to start. And if theoretical arguments based on history and literature make one squirmy and uncomfortable, I'll suggest a brief detour into emergent computation once he gets past the Introduction to Logic class. I've got three problems with Julien's post. First, he carelessly misreads and misrepresents what Rob actually said. Second, he ignorantly misapplies elementary logical propositions to a complex system, and ignores a whole raft of readily accessible literature both within the areas of logical analysis of complex systems, the limits of formal logic in modelling complex systems, and human history and politics - which was, after all, what we were talking about. I don't know Sanchez' writing well, so I can't tell if he's being willfully obtuse or just ignorant about the notions of obligation and citizenship, from a political theory perspective (note that I'll make a careful distinction here between political philosophy and political theory. For a good primer, take a look at my post on it or at Chris Bertram's, Russell Fox's, or Matthew Yglesias.) I have other philosophical issues with the ahistorical, atomistic individuality that his post infers, but I really don't have enough data to know that's where he's coming from, so I'll look around a bit before going there. And finally, his dismissive and superior tone - particularly when combined with the intellectual failures set out above - set him up for the only appropriate response I can come to - which is to ask just exactly whose argument was it that is busted? I don't care whether you're on the right or the left, Stalinist or Libertarian. There is no excuse for not treating your intellectual or political opponents with some modicum of decency and courtesy. When people don't, I'll certainly make it a point to nail them for it, as I'm nailing Julian (the fact that his arguments were such a wonderful example of pseudointellectual arrogance was a perk), and I hope that other people will as well.

« ok, I'm done now

REPORTS FROM THE FIELD * Two US Black Hawk helicopters have crashed in Mosul, with some reports claiming that one of them was shot down by an RPG. * The UK Telegraph reports on the aftermath of the suicide bombing in Nasiriyah. * Kirkuk deputy governor Ismail Ahmad Rajab al-Hadidi has been wounded in an apparent assassination attempt. * Attacks on Iraqi government officials cooperating with the US appear to be on the rise, a possible sign that Operation Iron Hammer may be deterring Iraqi insurgents from directly targeting coalition forces. * US forces are searching Tikrit for Iraqi leader Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, who now has a $10,000,000 reward on his head. Al-Douri, who is also said to be the mastermind behind the Baathist insurgency, is also reputed to be the liaison between the Baathist insurgents and Ansar al-Islam. RECONSTRUCTION AND THE ECONOMY * Shi'ite Muslims are slated to comprise 60% of the new Iraqi military, which should be completed by sometime in 2004. * Iraqi police are back on the job and much in need, according to this, this, and this. * More specifically, the Guardian deals with the story to restore law and order in the Iraqi city of Hilla. * Healing Iraq has a photo available of the Iraqi anti-terror demonstration in Nasiriyah. * You can read the full text of the agreement between Coalition Provisional Authority and the Governing Council here. * Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is saying that there are no immediate plans to withdraw US troops from Iraq. * The Iraqi city of Ramadi, which has been at the heart of much of the resistance located within the Sunni Triangle, appears to be rethinking its position towards the Coalition Provisional Authority. * The fine art of graffiti appears to be returning to Baghdad - and you'd never believe what it's saying. THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE * The UK is considering deploying additional troops to Iraq according to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. * Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is promising to keep Italian troops in Iraq to assist in the occupation and reconstruction efforts despite the Nasiriyah suicide bombing. 50 paratroopers from the elite Tuscania squadron have been redeployed to Nasiriyah after serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan. * The Italian anti-war group Antiimperialista is sending funds to Iraqi insurgents according to the BBC. Be sure to check out their website, you'll be interested in who the contacts are. * The US is reportedly screening members of an Iraq-based anti-Iranian group for terrorist links. Given that the organization in question is the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, this strikes me as an exceedingly bad policy decision that is naive at best and extremely hypocritical at worst. * Michael Totten explains over at Tech Central Station that Iraq isn't Vietnam - and lists some of the reasons why. WMD HUNT * The Washington Post has an interesting article that states that Iraq ordered nuclear equipment in 1999, had an agricultural facility that showed advances in dry storable powder forms of botulinism toxin, and despite the headline the extremely interesting anecdote that Saddam Hussein considered handing Iraqi WMDs over to his son Udai's Saddam Fedayeen - thereby implying that there were WMDs to hand over to begin with. * This article from the Sunday Times contains yet another fascinating anecdote: "Two top Iraqi scientists, codenamed Charlie and Alpha, are helping the coalition to learn more about Iraq's anthrax programme, Kay said. The Iraqis had made shocking innovations in the milling and drying processes needed to weaponise anthrax." ETCETERA * Which "cards" have we captured so far? The CENTCOM list. And the visual version of "Ba'ath Poker." * The troops are still there. So is the Winds of Change.NET consolidated directory of ways you can support the troops. American, British and Australian. Anyone out there with more information, incl. the Poles and Czechs? [updated Nov. 2, 2003] * Don't forget Chief Wiggles' Toys for Iraq drive!

« ok, I'm done now

The facts, law, and politics, are already well covered by others, so I'll make a quick point of information, than start rolling. Here's the news: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided this week that denying gay couples the right to marry was unconstitutional, and ordered the legislature and executive branch to come up with something in the next 180 days.

Here are the three perspectives: One is broadly social, and talks about why it is that I support gay marriage and think that it should be legal. One is moral, and talks about the thorny issues that are presented when rights collide with deep-seated beliefs. And the final one is deeply personal, and I hope will explain why it is that I will always personally support gay marriage.

On the social front, I'll suggest that we spend all too much time focusing on the wrong part of the body - the crotch - and not enough on the part that matters - the heart - of those involved. This is a part of the broader issues I have with the way society deals with sex, and with the collapse of traditional sexual norms and the fact that nothing has stepped forward to replace them.

Look, it's like this. What is marriage about? It's about a deep commitment between two people who promise to care about and for each other. Historically, it has been tied to sex and procreation - which means heterosexual sex - but that tie is eroding, in the face of the increasing sexualization of society.

Eroding? It's eroded, folks. Paris Hilton may be 'deeply shamed' by the release of her self-made video; but the next celebrity won't be, and soon we'll have migrated celebrity to something like Gibson's character Tally Isham, whose entire life (especially the naughty bits) becomes the subject of a reality show. Soon we'll be just a credit card away from the weekend cavorts of our media stars, whose stardom will be reinforced, not destroyed, by granting us this access.

Please don't take me for some kind of neopuritan - I'm not, and my own history (two marriages and divorces, with a variety of relationships stacked around them) doesn't exactly make me the poster boy for durable relationships. But hey, I'm trying...

The old models are broken, and we can do two things - we can fight a rearguard action to try and reclaim them, or we can look at them anew, try to see what it is that we saw of real value in them, and forge new models that include those things.

What it is that matters in a marriage? Commitment. Duration. Primacy. It is a commitment - which means that in the face of conflicting desires, you have to anyway. It has duration - meaning it gains in value over time. An old good relationship is better than a new one. My dream is to grow old with TG, and to have the span of our history together as a part of what we share. It means that I will take care of her, and be taken care of by her in turn, and that in the time where long shadows come over our lives, we won't be alone in facing them. And it has primacy over your other relationships. The act of saying to this person "You are the most important person in my life. Not my children, not my boss, not my pastor or anyone else matters more to me than you do," fundamentally changes both one's life and one's relationships to others.

These are good things. They are not only good for people, they are good for society. They bind people to each other, and bind them to a future. They create the kind of 'units' of people that can successfully build societies and raise children.

The kind of sexual equipment that the people involved have, and what they do with that sexual equipment, has nothing to do with these core values. You'd hope that they were sexually compatible and satisfied, since seeking out other sexual outlets tends to conflict with the core values. But for crying out loud, what difference does their sexual behavior make to what really matters?

The answer to that, of course, cuts to the second point.

At one of my first blogger events - Roger Simon's book signing - someone asked how I felt about gay marriage, and I replied "For it, of course." Cathy Seipp was a bit put out - and I think rightly so - and pointed out that reasonable people could well disagree on this, and that for some people, it might actually be a deeply moral issue.

There are people for whom homosexual sex is, literally, a sin. For their government to recognize homosexual marriage - and put it on a par with normal marriage - means that their government is caving in to sin.

I used to be frustrated with those people, who thought abortion was murder and homosexuality was sin.

Then we deliberately got pregnant (not me, exactly, but my first wife).And the nature of what was going on in doing abortions fundamentally and irrevocably changed for me. Do I stand outside clinics with pictures of bleeding fetuses? Not a chance. I'm still on the other side, and support abortion, but with a wince.

And I do understand how, legitimately, people might want to stand outside a clinic, or how legitimately, people might be uncomfortable with the acceptance of homosexuality, and I won't condemn anyone for those views (I will freely condemn them for their behavior, however, should they choose to commit murder, arson, or simple rudeness in my presence).

To me, people may choose to live pretty much however they want to. I have friends who are ultra-Orthodox Jews, and friends who are devout Catholics; each operates their life around their principles, and wishes everyone else did as well. But I draw the line when someone restrains another from leaving - as some Muslim families violently do with their adult daughters, or Muslim men do their wives (note that this happens with Christian sects as well, and over issues other than religion; I'm wary about pointing to Muslims, but I'm more wary of ignoring the real stories in order to be inoffensive). And I draw an even bolder line when someone wants to change the laws of the state to make them congruent with their especial cultural choice.

So how do we resolve these things? Awkwardly and over time. We all operate in a mesh of invisible social norms, which change slowly - and inexorably. The tug-of-war that we are going through is the tension that drives that change, and while we all participate in it, we all ought to be understanding of it for what it is, as well.

Do I support gay marriage? Of course. Do I think that all right-thinking people do? Of course not.

But for those who don't, I keep wanting to ask - given the array of horrible sexual behavior that we all see around us every day; given the fact that most of the specific sex acts homosexual couples commit are committed by heterosexual couples as well - shouldn't we look more favorably on a gay couple that has made a lifetime commitment and is living it out, and willing to do so before the state, and maybe a bit less favorably on someone like me?

And finally, I support gay marriage because of the piece of paper on my desk. It's a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care; TG and I are updating ours (since we're not yet married), and I pulled this out of the file.

Back in the 80's, I made a lot of money, and actually had investments (as opposed to bills). I hired a pretty good asset manager, and he became one of my closest friends. He ultimately became the godfather to my oldest sons. His name was Steve, and he was gay and died of AIDS in the early 90's.

When he came out, he was fired by his parents from the family owned firm that he was a partner at; when he got AIDS, he was fired from his job at Drexel. As he got sicker, he couldn't always manage his medical affairs, and his parents - who had fired and rejected him, became conservators of his estate over his objections. He didn't want them to take control of his medical care, so he asked me to.

He'd been in a committed relationship for six years at this point, and his parents undid much the estate planning he'd done to ensure his partner's financial security; his partner couldn't do anything about it - after all, in the eyes of the law at the time, he was a nonentity. His partner couldn't legally control Steve's health care without a document; and because of the legal conflicts over the financial matters, Steve was concerned that it would be invalidated. So I took the legal responsibility. His partner made the decisions; I was the formal authority that the hospitals could use to validate it. Because his partner was, after all, a legal nonentity when it came to the legal authority over Steve's care.

Ultimately his parents lawyered up and attempted to get me removed. We'd have won, and I'd have gladly spent the money to win, but at the very end, Steve did what he should have done in the beginning, and married.

He married a casual lesbian friend, who managed his care for the last six months of his life, and when he died, took the remaining assets and left Steve's partner - the person who should have had them - destitute and alone.

You know, if you believe homosexuality is wrong, I can understand not doing business with Steve. I could understand not socializing with him, or even politely expressing your disapproval.

But I have a really hard goddamn time understanding why it is that his control of his dignity and assets should be stripped from him - and the man who he had lived with in a committed relationship for as long as I had been married to my first wife - because of it.

And so personally, I'll support gay marriage until it becomes legal. If we need to do anything about marriage in this country, it ought to focus on we straight people who seem to be doing such a bad job of marriage on our own.

(in a personal note, TG is certainly working on that issue as far as I'm concerned.)

FEB/04 UPDATE: TG and I are taking the plunge and getting married ourselves!. There's a good friend who we'd like to have at the wedding. Can you help?
-

« ok, I'm done now

IRAN REPORTS

• A rift appears to be forming between the EU and the United States over how to deal with Iran after the publication of the IAEA report on the nation's nuclear program.

• Former Iranian envoy Hadi Soleimanpour is returning home after a lengthy legal battle in the UK over his alleged involvement with the 1994 bombing of the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires.

• Iraqi scientist Modher Sadeq-Saba, the head of the Iraqi long-range missile program, has reportedly fled to Iran.

USA HOMELAND SECURITY BRIEFING

• Former CAIR community affairs director and Islamic Assembly of North America founding member Bassem Khafagi has been sentenced to 10 months in prison after pleading guilty for bank and visa fraud as part of a plea agreement.

• DC sniper John Mohammed has been found guilty on all counts for his involvement in the sniper shootings that terrorized the DC area last year.

• Government sources are indicating that new charges may be filed against Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry, and Ahmed Abdel Sattar. The jailed terrorist mentioned in the article is Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the spiritual leader of al-Gamaa al-Islamiyyah who is now serving a life sentence for planning to blow up NYC landmarks and assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

• Tech Central Station has an interesting article on bureaucratic mismanagement by the US Department of Homeland Security - and how it's hurting US popularity in Latin America.

THE WIDER WAR

• Taliban forces in Afghanistan have reportedly formed 4 committees in addition to their 10-man leadership council to coordinate attacks in Afghanistan.

• Unemployed potenate Taliban leader Mohammed Omar has sent an audiotape to Reuters calling for renewed attacks on US and Afghan forces.

• Mullah Omar isn't the only one sending out messages; Power Line has a letter up from an army major currently stationed in Afghanistan.

• AFP is reporting that the US is concerned that al-Qaeda operatives in the UK may use the anti-war protests as a cover from which to target President Bush. The BBC, meanwhile, is reporting that al-Qaeda supporters from North Africa (probably Algerian GIA or GSPC members) may be planning to carry out attacks unrelated to Bush's visit.

• According to this story from the Associated Press, some of al-Qaeda's supporters in the Arab world have already come up with conspiracy theories to explain away what happened in Riyadh.

• The US has frozen the assets of al-Qaeda cell members active in Italy on behalf of Abu Musab Zarqawi that recruited members of Ansar al-Islam to fight in Iraq.

• The Algerian military has launched a new offensive against the al-Qaeda affiliates GIA and GSPC in several areas of the country.

• A United Nation report states that al-Qaeda plans to use chemical or biological weapons in future attacks but lacks only the technical expertise needed. The report also notes that the organization still retains ample access to its international financing network, which is I suspect is largely due to the fact that the members of the Golden Chain remain at large and still able to assist the organization.

• Captured Jemaah Islamiyyah leader Taufiq Rifqi has told Filippino authorities that the organization is continuing to train its fighters at Jabal Qubah camp on Mount Cararao.

• Filippino National Democrat Front spokesman is denying media reports that the communist political group was conducting recruiting for JI.

• Jemaah Islamiyyah has a new leader to replace Hanbali as al-Qaeda's operations chief in Southeast Asia.

• Yemen has released 92 "repentant" al-Qaeda members. Coincidentally, releasing its members held in Yemeni prisons was one of the terms that al-Qaeda spelled out when it opened negotiations with the Yemeni government on September 25, 2003.

• Al-Qaeda spiritual leader Sheikh Ali bin Khudair al-Khudair has formally renounced religious edicts he issued calling for violence against the Saudi government on Saudi national television. No word when he'll get around to doing the same for the numerous fatwas he issued calling for jihad against Christians and Jews.

• Power Line has a blog up on corruption in the Palestinian Authority and how Yasser Arafat controls ~$34,000,000 in a slush fund that he can distribute as he sees fit.

• We try to end on a lighter note if possible. For all the fabled objectivity of our computers these days, it seems that there are just some things even they can't get right.

« ok, I'm done now

One might wonder why any of this matters. I believe this memo is significant information because if even some of its contents are true, it means as I have argued both on Winds of Change.NET and on my own blog that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States through its relationship with al-Qaeda, even if one sets aside the question of WMD. The Pentagon Memo However, before I can address the subject of the memo I must first deal with the Department of Defense press release on the subject, which some have erroneously interpreted as either a denial or a distancing of the DoD from the memo, when in fact it reveals a great deal of useful information to us on a number of issues: 1. The memo is the real McCoy. Rupert Murdoch and Fred Barnes didn't fabricate it as an ingenious PR offensive to shore up support for the administration's case for going to war. 2. The memo lists specific intelligence reports that detailed Iraq/al-Qaeda ties or connections and sent them to the chairman and the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (Roberts and Rockefeller respectively). The Committee is currently examining pre-war US intelligence in regards to Iraq, so this is an entirely understandable request. More to the point, the memo was sent in reference to testimony made over the summer and as the latest entry of actual data on the memo refers to the events of May 2003, this is by no means new information for the US intelligence community. 3. "The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA." Some have interpreted this as meaning that the information cited in the memo is inaccurate or false, when in reality what it means is that what we are looking at is raw "unhyped" intelligence. The allegations of intelligence distortion or manipulation that have been made against the administration are certainly disturbing, but because this is simply raw information we can safely view this memo knowing that if such manipulation did occur that this is the "pre-spun" version of it. 4. "The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee’s question." This means that the evidence being presented was that in favor of the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection, which would explain why the memo (or at least those elements of it printed in the Standard)does not include for example mention either Abu Zubaydah or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's reported denials of a link between the terrorist network and Iraq, it simply was not intended to. 5. This memo was not intended as an analysis and drew no conclusions, it simply listed the raw data that supported the assertion that Iraq and al-Qaeda were working with one another. The Committee is already presumably aware of the conclusion of US intelligence in this regard and now they want to see the raw data in order to view how that conclusion was reached. For more discussion on the memo, I would kindly direct readers to the comments section of my colleague Robin Burk's Iraq Reconstruction Report. Also recommended are this story from Slate and Stephen F. Hayes' own clarifications on the Weekly Standard's website. Iraqi Intelligence? bq. "According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes." To begin with, this comes from a "senior Iraqi intelligence officer" now in US custody who presumably either a member of the deck of cards or one of the 200 other most wanted Iraqis. This is what the officer told US interrogators in May 2003, implying that if the officer had been in custody when or shortly after the regime fell in early April that there would have been more than enough time to break him. The mention of Farouk Hijazi as the middleman is also extremely interesting because the last time that his name surfaced in press reports as the liaison between Iraq and al-Qaeda prior to him being taken into custody was in 1999, so if this officer was only trying to tell his interrogators what they wanted to hear, he apparently has a much longer memory than the international media because Hijazi's name wasn't mentioned at all as a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda during the run-up to war, though one could easily argue that it should have been. Egyptian Islamic Jihad The claims of a connection between Iraq and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) are a little bit more complicated, largely because the EIJ is run by bin Laden's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, and has extremely robust ties to Saddam Hussein's archenemy Iran. According to Iranian defector Hamid Reza Zakiri's interview with al-Sharq al-Awsat, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) first met up with the EIJ in Lebanon during the 1980s after the assassination of Anwar Sadat. The senior Iraqi intelligence officer claims that Iraq established relations first with EIJ, and later with al-Qaeda in Sudan in 1992, but the time frame that is being established here is either during or immediately after the Iran-Iraq War. So was the Iraqi officer lying or trying to tell his interrogators what he thinks that they want to hear? Possibly, but one should keep in mind three things. The first is Saddam's personal goal, and the official goal of Ba'athist facism: to unite the Arab race under the banner of a single great leader, and lead the Arab world into battle against its enemies. Nasserite socialism was a direct ideological competitor to the Ba'athists for many years, and Egypt's traditional standing as a key center of gravity for the Islamic world has long represented a formidable obstacle to both Iraq and Syria's Ba'athist aspirations. Then there's Egypt's role as America's "ally" in the region, and their participation in Gulf War I. Keeping one's enemy busy and weakened, as could be achieved by supporting anti-regime elements like EIJ, makes sense as a strategy under these circumstances. One backs them not because they are likely to win, but because they aren't and so represent no threat… and in the meantime, they serve as a useful distraction and punishment for one's enemy. Welcome to the realities of international diplomacy, and especially the Persian-Arabic tradition which has historically made secret societies and covert action a mainstay of its statecraft over the centuries. The second thing to consider is that al-Qaeda (and by extension the EIJ) have an extremely pragmatic approach towards their relationships with various governments willing to act as its patron, thereby explaining why the terror network has been willing to work with both a nominally Christian despot like Charles Taylor in Liberia as well as, according to the October 6, 2003 issue of US News and World Report, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. As such, one can easily imagine an individual like al-Zawahiri agreeing to enter into a "highly secretive relationship" with the secular Baathist regime in Iraq even as he was establishing ties with the Shi'ite Khomeinist theocracy of Iran. Finally, immediately following its disastrous defeat in the Gulf War and status as an international pariah, Iraq would have been eager to cultivate ties to Islamic extremists as a means to both achieve revenge against the United States as well as to ensure that such extremists remained focused on fighting the Great Satan abroad rather than the tyrant currently occupying the center of the Caliphate at home. As it happened, this convergence of interests suited the objectives of both al-Zawahiri and bin Laden perfectly. Tomorrow: Part II: Analyzing the al-Qaeda Alliance

« ok, I'm done now

The Great Game: Politics & Regional Security * Russian policymakers have recently started to float the idea of a liberal empire to reinvigorate Russia's foreign policy goals. Being advanced primarily by Russia's pro-business liberals (as defined in the Russian sense...), such an empire would be, depending on your point of view, modeled after, an homage to, or, competition for the liberal empire of the United States. US experts weigh in on one of Russia's "imperial moves," and this imperial behavior is also causing waves in Europe. * As far as old Turkestan is concerned, Uzbekistan is most definitely not part of Russia's empire while Kyrgyzstan has snuggled a little closer. * Russia's not alone in its imperial ambitions in the region. India too is seeking to make its presence known in Central Asia and has been extremely busy this month. Making its focus known, Indian officials have visited Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan in recent weeks. To reduce the overland travel time between India and Central Asia, India is cooperating on new road and rail routes from Termez, Uzbekistan to Chahbahar Port in Iran. This plan will cut down the distance between India and Central Asia by about 1,500 km and will entirely bypass Pakistan. * For more views on India in Central Asia, see Indian Express and China's People's Daily. * Meanwhile, India has pledged anti-terror cooperation in the region and opened its only foreign military base in Tajikistan. * Kyrgyzstan claims to have foiled a terrorist attack on the US airbase at the Manas Airport. However, there are serious doubts about whether or not Kyrgyzstan's claims about the attacks are true. Further, some speculate that Kyrgyzstan is trying to scare the US military out on Russia's behalf. * Despite initial hesitancy on the part of Turkmenistan, a landmark treaty to protect the Caspian Sea from any and all dumping of waste has been signed by all five littoral states. The Caspian agreement is a rare case of cooperation among Central Asian states. All too often, Central Asian leaders fail to cooperate because of their tendency to view disputes as zero-sum games. Special Focus: More on Georgia * As in neighboring Azerbaijan, Georgia's recent elections were marked by irregularities and protest. Georgia's opposition pledged to overthrow President Shevardnadze and masked gunmen opened fire at an opposition rally on the same day. The opposition camped out in front of parliament and Shevardnadze pledged to negotiate with the opposition. No deal of course. * To put pressure on the opposition, Shevardnadze has mobilized supporters (who seem thoroughly unenthusiastic) and has turned to Russia for its two cents and a warm hug. * In latest news, the opposition plans a nationwide protest and Shevardnadze warns of impending civil war. * Eurasianet feels that Shevardnadze will prevail, while Transitions Online asks if Shevardnadze will share Ceausescu's or Milosevic's fate. Special Focus: Afghanistan * Back in Afghanistan, Gurkhas are winning hearts and minds while the British led provincial reconstruction team is drawing criticism. * The Afghan government's prestige got a boost this month after shake-ups in northern provinces that appear to have a good chance of success--leading to a stronger central government at the expense of warlords. * Afghanistan's draft constitution has been released. If you are at all interested in regular updates on the developments surrounding the constitution, visit Afghan Voice. There is a lot that can be said about the constitution. Noah Feldman's op-ed on the constitution and Islamic democracy is fascinating. There is a great deal of debate on whether the draft's text with its ambiguity and heavily Islamic tones will translate into a healthy society in Afghanistan. * Asia Times Online reports that the Taliban is poised to make major gains. Following this probably unrealistic assessment, Afghanistan's government claimed that al Qaeda is trying to draw US forces away from Iraq by opening a new front in Afghanistan. * Reconstruction and restoration of ancient monuments is always a touchy issue, so the possibly rebuilding of Afghanistan's Bamiyan Buddhas is fraught with controversy. Computer models have been completed opening the door to reconstructing the Buddhas. The creators of the model favor reconstruction while UNESCO wants to leave the empty niches as a "memorial to destruction." Economics * The World Bank has decided to invest in the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline against the protests of NGOs. * The World Bank has rebuked Uzbekistan for its lack of economic reforms and cooperation, arguing that this behavior is holding back the entire region. * Uzbekistan's economic policies are also causing a number of problems at home. The dire economic situation is causing Uzbeks to seek work in Kazakhstan, where they face slave-like conditions. Further, the high demand for cotton outside of Uzbekistan is driving farmers to "steal" their own crops and smuggle it out of the country. The government, catching wind of this practice, has cracked down on smuggling. Partially in response to this crackdown, the US has criticized Uzbekistan on its human rights record. Human Rights * Of late, it has been all the rage to equate Uzbekistan's human rights record with that of Baathist Iraq as a way of criticizing Bush for hypocrisy. Having lived in Uzbekistan, I decided to throw in my two cents. * While the Bush administration has kept quiet on Uzbekistan's rights abuses, as recently as this week, it is not altogether silent. High-ranking State Department officials called for the release of Ruslan Sharipov and pledged to bring more pressure to bear on Uzbekistan. IWPR reports that Uzbek authorities denied requests for Sharipov's release but that international attention and pressure has led to improved conditions. * An overview of media censorship in Central Asia is fairly depressing. It's not all bad though. An independent printing house sponsored by Freedom House and the US Government recently opened for business. The new press will allow authors to print outside of the reach of Kyrgyz censors. * If youth in general are being lost in Central Asia, girls face additional obstacles including discrimination in education. With even fewer opportunities than their male classmates, the number of women entering into polygamous marriages in Uzbekistan in search of economic security is on the rise. * Azerbaijan's new leader, President Ilham Aliyev, is celebrating his assumption of power with a crackdown on the press. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan's political opposition is very disillusioned. Et Ceterastan * Asia Times Online has been running a series called "Silk Road Roving." Part 1 covers Eastern Turkestan (call it Xinjiang if you like) and the life of the Uighurs under Chinese rule. Part 2 and Part 3 cover Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan is covered in Part 4, and more is sure to come. All 4 articles present a good mix of history and description of the current situation in Central Asia. * Kazakhstan new dam plans look like the nail in the coffin of the Aral Sea. The next installment of The Argus' Central Asia briefing will appear December 17. Meanwhile, regular updates concerning Eurasian events can be found at The Argus.

« ok, I'm done now

Jones retreated to Guyana in 1978, taking about 1,000 followers with him. Later that year, Rep. Leo Ryan led a delegation of journalists and relatives of temple members to Jonestown. Some members chose to leave with him and the party was ambushed at the airstrip; Ryan and four others were killed. Back at the compound, Jones ordered his followers to die, starting with the infants. Most victims were poisoned, some forcibly. Some were shot by security guards. Jones was found with a bullet wound in the head. It is not known who fired the shot.

With one monstrous swoop, Jim Jones succeeded in giving fringe religious groups everywhere a bad name, and made "Don't drink the Kool-Aid" a saying synonymous with "Don't trust your leaders." My sympathies to the families and friends of each of the victims of the Jonestown massacre. Apologetics Index has a page on Cult and Ex-cult Counseling Resources, and the entire site contains a wealth of information on various cult groups. They even maintain a blog.

« ok, I'm done now

REPORTS FROM THE FIELD * The Coalition continues to train and deploy Iraqis as police and security forces. Police are being trained in American-style arrest techniques and the basics of urban warfare. This, of course, has been the intent of the U.S. all along, although Rumsfeld and the Defense Dept. pushed for more prior to the start of the war. Specifically, Rumsfeld and Chalabi wanted to have an Iraqi expat militia ready to join the fight against Hussein and the remnants of his regime. New idea? Nope. * The State Dept's dislike of Chalabi and the quick collapse of the main Iraqi forces this Spring overtook that strategy, and only a small number of militia actually arrived and assumed resposibilities late in the main fighting. The camps in Hungary where those militia did train are now being used to train Iraqi police. RECONSTRUCTION & THE ECONOMY Meanwhile, there are signs that the process of reconstructing Iraqi industries, local governance and civil society continues despite the attempts of the attackers. * This site is a good way to keep up to date with reconstruction activities. * The mayor of Karbala is in Bulgaria to discuss opportunities for business cooperation of Bulgarian firms with Karbala partners. Coalition partners like Bulgaria will indeed benefit for the risks they are taking. * Basra has identified over 120 non-oil projects requiring investments of $2bn and is actively seeking Arab investors in order to revitalize its economy. The push, spearheaded by Basra governor Wael Abdullatif, is targeting potential investors in the Arab states and Iran, in addition to foreign-based Iraqi businessmen. Governor Abdullatif has business delegations to Kuwait and Iran. and the governing council for Basra has set up an "operation room" to coordinate business development efforts. Thirty potential investors from Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and expatriate Iraqis have bid on projects so far. Kuwait's largest moble phone company has already been awarded a contract to provide service to southern Iraq and will invest more than $120 million over the next 2 years. Sounds like the Iraqis in Basra are off and running. * More discussion about re-opening the pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa, which has been shut down for 55 years. Exporting northern Iraqi oil through Haifa would provide Iraq with a good Mediterranean port, bypassing Syria and possibly rewarding Jordan for tacit support. It would also provide Israel with a reliable source of fuel. According to this article, before the war started Chalabi promised the Israelis he would revive the pipeline from Mosul to Haifa, but for now at least, Washington has deep-sixed the idea amid fears it would spark strong resistance on the part of Muslims in Iraq. Money quote: This is the latest effort to revive the route. The last one was initiated by current US Defense Secretary and then-adviser to President Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld, in the mid-1980s. Some people think ahead. * Speaking of reconstruction, this won't get the economy going all by itself, but it's good to see Iraqis showing initiative and finding short term solutions to bring plants back on line. IRAQI POLITICS * As attacks on Coalition forces escalate, France demands that the U.S. turn over governance to the Iraqis immediately, but who is really resposible for the slow progress to date? This article suggests the Iraqi governing council is mired in personal, ethnic and religious rivalries. * A date of June 2004 has been set for turnover, but the new accelerated plan for restoring self-rule in Iraq does not mean U.S. troops will withdraw anytime soon. * The US will help write an interim Iraqi constitution which will contain "a bill of rights, equality for all citizens, an independent judiciary and a federal government". Sounds good to me, if it actually happens - and is put into effect. The Washington Post reports on the promise and the risks of 'Iraqification'. * Compare & contrast: Afghanistan is on the verge of adopting its own new constitution, with the help of the UN. Dicey situation - the US isn't involved in that one and even the UN is worried about the Taliban hijacking their efforts. THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE * Jordan received its first oil shipment from Iraq since the war began. Iraq was Jordan's sole supplier of oil prior to the war, at a special price which allowed Hussein and his family to skim millions of dollars for themselves. The Saudis provided an interim supply since March. The Iraqi oil will be sold at market price. ETCETERA * Which "cards" have we captured so far? The CENTCOM list. And the visual version of "Ba'ath Poker." * The troops are still there. So is the Winds of Change.NET consolidated directory of ways you can support the troops. American, British and Australian. Anyone out there with more information, incl. the Poles and Czechs? [updated November 2, 2003] * Support the Toys for Iraq drive! * And on a lighter note, Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich is looking for a First Lady. Or maybe just a "next lady." Any takers?? Thanks for reading! If you found something here you want to blog about yourself (and we hope you do), all we ask is that you do as we do and offer a Hat Tip hyperlink to today's "Winds of War". If you think we missed something important, use the Comments section to let us know.

« ok, I'm done now

There were some important things we did not know about the future that night. We did not recognize that this was a watershed event... that the military services would begin a great period of renewal that continues to this day. We did not know that we were at the start of an unprecedented movement to jointness in every aspect of our military culture, structure and operations - a movement that must continue. We also did not realize that we were in one of the opening engagements of this country's long struggle against terrorism... a struggle that would reach our homeland and become known as the Global War on Terror. Today, our nation is at war, and we are a critical part of the joint team - an Army at war. This is not a new war. Our enemies have been waging it for some time, and it will continue for the foreseeable future. As the President has stated, "This is a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy. It is a war we must win, a war for our very way of life."

Go read the rest.

« ok, I'm done now

Middle Guy stepped up, as we called him from the road to get much-needed clothes and cleanup supplies to the parents waiting at the hospital as we drove up from OC. Littlest Guy is much, much better now, and planning on bragging to all his friends that he stayed up until 4:00 a.m. The laundry is almost all done, and none of us have gotten sick, so it looks like we're through this. I didn't get much done yesterday or last night, so I'm way behind on work that needs doing, which means I'll be ignoring blogging for the next day or so. I'll catch up midweek. So public apologies for bailing out to our dinner companions, and again, thanks to the good people at Torrance Memorial for their excellent care of him and all four of his parents.

« ok, I'm done now

The essence of war is a violent struggle between two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills, each trying to impose itself on the other. War is fundamentally an interactive social process. Clausewitz called it a Zweikampf (literally a "twostruggle") and suggested the image of a pair of wrestlers locked in a hold, each exerting force and counterforce to try to throw the other. War is thus a process of continuous mutual adaptation, of give and take, move and countermove. It is critical to keep in mind that the enemy is not an inanimate object to be acted upon but an independent and animate force with its own objectives and plans. While we try to impose our will on the enemy, he resists us and seeks to impose his own will on us. Appreciating this dynamic interplay between opposing human wills is essential to understanding the fundamental nature of war. USMC Warfighting Manual MCDP-1 (.pdf)

In any negotiation, there are two ideal positions: 1) "I don't care," in which you challenge the other side to get you to engage in a negotiation at all; and 2) "No matter what it takes," in which you make it clear that no matter what the other side does, you have the will and means to escalate further and prevail. Looking at the war with Islamism that's taking place primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's clear that option 1) isn't available to us (it really hasn't been since 9/11). Our objective needs to be to break the effective will to fight of the opposition. This isn't about the will of the hundred thousand or so fanatics who will fight the West to the death; it's about the more-rational millions who are on the verge of tipping over toward that position, and who are inclined to do so because they think they will win. We brought 9/11 on, in part, by showing irresolution in the face of earlier attacks. (We also brought it on with a hamhanded and shortsighted foreign policy as relates to the Middle East and Arab world, but that's a subject for another, longer blog post). Osama Bin Laden genuinely believed that the U.S. would withdraw - as we did from Lebanon and Somalia - if we were bloodied. Their perception is based on two simple facts; most of us don't like to kill other people, and most of us really, really don't like it when ours get killed. Our goal, I believe, is as much to correct those misapprehensions as to physically disrupt the infrastructure that supports the Islamist movement. This presents some significant dangers. As long as I've been quoting Schaar in support of my views, let me quote him challenging them (from his essay 'The American Amnesia'):

Action taken for psychological objectives (e.g. credibility) inherently contains an element of theatricality, and can easily slide into pure theater. Policymakers come to think of action - even military action - in theatrical terms and lose sight of the real costs. Policymakers' and spectators' sense of reality become attenuated. Even death becomes unreal. Image and substance become independent of each other. Public policy becomes public relations. A war fought for symbolic ends is very difficult to explain and justify to the citizenry. Officials easily employ concealment and evasion, and retreat into isolation. Government and the public get out of touch with each other. Furthermore, when the symbolic end sought is an image of national toughness or determination, then any domestic opposition or criticism threatens that image, thereby threatening - in the eyes of the government - the national defense. Under these conditions, opponents at home seem more dangerous than the enemy abroad. Feeling beleaguered on all fronts, seeing enemies everywhere, officials fear loss of authority and strive for more and more power, even at the expense of constitutional processes. The government becomes enclosed in a private reality, and wrapped in a mood of paranoia and impotence. That was exactly the mentality of the Nixon Administration. And that mentality drove it to the near destruction of the Indochinese peninsula and the American constitutional order.

Schaar sums up what it is that I fear about this war; that it will become a war of theater rather than substance, and that - because our leaders are too weak or afraid to demand our commitment in it - that we will create a 'shell' of a war, using theater and image to replace substance. He also sums up the core position of many of the opponents of the war, as well. The problem, of course, is that if you read the theorists (well summed up in the USMC manual), a substantial part of war is theater; it involves both the physical destruction of the enemy and their assets through violence, and the degradation of their ability to use them - through a number of means, including violence, misdirection, reduction in morale, etc. And I do believe there is a key difference between the war in Vietnam and this war: In Vietnam we were fighting our enemy (the Soviet/Chinese alliance) indirectly, through the Vietnamese. The war was as such purely theatrical, in that the resources at risk and expended far outweighed the possible gain (this isn't a complete explanation of my position, but it'll do as a placeholder). Suffice it to say we were fighting the shadow of our real enemy, not the enemy itself. In fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are directly confronting two of the many faces of the Islamist movement. Arab Nationalism - one of the roots of the 'Baath movement, and the reason why Iraq, Egypt, and Lybia briefly entertained the notion of uniting - was a secular attempt to restore Arab greatness and create a secular Caliphate. It is another face on the core desire that is expressed in terms of fundamentalist Islam by Qutb and Bin Laden. And, simply, I'd rather convince an enemy not to fight than actually kill them (because I do in large measure subscribe to the facts about our Western society set out above). Now in a real wrestling match, one isn't going to win - impose one's will on the opponent - simply by sitting on them. They will continue to fight, or simply wait until you get bored and get up, and then continue to fight. Particularly if you're having a loud dialog about whether it's worth it or not to fight with them in the first place; they will simply be more confident that in the face of resistance, or simple patience, you will give up and get up. Sadly, that path leads only to more fighting - because they aren't defeated, they are simply at what they perceive to be a momentary disadvantage. So you will get tired of the game, get up, and then they will attack again. You will sit on them again, and the whole process restarts. Much like our response to the escalation of Islamist rhetoric and action through the 80's and 90's. The way to win is simply to sit on them and make it clear that you will sit on them until they have really and truly given up - until their will is broken to yours. John McCain said it simply and well in his Nov. 5 speech to the CFR:

"Let there be no doubt: victory can be our only exit strategy. We are winning in Iraq - but we sow the seeds of our own failure by contemplating a premature military drawdown and tempering our ambitions to democratize Iraqi politics. Winning will take time. But as in other great strategic and moral struggles of our age, Americans have demonstrated the will to prevail when they understand what is at stake, for them and for the world." [emphasis added]

Let me repeat it: "victory can be our only exit strategy." By taking this position, by making it clear that we will stay as long at it takes, spend the treasure and blood required to break the wave of Islamist rage, in my view we will reduce the amount of actual violence we will ultimately have to impose. We have broken the bad governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. We are there, on the ground, and there we will stay until we have accomplished some basic goals. What are these goals? Here is a rough first try: First, until the overall level of violent Islamist rhetoric and action will have abated. Second, until Iraq will have attained some level of stable civil society (note that I think Bush misspoke when he set democracy as the threshold; I've discussed it before, and I believe that simply establishing civil society - the primacy of law - is the necessary precondition to democracy, and that alone will be difficult). Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, I doubt that we'll break the isolated, violent tribal culture. I do think that we can restrain it, and prevent it from being used as a base and recruiting ground for Islamists, and provide some skeletal level of civil society while reining in the tribal warlords who truly rule the country. These goals will require a certain level of commitment - of resources, cost, and most of all of lives disrupted, damaged, or lost. I will leave it to people who more than I do about the levels of forces required, but I will say that I seriously doubt that we have them today. Making sure we have those forces - through alliances or through a commitment to expand our own military - is the necessary first step down this road. When Bush does that, I'll have more confidence that he means what he says.

« ok, I'm done now

REPORTS FROM THE FIELD * JK: Gweilo Diaries "Fear and Loathing in Tikrit" links to an article on the reports from the CIA Station Chief in Baghdad, who is apparently becoming concerned. Conrad also has some advice for the U.S.A... appropriately enough, it's from a famous Italian. * U.S. forces in Iraq have launched Operation Iron Hammer in an effort to bring the battle back to the Baathists. * The US has successfully defended a Jordanian government hospital in Fallujah, killing 6 attackers and wounding 4. * MEMRI's news ticker (via Rantburg) is reporting that the al-Jazeera news office in the Mahmoudiyyah Babil province of Iraq has been used by two Syrian nationals to coordinate anti-coalition attacks in Iraq. * The US is holding at least 20 confirmed al-Qaeda members in Iraq according to Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez. * A bizarre confrontation with US troops has led to the death of Sadr City governing council chairman Mohannad (Mohammed?) Ghazi al-Kaabi in Baghdad. * JK: MSNBC's Bob Arnot has his own report from the front, including a some good interviews et. al. with elements of the 101st Airborne. (Hat Tip: Bill Hobbs) RECONSTRUCTION AND THE ECONOMY * US general John Abizaid has delivered a firm warning to Iraqi community leaders from the Sunni Triangle that he will have to "get tough" if they are unable to rein in the insurgent forces. Rich Lowry seems to agree over at NRO. * The Iraqi Governing Council has seized all assets belonging to Saddam Hussein, his family, and other members of the former Iraqi regime. * The Washington Post has a nice article up on how a simple thing like building a cement factory deals with the complexities involved in the Iraqi reconstruction. * The Kurdish terrorist group PKK, also known as KADEK, is pledging to go out of the terrorism business and become a political party. I suspect that their clash with US forces may have hastened the group's politburo to make this decision, whether it's genuine or not. THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE * Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has vowed to stay the course in Iraq, saying that "No intimidation will budge us from our willingness to help that country rise up again and rebuild itself with self-government, security, and freedom." * King Abdullah of Jordan says that he fears for Iraqi stability under the current system of government, a not-so-subtle way of implying that perhaps Iraq would be better off with his relative Sharif Ali bin Hussein on the thrown in some kind of a constitutional monarchy. * Bill Hobbs has an excellent post about the real problem with the media's one-sided portrayal of events in Iraq, and he uses an inrteresting example: imagine that reporting about The Battle of Midway had focused mostly on the loss of the carrier Yorktown... * Negativism in the press didn't start with Iraq, though. As the CounterRevolutionary demonstrates, this happened after World War 2 during the occupation of Germany as well. ETCETERA * Which "cards" have we captured so far? The CENTCOM list. And the visual version of "Ba'ath Poker." * The troops are still there. So is the Winds of Change.NET consolidated directory of ways you can support the troops. American, British and Australian. Anyone out there with more information, incl. the Poles and Czechs? [updated November 2, 2003] * Support the Toys for Iraq drive!

« ok, I'm done now

IRAN REPORTS * Former Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati is now announcing that the very existence of Israel is contrary to Iran's national interest as well as acknowledging that ties between Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. And people wonder why the US is so worried about the prospect a nuclear Iran ... * The Belfast Telegraph is reporting that the IAEA has caught Iran secretly developing the necessary technology with which to construct nuclear weapons. There is still no evidence that Iran has to date produced nuclear weapons - but as a diplomatic source quoted by the Telegraph notes: "The US, UK, India, and Pakistan all started out with laboratory-scale activities. That was their weapons program until they set one off in the desert or on an island." * In addition, the IAEA report says that Iran produced plutonium and received assistance from four other countries in regard to obtaining sensitive technology. If I had to make a guess, I would say that the nations in question were (not necessarily in this order) North Korea, Pakistan, India, and either Russia or China. * In any event, the experts appear to have weighed in and the answer appears clear - Iran wants the bomb. * Former Iranian diplomat Aboldghasem Meshabi has testified that Iran was solely responsible for the 1994 Hezbollah bombing in Buenos Aires was headed, organized, and executed by Iran. THE WIDER WAR * Okay, I totally called this one in my analysis of the Riyadh bombings. Jihad Unspun, fullfilling its perennial role of carrying water for al-Qaeda, is claiming that the Riyadh bombings were really an attack on the royals and that even if they weren't the whole thing was a Jewish plot to begin with. * As noted at the beginning of the Winds of War, Afghanistan is once again heating up. US forces have launched Operation Mountain Resolve as part of what seems to be a concerted effort to delive a death blow to the Hizb-e-Islami militia forces loyal to former Afghan prime minister and Taliban ally Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. * The Taliban appear to have stepped up their public relations offensive by releasing a videotape to al-Arabiyyah showing them in combat against US forces in Afghanistan. This comes as Taliban spokesman Hamid Agha is claims responsibility for an attack near Spin Boldak that killed a Romanian soldier. * Afghan president Hamid Karzai is warning of more Taliban attacks as Afghanistan marks the second anniversary of the fall of Kandahar and the collapse of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. * Saudi Arabia has arrested several suspects in connection with the Riyadh bombings - or have they? I swear that this would all be horribly bad comedy (did Prince Nayef hire the Keystone cops?) were it not all so tragic ... * The Associated Press is reporting that top Jemaah Islamiyyah leaders Azahari bin Husin and Noordin Mohammed Top are both on the run after a thwarted bombing and are believed to be somewhere between West Java and Sumatra. * Al-Qaeda plans to poison food and water supplies with ricin and botulinism according to the Toronto Star. As usual, blogosphere is light years ahead of the mainstream media, with the Belmont Club reporting al-Qaeda having tested this very same method of attack out on the acting president of Chechnya back in September. * Australian terror suspect Willie Brigitte was reportedly thinking big and was potentially gunning for the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. Sound far-fetched? Some people don't think so. * All Africa Global Media has a nice retrospect look at the November 2002 bombing in Mombasa, Kenya and its interesting similarities to the 1998 Embassy bombings. * Pakistan has arrested 150 suspected Taliban or Hizb-e-Islami members following a series of incidents in the Baluchistan provincial capital of Quetta. * Abu Sayyaf leader Khadaffi Janjalani has reportedly escaped a military dragnet and fled to Mindanao to regroup with his followers. * We try to close on a lighter note if possible. Spam - it's not just annoying, it's bad for the economy too.

« ok, I'm done now

A Global War For the Future Al-Qaeda is a global phenomenon, and its bases range from Venezuela to Liberia and Burkina Faso to Mindanao to Sulawesi to even the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. I am not attempting to downplay the role that Saudi funding plays in maintaining the network and propagating the Wahhabism that its members adhere to, but as a result of the US waiting until after the events of September 11 to engage the network, in the short-term I have little doubt that the organization has enough cash available to fund whatever it needs to do. One of the principle problems with terrorism is that it was also a pretty cheap thing to do to begin with. Obviously, the United States in of itself is incapable of fighting al-Qaeda on such a wide variety of fronts so we try to exercise other options whenever possible. If claims of CIA involvement in the Venezuelan coup are credible, this is one means of dealing with the problem. Similarly, US diplomatic and token military presence has resulted in the fall of Charles Taylor in Liberia. However, in the case of determined state sponsors, these methods are insufficient and military force must be brought to bear in order to ensure that al-Qaeda is not allowed a safe haven to regroup, reform, and come back at us again for another attack on par with or even superior to 9/11. I don't consider this to be a right-wing position or part of the "never-ending war" that Not In Our Name likes to complain so much about. One of the real tragedies of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks is that most Americans and certainly most Europeans possess only anecdotal evidence as to what al-Qaeda intends. According to the group's propaganda and ideological tracts available online, they seek to force a complete Western withdrawl from the Middle East in order to overthrow the region's governments and create a theocratic super-state spanning the entire region. Jemaah Islamiyyah holds much the same goals for Southeast Asia. They seek to destroy every facet of our culture and society and build in its place a totalitarian society rather akin to what the Taliban ruled over in Afghanistan and what the Muttahida Majilis-e-Amal is now striving to create in northern Pakistan. If the Cold War was the ideological struggle to determine the future fate of Western civilization then the war on terror is the battle for survival of Western civilization. That is al-Qaeda's stated goal and I think we would do quite well to take them at their word on this one. Perhaps I'm alone in all of this, but I don't view a desire to do what is necessary for survival as our society now stands as being a right-wing position. As I noted at the beginning, however, al-Qaeda is a world-wide phenomenon and we can only tackle one head of the hydra at a time. In Afghanistan, we destroyed the organization's base of operations, captured or killed many of its key commanders, and threw the global network into disarray. But the battle neither began nor ended in Afghanistan and the question soon arose over who to deal with next. There is certainly no shortage of possible candidates here, depending on which pivot you view as the key to the global network. Fortunately, I think that the administration has recognized that there is no key pivot - bin Laden was intelligent enough to set up his organization in such a way that there was no Achilles Heel. The decentralization of the network is such that it appears to formalized into key nodes in different countries, some state sponsors, some not, any one of whom is more than capable of overseeing operations in their specific geographic region. One such man was Hanbali, and what he was able accomplish is quite frankly chilling. The administration certainly desires to deal with as many of these nodes as possible, but is constrained from doing so for reasons of realistic limitations of US power and delicate geopolitical alliances. Where Does Iraq Fit In? Over the last several months since I joined the Winds of Change team, I have documented the substantial dangers posed by Iraq and its alliance with al-Qaeda: * In Abu Musab Zarqawi I detailed why administration's portrait of him as a key al-Qaeda leader was the accurate one, thereby answering why it is so concerning for him to have been in Baghdad. * In the Imminent Threat I documented why the Iraqi relationship with al-Qaeda posed an unacceptable threat to international security entirely apart from any WMDs. * In Distorted Intelligence ... From Europe I noted how claims that the administration "hyped" intelligence on Zarqawi and the threat posed by him can be seen as being patently inaccurate, as their originators in Germany now fully acknowledge. I agree that diplomacy is the preferable course action for settling these kinds of issues. If you can't kill all of your enemies, you should at least try to have as many friends as possible. However, in February 2003, Collin Powell went before the UN and basically laid out the entire al-Qaeda connection (and according to Newsweek, while he disagreed with much of the information that he was initially intended to present he agreed wholeheartedly with the final product) for the world to see. If Saddam had any sense in hell he would have immediately conducted an internal probe, tossed the 1993 WTC suspect to the dogs, and had the streets run red with the blood of every al-Qaeda operative in Baghdad, including folks like Shakir. Whether he was involved with al-Qaeda prior to that or not, he should have almost certainly conducted an internal probe to see whether or not these people who were supposedly vehemently opposed to his regime were operating freely in Iraq. Instead, we get warnings from the CIA published in the NY Times, that al-Qaeda has cells set up in Baghdad, Mosul, and Irbil - the first two cities under tight Baathist control. Shakir and Abdul Rahman Yassin continued to live and operate freely, as did the Zarqawi deputy who was arrested by the US in Baghdad in mid-April 2003. This leads to one of my core judgements, namely that the only thing that could convince Saddam Hussein not to associate with and assist al-Qaeda was the downfall of his regime and removal of his power base. CIA and Special Forces attacks, airstrikes, and the like are all ultimately irrelevant so long as Iraq was able to continue providing support to people who would do the United States irreversible harm if they had only the means to do so. They had tried to kill hundreds (thousands?) of people in Europe between November and January. Those plots were thwarted, thank God, just like Oplan Bojinka was during the mid-1990s. But just because Bojinka was thwarted didn't make it go away - witness 9/11. We cannot allow ourselves to make that kind of a mistake again ever and I think that there's an imminent threat if you should desire one, entirely apart for the question of Iraqi WMDs. It's a Long War For me as an individual, I would not consider the war in Iraq a moral one under Just War doctrine if not for the issue of al-Qaeda. If anyone is truly interested at a more in-depth look at my opinion on this, you can find my theological moral opinions on the subject here and here - but be forewarned, it's a lot of Catholic theology. One of the things that I have long believed is that most Westerners, even most American right-wingers whom I generally think have a better hold on reality than most here, possess only vague and largely anecdotal evidence for what al-Qaeda and its ilk intend for us apart from 9/11. You go to Dagestan or Algeria or the Maluccas or Mindanao or Somalia and you'll see very clearly what this war is really all about. This is why bitching complaining about progress in the war on terrorism is such an asinine thing. Quite simply, this going to be a long war. There is no magic solution or single battle that will bring al-Qaeda down. Saudi Arabia is a major pillar for holding up the organization, but so is Iran, so is Sudan (which is reportedly slated to be taken off the terrorist list out of US fears that Khartoum and its oil will fall into the Chinese sphere of influence), ect. All of these states and the governments behind them have to be dealt with in some fashion: political, military, or whatever. Nor are all these countries necessarily Muslim - Charles Taylor was happy to carry bin Laden's water and he's a nominal Christian despot. Mr. Foresta says that if he were in Bush's position and received legitimate intelligence that Iraq was in cahoots with al-Qaeda that he would make diplomatic efforts to settle the situation before using military force and even then carry out percision strikes against the targets in question. Which was pretty much Clinton's solution in 1998 following the embassy bombings. The Current Situation, And What's Next Our recent removal of the Iraqi regime, combined with the loss of key commanders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Tawfiq Attash Khallad, put the organization very much on the defensive. Because the intended counter-attack to the Iraq war (the chemical plots in Europe and bombings in SE Asia) died on the table, the organization was forced to devise an improvised counter-offensive in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Chechnya. These attacks have very much compromised the infrastructure in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. The Salafi Jihad has been thoroughly dismantled and over 600 operatives are now in Moroccan custody - they'll never be able to harm anyone ever again. The consequences of the Riyadh bombings have been even more costly - over 200 operatives lost and key commanders like Ali Abd al-Ghamdi and al-Ayyeri captured or dead. More to the point, the issue of the Iran-based leadership has now been brought to the forefront and the Iranians are working themselves overtime in their doubletalk until they have their own version of the bomb. The most recent loss of Hanbali has further weakened their operations in SE Asia, as has the capture of the students intended to serve as Jemaah Islamiyyah's next generation of leaders. What is my point to all of this? The events of the Iraq war have sent the global terror network into disarray. The Saudi threat is still there, as is the Iranian one - but my point is that al-Qaeda is losing far more of its foot soldiers fighting in Iraq (and yes, the war there did assist the group in its recruiting efforts, but there are still only so many would-be jihadis and only so many places to train them). My basic opinion is that the best way to neutralize the al-Qaeda network is to start focusing more on where the organization has been endeavoring to regroup. Knocking out the training camps is every bit as important as knocking out the leadership and those camps are still open in Somalia, Sudan, Georgia, and the southern Philippines. That fact needs to change. So does the Saudi funding and the Pakistani tolerance of all the folks who don't give a rat's ass about Kashmir but think that India would make a nice piece of the global caliphate, etc., etc. The problem is that you can't accomplish all of this at once. If we could, US forces would have attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, the Ferghana Valley, Chechnya, Mindanao, Georgia, Liberia, Burkina Faso, Margarita Island, Ein al-Hilweh, Sulawesi, the Triple Border, the Allied Democratic Forces enclave in the Congo, Saudi Arabia, and at least three provinces in northern Yemen simultaneously. All at the same time that we started bombing the Taliban. You want to deliver a coup de grace to the network, that would pretty much do it. The problem is that we can't for a number of reasons, so you take things step by step to accomplish the same eventual goal. This is what I see Bush as having done since 9/11. You remove those threats and you make sure that civilization wins this fight, so that all of us right-wingers and left-wingers to squabble over the planet. I also don't think of this as a partisan issue - Bayh, Biden, and Lieberman at least seem to understand what we're up against. Al-Qaeda can still fight strike back, as the recent bombings in Iraq, Chechnya, and Bombay all demonstrate. I'm not at all surprised by this, that's simply the nature of the beast. It was specifically set up in a decentralized manner in order to negate the disadvantages associated with more pyramidal organizations. However, we've done more cumulative damage to the terror network in about two years than was done in the last twelve, and that is certainly something to be extremely proud about. My Own Views on the War I don't really care for an empire because I very much doubt that our political culture or general populace can sustain it (see Niall Ferguson's "The Empire Slinks Back" editorial for more on why this is) in the immediate to near future. I care even less about the benefit of corporate America except in the general sense that I desire for the economy to stay within a certain level so that I can enjoy the lifestyle to which I am currently attuned. But above all else, I want to keep myself and my country safe. There is right now an exceptionally beautiful woman attending Vanderbilt University's music school in Tennessee whom I love. I don't want either myself or her to have to live in world where a non-state entity has access to the most hideous weapons ever conceived by humanity and to put it shortly - I don't want an American version of Halabja in Nashville because some jihadi with a crop duster decided to make Senate Majority Leader Frist pay for supporting US action in the war on terror. And at the end of the day, that's why I support the US war against Iraq even prior to any action against Saudi Arabia.

« ok, I'm done now

To R.C. Dean: did you not see my other post on this "300,000" number? Saddam killed these people in an uprising that was egged on by our own President. So it seems a little strange to me to use that as evidence of Saddam's cruelty. And are Iraqis more free today than they were under Saddam? I don't know, let's see. Saddam let them have weapons, Bremer won't. Saddam didn't send soldiers for sweeps through people's houses to see if they had guns. In fact, if you didn't challenge Saddam politically he pretty much left you alone. Citizens of other countries have worse deals. Oh, and you forgot to mention all the U.S. soldiers who died in this war, since we're playing the "whose policy saves more lives" game.

Now I certainly don't hold the Democratic nominees or progressives in general responsible for this fella. But since he and his buds are the ones Mr. and Mrs. America will see in the letters to the editor section, they tend to be the ones who public opinion coalesces around. And public opinion is not going to be kind. As a counterpoint to both Mike and Tom T., I'll offer a link to an article from back in the days when salon was inconoclastic and interesting. The money quote?

I wish I still believed, as I used to, that the United Nations was always the world's best chance to avert bloodshed. I wish I could join, as I once would have, the placard-waving peace protesters outside the U.S. Consulate here in Sydney. I wish I'd never seen the piece of ear nailed to the wall.

[corected doofus mistake in poster's name.] JK UPDATE: Fellow biker Mike Hendrix throws in an even more egregious quote from Democratic Underground (shooting fish in a barrel, that is), then adds a very interesting example of Republican Presidential nominee Dewey remaining close-mouthed about a major intelligence failure while running against FDR.

« ok, I'm done now

Over at Crooked Timber, Daniel Davies has a post up about Remembrance Day:

On the 85th Armistice day, I remember with honour the memory of: * Military casualties of the First World War * Military casualties of the Second World War * Casualties of conscripted labour in the Second World War (such as the “Bevin Boys” conscripted to work in coal mines in the UK, who had a casualty rate higher than most active service units) * Casualties of the Second World War among the fire service, ARP, ambulance service and similar, many of whom were conscientious objectors to the war itself * Military casualties of the Falklands War In their own ways, all of these people gave their lives in protecting the lives and liberty of Britons, for which we owe them the most profound thanks. I also remember with the deepest sympathy and pity the men and women of our armed forces who gave their lives in the other military operations which the United Kingdom has carried out in the last century. They died for the most part in the service of dishonourable missions which were forced on them by governments which we elected, so we bear them an equally heavy debt, though much less glorious and more shameful. This is the nearest I can come to a pacifist’s response to this day; I long since gave up wearing a white poppy in remembrance of the conscientious objectors in my own family, simply because it caused so much offence. I wholeheartedly apologise for any offence caused by this statement, without withdrawing any of it.

And then a comment on Rob Lyman's great post here on "Tribal Patriotism", poster 'Anonymous Coward 8' wrote this:

... This prompts a question: If I vote against someone who wins, am I blameless? I voted against Clinton and I voted against Bush, and I think the war in Iraq weakens us with respect to terrorists (more cause for terrorists to attack the US, while wasting our strength disarming the disarmed). This administration seems uninterested in my opinion, or in the opinions of anyone outside of a very small circle, excluding the CIA, state department, hawkish bloggers, and conservative members of the military, legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. If they want me to accept blame or responsibility for their actions, they'll have to sell it a lot harder than as 'patriotism'. Attacking Iraq seems like an act for the sake of action, or a diversion from the retribution against Al Qaida. It isn't enough to be gifting freedom to the unfree while bartering away our bill of rights in the name of homeland security. If you want me to share blame, you'll have to share the planning and answer criticism. If not, it is your responsibility.

I think these two quotes perfectly embody one of the defects I see in liberalism today; the notion that one can, personally, have clean hands despite the acts of one's people. You get to that position, I think, because you have a fundamentally cosmopolitan viewpoint - you are an individual whose connections are equally to all other individuals, and the connection you have to other Americans (or Britons) is really no stronger or less strong. The connection to the nation is therefore arbitrary and most of all, chosen, rather than accepted. Schaar explicitly rejected this notion when he talked about patriotism:

"To be a patriot is to have a patrimony; or, perhaps more accurately, the patriot is one who is grateful for a legacy and recognizes that the legacy makes him a debtor. There is a whole way of being in the world, captured best by the word reverence, which defines life by its debts; one is what one owes, what one acknowledges as a rightful debt or obligation. The patriot moves within that mentality."

And I do too. I wrote a long time ago that

Part of political adulthood is the maturity to realize that we are none of us innocents. The clothes we wear, money we have, jobs we go to are a result of a long, bloody and messy history. I see my job as a liberal as making the future less bloody than the past. But I accept the blood on my hands. I can't enjoy the freedom and wealth of this society and somehow claim to be innocent. I don't get to lecture people from a position of moral purity. No one spending U.S. dollars, or speaking with the freedom protected by U.S. laws gets to.

Both Davies and AC8 seem to think that they can. They can't. You don't get to enjoy the material and political benefits without bearing the costs, and so somehow claim that one can be born into privilege and enjoy it without taking on its obligations is offensive. And they shouldn't if they want progressivism to succeed. It is exactly that position of obnoxious (and demonstrably false) moral superiority that violates Schaar's (and my) prescription for an effective progressive movement. Remember?

"Finally, if political education is to effective it must grow from a spirit of humility on the part of the teachers, and they must overcome the tendencies toward self-righteousness and self-pity which set the tone of youth and student politics in the 1960's. The teachers must acknowledge common origins and common burdens with the taught, stressing connection and membership, rather than distance and superiority. Only from these roots can trust and hopeful common action grow."

Listen to those words, folks, because we on the left haven't shown those things, and we're getting our heads handed to us as a consequence.

« ok, I'm done now

Consider: Americans enjoy a democratic government which is, to a greater or lesser degree, responsive to our will. We are the authors of our government's actions. If I vote for someone whose platform is opening up the prisons, I am partly to blame for the victimization of innocents which results when all those murderers and rapists get turned loose. If I vote for a politician whose platform is unilateral disarmament, I am partly to blame for whatever military catastrophe results. If Americans are killed by terrorists that my government failed to hunt down and kill, I am partly to blame. Now, the first duty of the government is what? Why are governments created? Dr. Dean? No, I'm sorry, it doesn't have anything to do with dairy subsidies or prescription drugs. Governments are instituted among men to protect the citizens. If a government fails to protect the citizens, then the social contract is broken. The government may, quite legitimately, be voted out of power or, in the extreme, be overthrown by force. That means that the first duty of every citizen, who is, as I have said, the author of the government's actions, is the protection of fellow citizens. Now, South Koreans and Brazilians have no power over the U.S. governments (there are thousands of separate governments in the U.S., remember); they don't vote in our elections, and they can't run for office. They have no power, and thus no responsibility to the citizens of the U.S. We, in turn, have no power over the choices of their governments, and thus no inherent responsibility to worry about their safety. They should avoid recklessly endangering us, and we them, but that's the limit of our mutual obligation unless we voluntarily expand it by treaty and friendship. Therefore, to 'value all lives equally,' i.e. for an American to treat American deaths as no different from Taiwanese deaths, is not to be admirably cosmopolitan. It is a dereliction of the first duty of the citizen in a democracy, namely, the duty to protect fellow citizens from harm. Furthermore, subordinating this first duty of the government to the will of foreign governments - to use a domestic analogy, allowing the neighbors to vote (with veto power!) on the question of whether you should feed your children - is treason. I am not suggesting that death and dismemberment of non-Americans is insignificant and to be ignored. If Toronto or Tokyo were hit by a nuclear bomb, I'd be disappointed if some U.S. submarine commanders didn't get the most frightening orders of their lives. There is noting to stop the United States from voluntarily concluding alliances, or for that matter simply unilaterally intervening to help someone we like or in pursuit of an ideal such as freedom. But such alliances and intervention must be grounded in enlightened self-interest. We must get something from the bargain, and the action must not gratuitously endanger Americans. To go further with the child analogy, it's fine to share food with your hungry neighbours, but if you wind up starving your own children in the process you're a criminally bad parent. Each nation-state, or at least each democracy, is a tribe: we must hang together, or we will surely hang separately. And the democracies themselves form a sort of meta-tribe, which must hang together in the face of barbarism. It's unfortunate that so far we have failed to do so in a number of ways. I should also be clear that I'm not saying that it is unpatriotic, immoral, or treasonous to have opposed overthrowing Saddam's regime. Rather, it is unpatriotic, immoral, and treasonous to subordinate American national security to U.N. demands. Since France, Russia, and China have no obligation to protect Americans - and in fact have a perhaps opposing obligation to protect French, Russian, and Chinese - they don't get a veto over our government's actions. To reiterate: Opposing war because you think it will increase our vulnerability to terrorism = good. Opposing war because Belgium will be mad at us = bad. Now, I can almost hear the sophisticates of the world smugly pointing out that excessive attachment to one's tribe is the flaw of the Islamofacists: they think that people who disagree with their 9th century worldview, and Americans in particular, are subhuman and deserving of death. Am I not suggesting the same thing? Of course not. I say that the citizens of each country have an obligation to protect each other which supersedes any obligations they may owe to those outside of their country. That's a long way from saying that non-Americans are subhuman infidels, is it not? More important still are the standards to which I hold Americans abroad. Remember Daniel Pearl? Suppose we found a video of American soldiers beheading an Iraqi. Would we turn it into an Army recruiting video? Or would we drag them before courts-martial, on capital charges (and thus force the French to consider them for honorary citizenship)? There is no doubt as to the answer, and that answer easily separates us from the vicious murderers who are our enemies. So I agree with A.L. There is much in the American tradition of which we should be proud (and, I should add, there is much in the traditions of many other nations, of which those nations should be proud). But even if you can't get past the stain of slavery, or of Jim Crow, or of the abominable treatment of the indigenous peoples of the Americans, you still owe a duty of patriotism to your fellow citizens. You have an obligation to try to protect them. If you fail in that obligation, you deprive our democracy, and indeed, the very idea of democracy, of legitimacy. Nobody wants that. Do they? --- UPDATES --- * Intelligent debate and discussions in the Comments section. As usual. * Judith Weiss has an outstanding complement to this essay, and shows that the issues Rob talks about are very much alive in other contexts as well: bq. "I understand the impulse to universalism and the discomfort with particularism (given some of its uglier manifestations). But universalism can produce the same kind of ugliness when it tries to destroy the particularism of family and religion in favor of an ideal - Stalinism and Pol Pot-ism come to mind here, as well as Wahabism - just ask the Bosnian Muslims. And particularism does not inexorably lead to aggression against those who are different." * Armed Liberal's "Selective Service" shows that he was paying close attention to the comments. One of them, he says, exemplifies the attitude among some liberals today who: "...believe they can have the benefits of modern liberal society without getting their hands dirty. They value moral purity and self-satisfaction above everything else...." Ouch.

« ok, I'm done now

Second, we're too dependent on ME oil. We're going to do something about it, both by pushing conservation, expanding alternative energy, and expanding exploration. We're going to build the damn windmills off of Cape Cod; Third, we're going to stop Israel from building new settlements and push them to dismantle existing illegal ones; Fourth, we're going to work to expand the ground-fighting capabilities of our military by adding at least one division to the Army, and looking carefully at the allocation of all our assets to make sure that we have the resources to deal with the kind of wars that we are going to realistically face; Fifth, we're going to sit with the Arab countries we are supporting and make it clear that they cannot buy internal stability by fomenting hate against Jews and the West and still expect our financial and military support. We will also talk about what kinds of support would be forthcoming if they did stop; Sixth, we're going to develop security mechanisms based on the theory that fine-grained systems that bring information and communications to the existing public safety community, as well as the public at large are better than huge, centralized bureaucratic solutions;

He suggested - and I completely agree - that we add "internationalism" to the list. So I'll add a seventh position as soon as I can come up with one. I've been thinking about this issue for about a month and I just keep getting a headache; I'm trying to contain two beliefs that appear contradictory. First, that we really do need help on a number of levels - intelligence and law enforcement data needs to be pooled; we need explicit cooperation in monitoring the international traffic in weapons and cash; and, bluntly, we don't have and won't soon have the manpower to deal with all the issues that we're facing. Second, our traditional allies don't necessarily have parallel interests with us in this (or, more accurately, they don't perceive that they have parallel interests). This means it won't be easy to both do the things which we believe we need to do and to get help from other countries in doing it. So then here's the question - how do we re-align our interests? In part, I think we don't, and that some of our alliances forged in the Cold War are dead letters today, and that we simply need to politely acknowledge that and then make new alliances to replace them. And in part, I think that we have to work very damn hard to get what support we can in this arena. I do think that what I hear from the mainstream Democratic candidates on this is largely piffle and wishful thinking (and yes, I know I need to explain this). The ShrinkLits version is this: To hand Iraqi reconstruction and the conduct of the war over to NATO, or god-forbid, the U.N. is going to be a disaster. The leading NATO countries didn't want to go, and they certainly won't want to stay long enough to effect the kind of change we're discussing. The U.N. ... well, just forget the U.N. for now. I'm working on a post about it in my odd moments. So on one hand, we need help, and on the other, we're unlikely to get it. Like I said, I keep getting a headache. But now that I'm publicly committed to taking some kind of position, I'll just get a big bottle of Excedrin and some tea, sit down, and think it through. And meanwhile, I'll get something up tomorrow on Point One above.

« ok, I'm done now

Recent Developments

• The KEDO reactor deal has been suspended, but Kevin at IA tells us that it's more than just suspended - it's dead. The imminent death of the light-water reactor deal appears to have ticked off BOTH Koreas - the North is threatening to seize equipment, while Kirk over at It Makes A Difference to the Sheep discusses South Korean attitudes towards the collapse of KEDO.
• Hwang Jang-yop, formerly North Korea's top ideologue and the highest ranking defector from the Stalinist state, finally made it to Washington.

North Korea: Recommendations & Debates

• Over at the Asia Times, David Scofield gives us some advice on dealing with a despot.
• Steven Den Beste tells us why a preemptive saturation nuclear strike (I hope no one is actually considering this) is positively out of the question. Brian of Cathartidae adds his thoughts.
• New Korea Blogger Jeff castigates former President Bill Clinton for his recent statements on North Korea, and explains why the US should not be providing comfort to the enemy.
• The Flying Yangban tells us why when the Revolution comes, Kim Jong-il's life won't be worth a puddle of sidewalk pizza.
• The Infidel cautions us against putting too much emphasis on the role of Kim Jong-il, and suggests that factional struggle within the DPRK might make a deal possible. The Marmot begs to differ. The Infidel has more on possible trouble in Pyongyang (and how it may relate to North Korea's softening diplomatic posture) here.
• Check out Barry Brigg's post on "unofficial spokesman for North Korea" Kim Myong-chol.
• South Korean diplomacy comes in for some serious blogger criticism, with Minister of Unification Jeong Se-hyeon receiving a fair amount of abuse. Melanie Kirkpatrick discusses South Korean attitudes toward human rights abuses in the North (and takes a shot at Jeong) over at the Opinion Journal. The Marmot rips the hapless Unification Minister for an interview he gave to the Korean Times, and the Flying Yangban explains why, despite his official title, Jeong (and the last two South Korean administrations) are anti-unification. The Infidel has an interesting (and/or possible infuriating) piece on South Korean businesses opening up shop in North Korea.

US-ROK Issues

• I know you've heard this before, but it looks like USFK is in for some major reorganization. Say goodbye, trip-wire, and say hello to a more mobile "expeditionary" force for wider regional use.
• Over at the Asia Times, William M Drennan and James J Przystup discuss the future of the US-ROK alliance and ways to bring about an equal partnership.

South Korean Troops to Iraq

• Well, a decision on Iraq has been made - somewhat. The problem is, the government has yet to decide neither the size nor the composition of the detatchment it will send to Iraq, and despite persistent talk of Mosul, the region to which they will be dispatched has yet to be decided, either. Recent talks in Washington went nowhere. Still, expect what is being called here a "Polish-style division."
• Debate over the Iraq dispatch is intense. Just to give you an idea of the dialogue, the Marmot partially translated both this interview with Rep. Park Won-hong in which he supports sending peacekeepers to Iraq and this editorial in the left-of-center Hankyoreh Shinmun condemning the decision to send troops. Visit the Oranckay and Seeing Eye Blog for more commentary on the debate within South Korea.
• Anticipatory Retaliation tells us why linking Iraq to North Korea is a bad idea for South Korea.

South Korea

• Take a look at these pics. The West Bank? No, downtown Seoul this past Sunday. Even if the Lord may rest on Sunday, radical South Korean unionists sure don't. The Oranckay, who works in Ramallah the Gwanghwamun area of Seoul, has some pretty good commentary on this weekend's ruckus, and the Big Ho recounts his fond memories of South Korea's tear gas days.
• Well, we have a new political party, but as Brian of Cathartidae can tell you, new parties are a dime a dozen in South Korea. The problem with this party (to which President Noh belongs), however, is its name.
• Those familiar with the Japanese and Korean educational systems are no doubt familiar with Exam Hell, and so far, five South Korean high school kids have committed suicide following this year's university entrance exam. The Marmot has linked to a number of posts by fellow Korean bloggers on this issue.
• President Noh apologized to the residents of Cheju Island for the tragic incidents that took place on that beautiful isle in 1948. For a fuller background on both Cheju Island and the 4.3 Cheju Uprising, check out Park Chan-sik's "Island of wind: A History of Misfortune, Banishment and Suffering."
• Noh, facing a confidence vote, continues his tour of the lower ranks of the approval ratings, and the Oranckay tries to explain why. The Flying Yangban, on the other hand, propers some free advice to the beleaguered chief exec.
• Drambuie Man is always good for insight into the world of Korean business.

Korean Culture

• Is it possible to fisk a snack food? Well, Kevin at IA does, taking to task Korea's version of the moon pie, the Orion Choco Pie. You may also wish to take a look at this discussion (which covers topics running the gamut from Hideki Matsui to Canadian rock groups) that gives readers some insight into the differences in thinking between Westerners and Koreans.
• Jeff in Pusan criticizes certain aspects of Korean nationalism.
• Shawn of Korea Life Blog gives his readers some terrific commentary on life in South Korea, along with some killer photographs. Much the same can be said of Ian's Kyungam to Kyunggi Journal.
• The Big Hominid is the man to visit if you're looking for a theology fix, with Korean Buddhism featured in many of his discussions. Also, be sure to check out his Korean calligraphy (all of which is for sale) over at his other blog, Only the Chewiest Tumors.
• Korea is absolutely stunning in autumn - just check out some of my photos.

« ok, I'm done now

And for everyone who is going to comment and remind me that 'all liberals already do that' ... no they don't. Not when the chancellor has to intervene at U.C. Berkeley to get 'permission' for American flags to be flown and red-white-and-blue ribbons to be worn. Not when the strongest voices in liberalism give only lip service to responding to an attack on our own soil. Loving this country isn't the same thing as jingoism; it isn't the same thing as imperialism; it isn't the same thing as blind support of the worst traits of our government or our people. It starts with recognizing the best traits, and there are a hell of a lot of them. They were worth defending in my father's time, and they are worth defending today. So thanks, veterans. Thanks soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen. Thanks for doing your jobs and I hope you all come home hale and whole, every one of you.

It's been a year since I wrote that, and a lot has happened, close to me and far away. We've gone to war, and are facing a difficult, bloody, and uncertain time, brought even closer to me by the fact that my oldest son has committed to join the military. Many of my liberal friends took me to task for writing the piece above, feeling that I had ignored their real and deeply felt patriotism. I think in many cases it's true, but I also think that in the cosmopolitanism at the core of contemporary liberal thought is the germ of something that finds patriotism atavistic, that sees it as of a piece with extreme nationalism, and that hopes that it can gently be put out to pasture. I've talked a bit about what patriotism isn't:

I'll define patriotism as "love of country". Both the parents above (all three of them, actually) claim to "love" their children. But to blindly smile and clean up when your child smashes plates on the floor is not an act of love. And blindly smiling and waving flags when your country does something wrong is not an act of patriotism. But...there is a point where criticism, even offered in the guise of love, moves past the point of correction and to the point of destruction. It's a subtle line, but it exists. And my friend (who is less of a friend because I can't begin to deal with her fundamentally abusive parenting) is destroying her child. And there are liberals who have adopted an uncritically critical view of America. Who believe it to have been founded in genocide and theft, made wealthy on slave labor and mercantilist expropriation, to be a destroyer of minorities, women, the environment and ultimately they argue, itself. I'm sorry but their profession of love for America is as hollow to me as that mother's profession of love for her son. Are those things true? As facts, they are an incomplete account of this country's history. As a worldview, they are destructive and self-consuming.

I believe that a clear rediscovery of liberal patriotism - the reconnection between progressive politics and a love of the American ideal - is the key to rebuilding a liberalism that can both serve American interests and compete effectively with corporate conservatism. I've referenced my old professor John Schaar's great essay 'The Case for Patriotism' before. It's available (excerpted) here, and I want to use it to talk a bit about what I mean by patriotism. When I knew him, Schaar was a true New Leftie; he stood far to my left on a number of issues. But he was also a true patriot, and he had a unique and useful vision of American patriotism that I want to talk about here:

"Patriotism is unwelcome in many quarters of the land today, and unknown in many others. There is virtually no thoughtful discussion of the subject, for the word has settled, in most people's minds, deep into a brackish pond of sentiment where thought cannot reach. Politicians and members of patriotic associations praise it, of course, but official and professional patriotism too often sounds like nationalism, patriotism's bloody brother. On the other hand, patriotism has a bad name among many thoughtful people, who see it as a horror at worst, a vestigial passion largely confined to the thoughtless at best: as enlightenment advances, patriotism recedes. The intellectuals are virtually required to repudiate it as a condition of class membership. The radical and dropout young loathe it. Most troublesome of all, for one who would make the argument I intend to make, is the face that both the groups that hate and those that glorify patriotism largely agree that it and nationalism are the same thing. I hope to show that they are different things--related, but separable. Opponents of patriotism might agree that if the two could be separated then patriotism would look fairly attractive. But the opinion is widespread, almost atmospheric, that the separation is impossible, that with the triumph of the nation-state nation. Nationalism has indelibly stained patriotism: the two are warp and woof. The argument against patriotism goes on to say that, psychologically considered, patriot and nationalist are the same: both are characterized by exaggerated love for one's own collectivity combined with more or less contempt and hostility toward outsiders. In addition, advanced political opinion holds that positive, new ideas and forces--e.g., internationalism, universalism; humanism, economic interdependence, socialist solidarity--are healthier bonds of unity, and more to be encouraged than the ties of patriotism. These are genuine objections, and they are held by many thoughtful people."

I think that Schaar exactly targets the weaknesses of patriotism that I criticize above; on one hand, those who embrace it would use it as a basis for blind love of one's collectivity combined with equally blind contempt for others'. On the other, having 'moved past' patriotism is almost a core requirement for inclusion in the modern, NPR-driven thinking class here in the U.S. as well as abroad. The EU, for instance, is explicitly trying to break down old patriotisms into a new, unified, one. Why is patriotism important? Is it because a love of place matters? Schaar talks about love of one's home or one's city as the two forms of traditional patriotism, and he also talks about why patriotism matters to me:

"To be a patriot is to have a patrimony; or, perhaps more accurately, the patriot is one who is grateful for a legacy and recognizes that the legacy makes him a debtor. There is a whole way of being in the world, captured best by the word reverence, which defines life by its debts; one is what one owes, what one acknowledges as a rightful debt or obligation. The patriot moves within that mentality. The gift of land, people, language, gods memories, and customs, which is the patrimony of the patriot, defines what he or she is. Patrimony is mixed with person; the two are barely separable. The very tone and rhythm of a life, the shapes of perception, the texture of its homes and fears come from membership in a territorially rooted group. The conscious patriot is one who feels deeply indebted for these gifts, grateful to the people and places through which they come, and determined to defend the legacy against enemies and pass it unspoiled to those who will come after. But such primary experiences are nearly inaccessible to us. We are not taught to define our lives by our debts and legacies, but by our rights and opportunities. Robert Frost's stark line, "This land was ours, before we were the land's." condenses the whole story of American patriotism. We do not and cannot love the land the way the Greek and Navaho loved theirs. The graves of some of our ancestors are here, to be sure, but most of us would be hard pressed to find them: name and locate the graves of your great-grandparents."

Despite our disconnection from our ancestry and ancestral places, Schaar and I believe that we can be 'reverent' as Americans. How? He tells us:

"But if instinctive patriotism and the patriotism of the city cannot be ours, what can be? Is there a type of patriotism peculiarly American: if so, is it anything more than patriotism's violent relative nationalism? Abraham Lincoln, the supreme authority on this subject, thought there was a patriotism unique to America. Americans, a motley gathering of various races and cultures, were bonded together not by blood or religion, not by tradition or territory, not by the calls and traditions of a city, but by a political idea. We are a nation formed by a covenant, by dedication to a set of principles, and by an exchange of promises to uphold and advance certain commitments among ourselves and throughout the world. Those principles and commitments are the core of American identity, the soul of the body politic. They make the American nation unique, and uniquely valuable among and to the other nations. But the other side of this conception contains a warning very like the warnings spoken by the prophets to Israel: if we fail in our promises to each other, and lose the principles of the covenant, then we lose everything, for they are we." [emphasis added]

We are American patriots because we have consciously decided to share the principles that make America - the principles most essentially set out in our founding documents, and over time spread within America to those who had been excluded at the founding. It is our devotion to liberty and our self-conception as citizens that makes us Americans, not an accident of birth or race. My neighbors to the south are a couple born in Iran. My neighbors to the north were born in Mexico. And each of them is absolutely and completely American. Our patriotism is an inclusive one, which does not define us as a 'people' by where we live or the ancestral symbols that we worship (that's part of why I can be tolerant of those who fly the Confederate Flag), but by the principles to which we adhere. Our patriotism is hopeful, because it is tied to the future - but it must also be reverent in tying us to our past. That is a patriotism we can define, and defend. Schaar talks about what Lincoln once said:

"One more statement, this time from the young Lincoln. Again the occasion is significant. Lincoln had just been elected to the Illinois legislature, and he accepted an invitation to address the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield: an occasion of beginning, then, like the speech in Independence Hall. Lincoln chose as his theme, "the perpetuation of our political institutions." He opened the discourse by reminding his listeners that the men of the Revolution had fought to found a polity dedicated to liberty and self-government. Those principles were safe while the founders lived for they knew the price that had been paid for them. The scenes and memories of the struggle were visible to their eyes and lively to their memories. Many individuals and families treasured and retold the stories of sacrifice and danger. But now these scenes are distant. We who came after the struggle and had no part in it cannot see it in the scars on our bodies, cannot even relive it through the eyes and voices of the actors. Being distant, we easily forget why those others fought and died, and we cannot justly value the gift they gave to us. Our forgetting opens the path to talented persons of great ambition who, if they cannot gain fame by preserving the principles of the founding, will gain fame by wrecking them. Only if the founding principles are kept alive and pure in the minds and hearts of the citizenry shall we be safe from perverted ambition--or, indeed, safe from ourselves. We must, then, see as the chief task of political life the task of political education: inculcate respect or valid laws as a "political religion"; retell on every possible occasion the story of the struggle; teach tirelessly the principles of the founding. The only guardian of the compact is an informed citizenry, and the first task of leadership is the formation of such a citizenry. This is a conception of patriotic devotion that fits a nation large and heterogeneous as our own. It sets a mission and provides a standard of judgment. It tells us when we are acting just- and it does not confuse martial fervor with dedication to country. Lincoln also reminded us that the covenant is not a static legacy, a gift outright, but a burden and a promise. The nation consists only in repeated acts of remembrance and renewal of the covenant through changing circumstances. Patriotism here is more than a frame of mind. It is also activity guided by and directed toward the mission established in the founding covenant. This conception of political membership also decisively transcends the parochial and primitive fraternities of blood and race, for it calls kin all who accept the authority of the covenant. And finally, this covenanted patriotism assigns America a teaching mission among the nations, rather than a superiority over a hostility toward them. This patriotism is compatible with the most generous humanism."

Defined. Defended. As it should be. We don't need to battle the forces of the Islamists because they are Muslim, or because they are foreign. We need to battle them because they explicitly intend to attack the foundation of what makes us Americans, and because they mean to take the things which others in the world want to learn from America - liberty, justice, equality - and smash them. We need to battle them in the arena of politics and ideas most of all. But the space for that battle must be created on the ground, through a contest of will and weapons. Which brings me back to Veteran's Day this Tuesday, and my appreciation for the men and women who have, are, and will defend our covenant, our American ideal. I said it last year, and I'll say it every year from now on: So thanks, veterans. Thanks soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen. Thanks for doing your jobs and I hope you all come home hale and whole, every one of you. --- UPDATES --- * Guest blogger Rob Lyman follows up with The Moral Duty of Tribal Patriotism, exploring the meaning and scope of the duty we have as citizens to ensure each other's safety and security. * Armed Liberal's Selectve Service post picks up on one of the responses to Rob's essay, and on a blog post on Crooked Timber. He sees them as excellent examples of an 'opt-out' mentality that seeks the benefits of modern liberal society without getting its hands dirty, and values moral purity and self-satisfaction above all.

« ok, I'm done now

HOMELAND SECURITY UPDATE * Alaska residents will be pleased to know that they're getting their cut of Homeland Security money. While $19.5 million is less than what most states will receive, it's hard not to wonder how much more effective it might be if directed based on need, rather than on population. * The DHS is meanwhile reporting that al Qaeda may attempt to use cargo planes from other countries to strike at U.S. landmarks or other targets. * Al Gore took up the mantle of civil liberties in a speech in Washington's DAR Constitution Hall this weekend. Will this mark a change in Democratic strategy, or is Gore on his own here? THE WIDER WAR * The Saudis attempt a crackdown on terrorists in Mecca. David Mader discusses the raid. * North Korea's nuclear program is sufficiently advanced that testing is no longer necessary. That is the conclusion of a CIA report, at least. If true, it emphasizes the need to continue isolating North Korea until the regime collapses of its own weight, although this runs the risk of the North's government lashing out rather than going quietly. * The Bush Administration scores a diplomatic victory with the agreement from South Korea and the EU to suspend their project building two nuclear reactors in North Korea. While this is akin to locking the barn door after the horse has left, further isolating North Korea will at least minimize further damage. * Meanwhile, evidence of just how bad things are in North Korea continues to mount, and the rest of the world does their best to shout 'nah, nah, nah' with their fingers in their ears. * What will it take to stop the flow of terrorism from Arab countries? Knowledge, according to this ABC report. * Israel votes to reward terror, choosing to trade Palestian prisoners to Hezbollah in exchange for a captured Israeli businessman and the bodies of three Israeli servicemen. * Before anti-semitism informed Islamo-fascism, it was a driving force behind the original version. 65 years ago, German Jews endured the kickoff of the Shoah, Kristallnacht. Jeff Jarvis has links (Hat tip: Instapundit), and Joe Katzman has a personal story to share. * We try to close on a lighter note if possible, so check out Gregg Easterbrook's ruminations on combat in the future. Remember, the future just isn't what it used to be.

« ok, I'm done now

Reports from the Field * Phil Carter takes a look at how the 1st Armored Division is changing tactics to deal with the postwar requirements of Iraq. Their cultivation and use of street-level intelligence has been excellent. * JK: Meanwhile, CPO Sparkey has a field report from 299 Engineers Battalion in Tikrit. You know, the guys who defuse those roadside explosives etc. Hooo boy. Bet that's a fun job. * The Belmont Club examines the limited press releases from Iraq, and suggests there may be something significant in the works. While there's no way to know the accuracy of the prediction as yet, the logic is sound. (Hat tip: Instapundit). * Meanwhile, David Mader points to an emerging trend in terrorist attacks in Iraq. The news shouldn't be surprising, but it's a solid rejoinder for those who continue to spout 'religion of peace' rhetoric. * Spoons is seeking support for LTC West, the Army intelligence officer who discharged his weapon while interrogating a suspect for intimidation purposes. I don't endorse Spoons's cause; LTC West's heart may have been in the right place, but we have laws regarding the intimidation of witnesses for a reason. * Getting Japanese troops to Iraq may be harder than expected, as Japanese opposition groups are vowing to prevent any such deployment. If they're successful, that will mean still more National Guard and Reserve units will be called up to fill those slots. * As Veteran's Day approaches, Virginia Postrel has a good article about American soldiers injured in Iraq. Reconstruction * Noting a report from Iraqi blogger The Messopotamian, Donald Sensing asks the question: what are we doing to win the propaganda war in Iraq? Because it appears that we're getting our heads handed to us thus far. * Security concerns may delay the writing of a new Iraqi constitution and the transfer of authority to Iraq from the United States. This is bad news for the U.S.; we don't want to turn Iraq over to Iraqis before they're ready, but forward progress is vital for maintaining public support. * Boomshock has some observations about a blog kept by a civilian who spent several months in postwar Iraq. * JK: The Red Cross is pulling out of Baghdad & Basra. Good move - now that they know you can be intimidated, you've just turned that red cross into a red bulls-eye. On the bright side, at least you'll be on the scene to treat yourselves. * What do Iraqis think? The Idler takes a look, and while things may not be as great as the Administration would like it to seem, we are certainly not facing a Vietnam-style popular resistance. (Hat tip: Instapundit). The International Stage * Citizen Smash examines the situation in Iraq, noting some historical parallels from Vietnam, World War II, and the American Civil War before noting that the hard part of our mission in Iraq remains before us. * The Democrats want President Bush to turn over control of Iraq to NATO and the UN. Why they believe those organizations would be any more successful than the United States is left open to question, but look for this call to grow stronger with each additional attack in Iraq. * Porphyrogenitus offers a roundup of observations about the Iraq war from Hitchens, Steyn, and President Bush. Etcetera * Which "cards" have we captured so far? The CENTCOM list. And the visual version of "Ba'ath Poker." * The troops are still there. So is the Winds of Change.NET consolidated directory of ways you can support the troops. American, British and Australian. Anyone out there with more information, incl. the Poles and Czechs? [updated Nov 2, 2003]

« ok, I'm done now

Iran's Quest for the Bomb * AO: Iran continues to string along the international community regarding its nuclear program, now promising to turn over two letters accepting tougher inspection standards and suspension of the nuclear enrichment program. While official letters are a nice touch, until real inspections take place, they're not worth the paper they're printed on. * Amir Taheri notes that Following EU and State Department policy will also lead to a regime of fanatic clerics armed with nuclear weapons. Of course we all know why the EU supports the Mullahs. Lucrative business deals at the expense of 70 million Iranians! * JK: Meanwhile, Kaveh offers some regional and strategic concerns about Pakistan. WishI could reassure you there, buddy, but I can't. Iranian Voices * Stephan Hachemi, son of Zahra Kazemi, received an award in the name of his dear mother on Thursday night. "I still want the body of my mother brought back to Canada where she belongs," Hachemi said. "I'm still looking for those responsible to be punished." * Zahra Kazemi's son has rejected Shirin Ebadi's help and is upset the peace prize laureate will appear in Iranian court on behalf of the Kazemi family. Stephan Hachemi said that Ebadi "..represents my grandmother" "This is exactly what the Iranian government wants - for me to recognize the legitimacy of their justice - and that's exactly what I'm not going to do." * JK: Speaking of Shirin Ebadi, many Iranians both inside and outside Iran have mixed views about the Nobel winner. There is pride, but also questions about her acceptance of Islamic laws of torture, amputations, stoning, beating and flogging. * Please read this important letter addressed to Shirin Ebadi by Parvin Darabi, Chairwoman of the Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation, a human rights organization defending the right of women against religious, cultural and social abuse. * Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran, has an editorial in the Wall Street Journal * If you discuss this issue with informed Iranians and others, you get the sense that Reza Pahlavi is not saying that he wants to be the next leader of Iran, but rather he is saying that despite all of our differences and political views we must all unite for one common goal, which is to get rid of the regime. I recommend reading Winds Of Change.The idea that all of these groups will combine forces frightens the Mullahs, of course. Guess what, it's just the beginning! * AO: Sunday Iran freed a Berkeley professor who they held for nearly four months on espionage charges. This may represent an attempt by the Iranian government to smooth relations with the west, although it remains to be seen if they will attempt to try Professor Zahedi on the charges, or let the matter quietly drop. * Meanwhile, November 4th was the 24th anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Obviously this was another opportunity for the regime to gather as many fanatics as they could for an Anti-US demonstration. Luckily, IranianGirl posted some of her thoughts on the event. The International Stage * In other news a former senior Iranian intelligence agent says Iran was solely responsible for a deadly 1994 car bombing of an Argentine Jewish facility that killed 85 people. * Of course Iran's Foreign Ministry has denied that any Iranian officials were involved. These are also the guys who claim that Iran is a democracy and citizens have all the freedom they want! * Since Oct 28th, supporters of the Iranian people and democracy have struck back at the State Dept and EU policymakers with articles, letters, and radio broadcasts declaring their condemnation of policies that would appease the Mullahs rather than facilitate and encourage freedom. We can consider the speech by Bush yesterday to be a culmination of this onslaught. However, before we break out the champagne, lets make sure that these words are put into action. * Pejman was also encouraged by what President Bush had to say. * Some time has elapsed since the State Department publicly opened its hand on October 28th at the Committee on Foreign Relations hearing in regards to their current thinking on Iran. Summed up, their stance is that we should negotiate with the Mullahs in Tehran and that it matters little whether or not a majority of Iranians are pleading for our support and want an end to the regime. The second half of the Foreign Relations Testimony that followed included a panel of four men who all sounded like regime mercenaries. They were critical of Israel and very sensitive and apologetic to the Mullahs. * Michael Ledeen pinned the tail on the donkey with his assessment that "..the bit about supporting democracy in Iran is the usual State Department two-step: They tell you what they think you want to hear, and then, figuring you won't read the small print, they go ahead and do what they want to do, which is usually to appease the tyrants and open a new round of negotiations." He also points out the willful official blindness toward Iranian actions in Iraq. Socio-Economic Developments * AO: Iran's youth remains our best hope for a turn away from terror in that state. This weekend Iranian students held a vigil in support of Dr. Hashem Aghajari, who is facing the death penalty for his call for Iranians not to follow Iran's clerical leadership "like monkeys." * JK: Kaveh has an insightful post that discusses Islamic reformation. He notes: "Reformation, as an intentional transformation, can bring extremely orthodox ideas back into power" - and gives some examples. Looks like it's going to be a good blog series. * JK: Kaveh also discusses ethnic minorities in Iran. Etcetera * Be sure to watch this excellent Flash Movie illustrating the Iranian struggle for freedom.

« ok, I'm done now

There's Something Happening Here... In the aftermath of the war in Iraq and the destruction of Ansar al-Islam's chemical weapons labs at Sergat and Khurmal, however, al-Qaeda military commander Saif al-Adel decided to temporarily shift his focus away from attacking US troops in Iraq towards overthrowing the Saudi government, and establishing a Wahhabi theocracy in the Kingdom that could then be used as a staging area from which to attack US forces in Iraq. As Robert and I noted over at Alphabet City, al-Qaeda already maintains a Saudi "government in-exile" sorts in London through the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA). One of things that's often forgotten by many commentators is that the Riyadh bombings were originally intended to be much, much worse. According to the May 8 edition of ABC News's Team Insider (via Rantburg), Saudi authorities arrested 149 al-Qaeda operatives who had planned to poison water supplies and stockpiled C-4 explosives in preparation for attacks. ABC News also reported that these al-Qaeda operatives were backed in their efforts by bazaar merchants from Qassim province, where support for al-Qaeda is said to run high. These arrests came a day after Saudi authorities got involved in a gun fight with 19 al-Qaeda and recovered a huge arms cache and indeed, I suspect that the information recovered from the arms cache was probably what led to the arrest of the 149 other operatives. Now understand, al-Qaeda has been carrying out a low-level car bombing campaign against Westerners in the Kingdom for years and these attacks have all been covered up by the Saudi authorities as the work of alcohol smugglers. So why the sudden Saudi apprehension at al-Qaeda's presence on their soil? The reason is simple: this cell was targeting the royals in addition to US and UK interests. In the aftermath of the Riyadh bombings, US intelligence came to the sobering conclusion that the Saudi police, army, navy, and National Guard have all been infiltrated by Bin Laden's minions. This point was driven home even further by the fact that the explosives used in the Riyadh bombings came from the Saudi National Guard stockpiles. Now, the Saudi National Guard is not at all like its American equivalent; it is the royal guard charged with protecting the 6,000 or so members of the al-Saud family. If al-Qaeda can infiltrate the Guard undetected, they can probably get anywhere in the Kingdom. The Saudi Princes' New Groove? The Saudi authorities redoubled their pledges to crack down on al-Qaeda in the aftermath of the Riyadh bombings, something they'd been promising to do ever since 9/11. Normally this means that a few terrorists get arrested while al-Qaeda's valuable financial, propaganda, and recruiting infrastructures inside the Kingdom remain alive and kicking. However, what happened in Riyadh seems to have been enough of a wake-up call for the Saudi government to fire 200 Wahhabi clerics and to arrest 3 al-Qaeda operatives and 2 clerics in connection with the bombing. The clerics, Ali Khudhair al-Khudair and Ahmed bin Hamid al-Khaldi, are two key ideologues for al-Qaeda. Upon their arrest by Saudi authorities, MIRA leader Saad al-Faqih claimed that they had been killed. Al-Qaeda's reaction to MIRA's claims is certainly interesting. An E-Mail purportedly from anonymous bin Laden lieutenants warned the Saudi government that more attacks were coming if their clerics were dead, prompting Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef to tell the Arab News on May 29 that both the two clerics taken into custody, plus a third cleric, were all alive and in good health. Clearly, even after the original Riyadh bombings the Saudi leadership was still terrified of al-Qaeda. Then we get to the long and wonderful saga of Ali Abdul Rahman al-Ghamdi that I chronicled at least in part in one of my first special analyses for Winds of Change. It notes the fact that he has now been arrested by Saudi authorities on at least 3 separate occasions: May 15, May 28, and June 26, and in every case save the last one has been subsequently listed as still at large. These types of anomalies aren't doing the Saudi political establishment any favors to those of us who tend to question just which side the Saudis are on. Signs, Signs, Everywhere A Sign Nevertheless, the Saudis do appear to at least made some effort at a visible crackdown against al-Qaeda, as can be seen here and here. This crackdown, which led to several shoot-outs taking place in Mecca, a chopper going down in Assir province, shoot-outs in Jouf, uncovering an arms cache in Riyadh, yet another shoot-out in al-Qasim, and yet more shooting in Riyadh, all of which seem to be a positive sign that at least someone in Riyadh is taking the issue of al-Qaeda rather seriously. On the other hand, incidents like the al-Hair prison fire that killed most of individuals who were arrested during all of these raids, suggesting at the very least that someone had something to hide regarding these detainees. Apart from Ali Abdul Rahman al-Ghamdi and his numerous psychopathic relatives, the Kingdom also managed to kill Yousef Saleh Fahd al-Ayyeri, the al-Neda webmaster who was carrying a letter from bin Laden when he was killed. Al-Ayyeri's fan club very likely made up of the same people who perpetrated the DoS attack on Hosting Matters several weeks ago with the intention of taking down Internet Haganah. Another notable victim of the Saudi crackdown was Ali Abdul al-Ghamdi's second-in-command Zubayr al-Rimi, who was killed in a stand-off with Saudi authorities in Jizan. Al-Rimi was one of four men who were the subject of a worldwide terrorist alert in September by US authorities. What's Goin' On In any event, what appears to have been going on in Saudi Arabia over the last several months is a crackdown, abeit a half-hearted one (perhaps due to the fact that man responsible for the crackdown, Interior Minister Prince Nayef, was just this last December musing about how the Jews were really the ones responsible for 9/11), on al-Qaeda's activities in the Kingdom. One might aptly note that this crackdown is in no way directed against either Wahhabism or even militant Wahhabism - Saudi funding reportedly still accounts for 50% of Hamas's budget. More to the point, to date Saudi authorities have only arrested or apprehended individuals who can be definitively linked to planning terrorist attacks in the Kingdom. The financial side of al-Qaeda, best personified in a report submitted to the United Nations Security Council that documents the top seven financiers of al-Qaeda: Khalid bin Mahfouz, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, Abdullah Suleiman al-Rajhi, Adel Abdul Jalil Batterjee, Mohammed Hussein al-Amoudi, Wael Hamza Julaidan, and Yasin al-Qadi, remains largely untouched. All of these men are extremely wealthy Saudi business magnates and all of them have been allowed to operate freely within the Kingdom even after the Riyadh bombings. Nor are these individuals the only major Saudi al-Qaeda financiers, according to al-Qaeda documents recovered from Bosnia, the organization's financiers also at least thirteen additional Saudi magnates, including members of the Bin Laden Group. Then there's the case of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Bin Laden's brother-in-law. Khalifa financed and helped to establish the al-Qaeda infrastructure in the Philippines that enabled the organization to plot Oplan Bojinka, the prototype for 9/11. Khalifa was arrested shortly after the 9/11 attacks but subsequently released by Saudi authorities. As of this date, he remains a free man in the Kingdom. Shutting down the al-Qaeda financial infrastructure in Saudi Arabia will go an extremely long way towards the final destruction of the network as well as ending the long-standing conflicts in Algeria, Chechnya, Kashmir, and Mindanao. Shutting down the entire terrorist infrastructure in Saudi Arabia will at the very least severely diminish Hamas's capabilities with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The ultimate test of whether or not the Saudis are prepared to fully sever their ties to al-Qaeda will be whether or not the Kingdom is willing to cut the financial umbilical chord for international terrorism once and for all. Until that occurs in some fashion or another, everything that happens in the Kingdom should be the subject of intense skepticism, particularly claims to the press or even by public figures that the Saudis are no longer turning a blind eye to terrorism. The royal family has known about the activities of these individuals for well over a year at this point, and to date have done absolutely nothing to hinder them. Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting Saturday's events may change that dynamic; I sincerely hope so, anyway. Right now, the death toll at the al-Muhaya residential compound is currently at 17 (though some reports put it as high as 30) with over 100 wounded. Among the wounded are said to be 6 American and Canadian nationals, all of whom came from the same two families. The Saudi government has already blamed al-Qaeda for the attack, noting that the pattern simultaneous bombings fit all the classic hallmarks of the group. I don't have any doubt for a moment that this is al-Qaeda, but while the Saudi claim that this attack was intended as proof of the group's determination to bring down the House of Saud as well as payback for the loss of the network's chief ideological theorist and two mid-level commanders, these recent attacks certainly did bring to mind an article in The Voice of Jihad. The Voice of Jihad is an online al-Qaeda magazine that appears on the server of the month for the dozen or so websites that are controlled by the organization's media committee. The latest edition carried an editorial by Suleiman al-Dosari that was translated by MEMRI and explains that the real enemy right now is the American forces currently residing in Iraq, not the Saudi security forces. Rantburg's analysis on this one is (as usual) right-on, but the events of this Saturday appear to have thrown a major monkey wrench into the organization's plans if Saif al-Adel and the rest of the military committee currently based in Iran planned to have their minions in Saudi Arabia simply lay low until they could patch things up with the royals. Conclusion: Oops, They Did It Again Once again, it appears that al-Qaeda's famed decentralization may in fact be as much of a bane as it is a boon to the terrorist organization. This latest bombing has gotten the network plenty of bad PR and may well be completely disavowed or regarded as an American plot much the same way that the bombing in An Najaf was. One might even expect Abu Mohammed al-Ablaj, Thabet bin Qais, or Abdul Rahman al-Najdi to issue some sort of a media appearance within the next couple of days to place blame for the attack on the US or Israel. Alternatively, if al-Qaeda's military committee decides that enough is enough and chooses to go on the offensive, one could easily foresee similar activities on the rise throughout Saudi Arabia as part of a concerted effort to finally depose the royal family. In my estimation, I would say that it is altogether possible that the very thing that makes al-Qaeda so difficult to detect has come back to bite it in the ass - it's not like such things haven't happened before.

« ok, I'm done now

Understand that pogroms were common in Poland. Murders, rapes, neighbours who were nice one day but turned on you the next at the instigation or tolerance of the local Catholic Priest or others in authority. In Eastern Europe, that was a normal existence for Jews. What was to come, was not. 65 years ago today, Kristallnacht was the first serious portent of a history we know only too well. First they came for the Jews. Then they came for the rest. They almost succeeded. After the war, and the final defeat of the Nazi regime, Shimon Cholewa finally emerged from the concentration camps and made his way to the New World. Alone. The sister my grandmother had sheltered with, and all of her family, were gone. Murdered, for the crime of being Jewish. All save Shima. To this day, every one of my relatives says he was the saddest person they ever saw. For the rest of his life, nothing could dispel the horror film that played, endlessly, in his head. A wound so deep that some of it can be found still in the pitying and horrified expressions it evokes on the faces of those who saw him. My grandparents did their best to pay back the old debt: comfort for comfort, shelter for shelter. But for Shima there was no comfort - and no escape to a better place. He lived as a recluse and died in 1970, his will to live crushed by the tortures he had seen and experienced as a child. The raising of his gravestone was my grandmother's final payment on a debt of kindness and obligation. His gravestone, like his life, stands alone in a sea of others. There's no-one to remember, and no-one to visit. Where the other graves are dotted with small stones left by those who remember, his remains bare. And so it is that whenever my mother goes to the cemetary to visit her parents, she also visits Shima. As do I. That he, too, may be remembered. Walking through the gravestones of the older Shedlover cemetary today, I saw many, many graves with inscriptions honouring and recalling parents and family members who perished in the Holocaust. A mute reminder of what Kristallnacht really was, and what it foretold. But not so sad, or so poignant, as the graves - so many! - that stand alone. Because there is no-one left to remember.

« ok, I'm done now

As someone who shoots, I've learned a healthy respect for what it means to have a loaded weapon out and in my hand. I have trained with enough LEO's and military to have heard the horror stories - a SWAT officer in Ventura County mistakenly shot and killed by his partner in the course of a raid; a young actor at a Halloween party shot and killed by an officer who saw him holding an all-too-real prop gun. I've heard about accidents in which Negligent Discharges (there are no Accidental Discharges) put rounds into handcuffed suspects, and accidents in training where experienced officers accidentally shoot into the ground, sending lethal spall and ricochet fragments scattering through a room. And that's only on the partial issue of the decision by the officers to draw their weapons. The notion that they could cordon off a part of a school, detain everyone there, and on unsubstantiated rumor, search each of them is outrageous. It violates everything I know about our relation as citizens - not suspects - to the power of the state. Fortunately, others are unhappy as well.

As police struggled to calm a growing firestorm over their drug raid at Stratford High School, state investigators Friday began probing why officers charged into a crowded hallway with guns drawn while students cowered in fear. After watching a surveillance videotape of the Wednesday raid, Solicitor Ralph Hoisington asked the State Law Enforcement Division to look into possible police misconduct in the operation. He called for the probe after consulting with Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt. "I don't think there's anything wrong at all with law enforcement addressing a problem in a high school, but I have serious concerns about the need for restraining students and drawing weapons," Hoisington said. "I don't want to send my child to a school and find out guns are drawn on them. I certainly don't want them hog-tied as part of a sweeping investigation."

Of course, some don't see the problem:

Others, however, say the community needs to trust the police to take whatever action is necessary to address a drug problem that clearly exists in the schools. "I'm sure students were frightened, but the harm they're in with drug dealers is far greater than the police coming in," said Goose Creek resident Judy Watkins. "I trust them to do what's right. I appreciate what they did."

Hope she waves at the Stasi as they drive by. Personally, I hope someone sues. I'll even try and stir up some folks in the tactical shooting community to testify as expert witnesses on their behalf. And maybe we can do something about the insane proliferation of aggressive overuse by police of tactics appropriate in confronting an armed or dangerous suspect when they are pulling over a family in a station wagon. [Update: Instapundit has a good roundup on this as well.]

« ok, I'm done now

As I think back over the last 20 years and remember what the world used to be like, I believe the appropriate expression for occasions like this is "Fuckin' A!" We live in wonderful, dangerous times - and the one does not negate the other. bq. "Not only for me but also for other Hungarians of my generation, this became the stuff that really linked us to the free world," he said. "As I listened to this kind of music, I felt I was part of the free world myself." Back in May of 2002, my blog essay "G-d Gave Rock N' Roll To You..." explained why Rock, Jazz, and other forms of Western music are so inherently dangerous to certain regimes and ideologies, and why that still mattered. From Arab News to McCoy's B-52s, from C.P. Freund to Neal Stephenson, it ties them all together, relates these ideas to present events, and makes the case for giving our bastard cultural children Jazz, Blues and Rock n' Roll their due. For Hungary is not the first society rocked to freedom by this music. America is. The music embraced America long before America embraced its players, and Americans accepted it in their ears before they accepted its true message in their hearts. It was sorrow, and endurance, and joy. It took old lines and boldly crossed them, and its mix shook the world. It dared its listeners to define themselves. It set them free. That's what this music means - and what America means, too, in its best moments. Rock n' Roll America, beacon of freedom. Or, as Lileks puts it, "we're The Axis of Elvis." Amen. The black artists who made jazz, blues and rock possible brought forth a great gift out of a great injustice, and helped define America to the world. Their gift goes on giving, in America and beyond. Here's the full series: Winds Prologue: The Axis of Elvis | Hall of Fame Speech Part 1: Jeff 'Skunk' Baxter | Part 2: Ambassador Andras Simonyi | Part 3: Baxter & Simonyi Q&A Session In the words of Ambassador Simonyi's favorite artist, Stevie Winwood:

"Many a mile to freedom, many a smile to tell Ask my bluebird to sing you, from the heart of a wishing well Call all my reindeer to graze here, call all my grain to grow Then together we flow like the river Then together we melt like the snow... ...A few more miles to go Miles to freedom."    - Stevie Winwood, "Many a Mile to Freedom"

« ok, I'm done now

Then, he says that

...southerners have to quit basing their votes on "race, guns, God and gays."

Then, today, he apologizes for the Dixie Flag remark:

One day after his Democratic presidential rivals demanded that he apologize for his remarks, which they called offensive to blacks and southern whites, Dean for the first time expressed remorse. "I regret the pain that I may have caused either to African American or southern white voters," he said in New York. What he had hoped to do, Dean said, was provoke a "painful" dialogue about race among all voters, including those displaying Confederate flags. But, he said, "I started this discussion in a clumsy way."

Now, personally, as noted in a comment, I'm no fan of the Confederate Battle Flag. As I noted, "Now personally, I detest the Stars and Bars as a symbol of the most treasonous act in our nation's history." (note that Clayton Cramer has a longer post on the Stars and Bars). And here I have to split my argument and try and touch on two not completely unrelated points. The first one is about the practice of electioneering, and the way that and natural human impulses seem to get smoothed out - by handlers, staff, and reporters, I'd imagine. Dean said something controversial - but arguably not untrue - was publicly pounded by his opponents, doubtless counseled by his horrified pollsters and staff - and backed away from his statement like a teenager from a sink full of dirty dishes. Now what that says about him - that he's sadly no more 'genuine' than the balance of the machined products of the electoral process, and that his vaunted backbone is, in fact quite flexible when key interest groups are involved - is of moderate interest in deciding who one might support in the election. And what it says about our electoral process - that we boil the flavor and individuality - and backbone out of our candidates, and then wonder why they're made of mush - is probably the most serious issue. Much like movie sequels, where the energy and imagination of the creators is slowly leached out by the legions of 'supporters,' we get a vapid echo of the strong person the candidate once must have been. The second one is about the social balance of the Democratic Party specifically. I've felt for a while that the Democrats have lost the pickup-driving blue- and pink-collar workers in their pursuit of the Skybox crowd, organized (typically public) labor, and identity politicians. Max Sawicky has a insanely great post (as in really smart until he insanely steps up for Kucinich):

As public policy, we can criticize hanging the Stars and Bars on the Courthouse without futile attempts to marginalize individuals for their own choices in this vein. What's at stake is whether we are going to have class politics in the U.S. Cultural conservatism, which in the South can include some type of sentimentality for the Lost Cause, or resentment of what is perceived as excess in the name of civil rights, should not be treated as an enemy ideology. I am not talking about adherence to segregation in public accommodations, denial of the right to vote, or other obvious breaches of democracy that nobody in good faith could endorse. Coalitions are about reaching understandings through dialogue and/or compromise with people of different views. The Democratic Party needs to be a coalition of working people. It needs to ease up on cultural and social liberalism. I mean fetishes about gun control and tobacco. It needs to stop pretending that Southern whites are more racist than other people. It needs to welcome the "seamless web" Catholics who oppose both abortion and the death penalty. It needs to stop overselling rehabilitation and underselling punishment. It needs to find ways of establishing reasonable environmental regulation other than on the backs of workers. What it endorses as a party is ideally the outcome of a rational debate and compromise on these issues. For some, one or another such compromise could be a 'deal-breaker.' So be it. That's the process we need. The constant and lodestar should be an unwavering commitment to the living standards of working people, and opposition to the corporativist, war-mongering ways of the Republican Party. Without class politics, the Democratic Party becomes cats-paw of the big donors, a party of well-to-do white liberals lording it over second-class minorities organized by race and ethnicity. The economic policy of such a party boils is neo-liberalism (balanced budgets, free trade, smaller government, and Federal Reserve supremacy in monetary policy), with tokenism and crumbs for the minorities.

I'm not sure I'm buying his exact prescription, but I do think he has the disease diagnosed exactly correctly.

« ok, I'm done now

REPORTS FROM THE FIELD * The CIA has seized what looks like the mother lode of files from the old Iraqi Mukhabarat archives. The files cover everything from the names of every serving Mukhabarat operative and their paid agents to documentation of pay-offs to win support for the Iraqi government in the Arab world and elsewhere. * Muhan Jabr al-Shuwaili, the top judge of the Najaf governorate, has been kidnapped and murdered by Baathist agents. Al-Shuwaili headed up the Baath Investigative Commission that sought to probe complaints against former regime officials. Also assassinated was Ismail Yussef Saddek, who was gunned down in Mosul in front of his house. * Iraqi blogger Zeyad has his own thoughts on all of the "spontaneous demonstrations" of the Saddam era as well as the American reaction to the cheering Iraqi villagers in Baisa. * Mustafa Zaidan al-Khaleefa, the head of the Karkh Neighborhood Council in Baghad, was killed in a drive-by while heading towards his home in central Baghdad. * Middle East Newsline reports that Sunni guerrillas are being trained in the use of SA-7 missiles by Baathists loyal to Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri. This is significant because the US has identified al-Douri as the connection between the Baathists and Ansar al-Islam and an al-Qaeda website posted a claim of responsibility for the recent downing of a US Chinook helicopter. * The US has captured two former Iraqi generals in Fallujah along with a huge ammunition cache. THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE * European Muslims appear to be answering bin Laden's call to arms and heading to Iraq to fight coalition forces there. The UK Times via Rantburg also suggests that those jihadis recruited in Britain are fighting as an organized group, a probable indication that al-Qaeda UK is likely involved here. * JK: Meanwhile, back in the USA, the leaked Democratic Party Intelligence Committee memo is raising a stir. Instapundit has links to some important aspects of the memo missing from the media coverage. * JK: Fawaz Turki, a columnist in the Saudi Arabian paper Arab News, has published "Revisionist Thoughts on the War in Iraq." He now says that he was wrong to oppose the war, and cites some pretty compelling reasons why. WMD HUNT * US investigators shifting through Saddam Hussein's files have learned that he sought to acquire long-range missiles with assistance from Serbia and North Korea. ETCETERA * Which "cards" have we captured so far? The CENTCOM list. And the visual version of "Ba'ath Poker." * The troops are still there. So is the Winds of Change.NET consolidated directory of ways you can support the troops. American, British and Australian. Anyone out there with more information, incl. the Poles and Czechs? [updated Nov. 2, 2003] * And don't forget the "Toys for Iraq" campaign!

« ok, I'm done now

IRAN REPORTS * Pakistan is denying claims that Iran extradited al-Qaeda members to it, in effect calling the Iranian government a liar. * Middle East Newsline and the World Tribune is reporting that hundreds of al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam operatives are entering Iraq through Iran. * The sons and two aides of Iranian dissident Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri has been arrested by the Iranian security forces, a probable sign that yet another crackdown against the Iranian dissidents is pending. * Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is is warning the IAEA that he will end nuclear cooperation with the agency if he perceives it to be in league with what Khamenei regards as "an American and Zionist plot" against the Islamic Republic. * According to the Spanish newspaper El Pais, IAEA chief Mohammed Elbaradei says that Iran has failed to honor some international nuclear safeguards and that it may be judged in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. U.S.A HOMELAND SECURITY BRIEFING * The latest theory out regarding September 11 is that al-Qaeda sought to send additional hijackers into the US before the attacks. This comes as USA Today is reporting that an unidentified twentieth operative was sent in to serve as an additional hijacker but was forced to leave the US for reasons unknown. * Things keep on looking worse and worse for arrested Muslim activist Abdulrahman Alamoudi. * A communique from the "Islamic Bayan (Threat) Movement," posted on the now-defunct al-Qaeda website al-Faroq, and translated through MEMRI is instructing all Muslims to leave Washington DC, New York City, and Los Angeles prior to some kind of terrorist attack on US soil. Al-Faroq also posted a claim of responsibility for the recent downing of a Chinook helicopter in Iraq while comparing it to Hubal, an idol worshipped by the Meccans prior to the founding of Islam. THE WIDER WAR * Kashmir isn't the only place where al-Qaeda is regrouping, the network is also rebuilding its forces in Yemen even as it enters into negotiations with President Ali Abdullah Saleh. * The US is reportedly putting out bounties for terrorists in Somalia, yet another sign of the shadowy cloak-and-dagger that is being conducted as part of the war on terror in that region of Africa. * Three Pakistani troops have been captured fighting with al-Qaeda in the Kandahar province of Afghanistan. * Former Taliban economic advisor Maulavi Akhter Mohammed is calling for the overthrow of General Musharraf for siding with the US after 9/11. If stories like this are any indication, Musharraf seems to be paying attention. * Just what motivates Pakistan's jihadis? M. K. Tayal suggests that minimum wage may have something to do with the incentive among Pakistani youths. * Sri Lankan president Chandrika Kumaratunga has suspended parliament and deployed troops at key government buildings in Colombo, a possible sign that South Asia's other flashpoint - Sri Lanka - is once again ready to erupt. * Prince Jigyel Ugyen Wangchuk of Bhutan has left Oxford to join the fight in his homeland against separatists from the Indian state of Assam. * We try to end on a lighter note if possible. Eminem tends to be something of a polarizing figure in certain parts of the US where people either love him or hate him; this appears to be true in Istanbul as well.

« ok, I'm done now

Maybe it is all about "Beat Bush." The problem is that you get there by growing and winnowing candidates at the lower levels...mayors, Congressmembers, Senators, Governors - and my sense is that the national Party isn't doing a good job there. Look one level down from the current crop of Democratic contenders - ignoring how strong or weak you may believe them to be - and where are the contenders for the next cycle? I'm not an expert, but I don't see a lot of interestng candidates until I get down to the mayoral level, and that's bad. Politics is a team sport, and you have to play more than one position. For the Democrats (who admittedly won some statehouses last time around, while losing the Senate and House), I wonder if it's entirely too concentrated at the top. Second, I'm inclined to ask "What has to happen, exactly, in order for us to panic?" In the polls, each of the plausible Democratic candidates is running behind the numbers of plain old "don't like Bush". We lost the Senate and House. We lost California, because the party wouldn't stand up to a corrupt and barely competent incumbent and challenge him, either in the election or in the recall. A strong Democrat - a Feinstein, Panetta, or even an Angiledes - would be Governor now. We lost Kentucky and Mississippi, and the Republicans in Louisiana have to be smelling blood this morning. And no one on the left is willing to sit down and go "Huh. Wonder what we're doing wrong." Can I make some suggestions?

« ok, I'm done now

Pulling together position papers, speeches, news clips, etc., in one place so that people can step up to meet Tristero's Challenge and actually read primary sources. Now, I'll point out that position papers do not policy make, and policy does not action determine. But it's a start... What I'd like to do is invite partisan supporters of each candidate to email me, and we'll pick one person who will in essence be a 'librarian' for each of the major candidates (Clark, Dean, Gephart, Kerry, and Bush) who will receive information from reader or other sources, and then will forward links to Joe & me. We'll then create an updated-weekly post around several areas that we think are interesting so that readers can link directly to all the current position papers and speeches of each candidate around a topic. Call it 'open source' journalism. Let's start with the basic question: Stupid or Useful? Answer below in the comments.

« ok, I'm done now

* With the recent appointment of Gene Robinson, the issue of homosexuality has taken on new significance among African Christians. CS Monitor has an interesting story about the Ugandan church's debate over homosexuality. * JK: As reader TT rightly points out, for a deeper background on why this matters and the seismic shifts it foreshadows, see the Oct 2002 Atlantic Magazine article by Philip Jenkins, entitled "The Next Christianity". * AfricaBlog reports that the French are sinking deeper into the Ivory Coast quagmire as the peace agreement signed last year in Paris looks weaker than ever. Where's the UN when you need them? * Yet another round of peace talks aimed at ending the Sudanese war have been completed. Typical of peace negotiations, these talks had an ambiguous conclusion with both sides agreeing to reach an agreement by the end of the year - maybe. * Sam Nujoma, "president" of Namibia, has apparently joined the ever-growing number of African heads of state seeking president-for-life status. It's unlikely that this arrangement will lead to Namibian peace and prosperity--except possibly for Nujoma and his cronies. War on Terror * The Washington Post reports that Islamic terrorists continue to find safe havens throughout Africa, aided, in part, by the steady growth of extremist Islam on the continent. Unfortunately, the article doesn't say which countries are funding this "missionary" work. * Instapundit has more and Dan Darling also notes that Africa has taken on new importance to a reorganized al Qaeda. * This should come as no surprise, but a new UN report has warned that Somalia is being used to plan terrorist attacks against neighboring countries, notably Kenya. * In fact, this article makes clear that Somalia was used as a staging base for last year's attacks in Mombasa. (Via Best of the Web.) Somalia's chronic lawlessness and instability should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks it would be a good idea to cut and run from Iraq. * In addition to being a threat to Kenya, Somalia is also being used as a base for attacks against foreign humanitarian workers in neighboring Somaliland (the breakaway republic on the Horn of Africa). A Taste of Africa reports. Somaliland has responded to the attacks by calling for the deportation of all illegal immigrants, most of whom are Somali. * Kenya is about to deport foreigners, too, but they're not after terrorists or even illegal immigrants--nope, they're targeting the expatriate workforce, many of whom are British. The reason for the decision isn't really clear, but it seems eerily similar to Idi Amin's decision to deport Uganda's Indian population...and the economic effects might be just as disastrous. Zimbabwe * More reports that Mugabe is again using food (or rather lack of it) as a weapon against his political opponents. * JK: And that's not the worst of it. Some of his thugs have fled to South Africa, and have begun telling the awful truth about what they've been doing. * JK: Other Zimbabwean refugees are proving very productive and helpful - to neighbouring Zambia. An African success in the making? * Head Heeb notes that Mugabe continues his war against the newspapers -- a rather brash attempt to silence criticism of his own misrule. * Despite Mugabe's blatant disregard for democracy and the rule of law, he remains widely respected in Africa as a leader who's unafraid to stand up to the West. Aidan Hartley explains why. (Via AfricaBlog) Finally * Abiola notes that some Muslims in Nigeria are rejecting polio vaccines, saying that the shots are part of an American plot to spread HIV. Seems a shame. One suspects that if Americans built day care centers, they'd be accused of trying to brainwash Muslim children.

« ok, I'm done now

Of course, the television shows all share a built bias for drama: almost all cases go to trial on television. It is the opposite in real life. One reason for this is the institution of mandatory minimum sentences for drug and other crimes. Mandatory minimums do not, in most cases, result in the defendant being sentenced to the mandatory minimum. How can this be so, if the minimum sentence is "mandatory?" The reason is prosecutorial discretion. This is the discretion to charge or to withdraw charges as the prosecution wishes. In the case of offenses with mandatory minimum sentences, prosecutorial discretion effectively shifts sentencing power from the judge, who is usually a lawyer with years of experience in law and life and is sworn to be impartial, to the prosecutor, who in many cases is a person in his or her twenties who often sees a "win" as getting the most severe sentence without having to subject the state's proof to a trial. This is a type of conversation I have had many times with clients charged in what I call the four-guys-and-a-kilo in a car (or apartment) case:

"I know it wasn't your car, I know that you have no record, I know they don't have much on you. This case would be either a directed verdict of not guilty, or at least an 80% chance of a not guilty with a jury if it went to trial. But, if you're found guilty because the judge has a different view of the law that I do, and the jury (12 people walking around right now that we don't know) just doesn't like the way you look, it's 15 years. Now the DA has offered to break this down if you plead guilty to the lesser offense, you'll do two years in the county jail instead of state prison, you'll be eligible for parole after one year. It's your choice."

The problem is that the aforementioned prosecutorial and police discretion is often exercised in a way that is biased. I once saw a judge berate police officers who had charged white suburban youths who had a couple of ounces (yes, that is a lot [JK: that's 60+ grams]) with the least serious marijuana possession offense "when every day I see poor city kids being charged with [mandatory minimum offenses] for five little dime bags." Judges and juries operate in public, in open court. Police and prosecutorial discretion operates in offices, by phone calls. Mandatory minimums generate injustice. Trust me, if someone deserves a long sentence, they will get it with or without the minimums. The second thing you may not know about the criminal justice system is the extent to which people use it to mediate their family or romantic disputes. The misuse and manipulation of domestic violence restraining orders and the laws against domestic violence are something which anyone involved in the courts knows well. Ask any court bailiff in a criminal or divorce court: they will have stories to tell. The usual scenario involves the eternal triangle, or the unwanted break-up. Others include the non-compliant spouse, the deadbeat dad and the prodigal son. On a subway platform, I once overheard one woman telling another "If you want to get him back, put a restraining order on him." Fortunately juries can see through most of these cases, but you'll never read about it in the paper, or see it in an episode of Law & Order.

« ok, I'm done now

* Michael Totten says long-serving Sen. Zell Miller's (Dem-GA) endorsement of Bush is the canary in the coal mine (Hat Tip: Team Tacitus). Then Roger L. Simon really gets the ball rolling in I'm With Zell. * Calpundit responds and writes Liberal Hawks * Armed Liberal says It's not a 'Schtick,' Kevin * Roger L. Simon picks up he debate again and pens Confessions of a War Monger * Matthew Yglesias chimes in with Things to Consider * Michael Totten replies to Yglesias. "Matt, just remember the anti-war leftists at Harvard who gave you hell for supporting regime-change in Afghanistan. Remember how they sounded to you. That's exactly how the Democratic Party sounds to me now." * Armed Liberal's "Oh, Matthew!" is rather less gentle. A tone of distance and superiority rather than connection and membership may be Matt's personal problem, he says, but the Left's widespread adoption of it is everyone's political problem. * Bill Herbert enjoyed that. He says his vote is still up for grabs, and explains what it will take to get it. He adds some links to Hesiod's "thoughts". * But it's too late for lifelong Democrat Rosemary Esmay. She left a while ago (shades of Peggy Noonan's switch). Ditto for Dean Esmay, who says: "We aren't in a war of civilizations. We're in a war for civilization." * Lefty Sean LaFreniere, meanwhile, couldn't stay out of the fray. He addresses Yglesias' arguments case by case, names names, and provides examples. * Oxblog joins the fray a couple days later with this post from David Adesnik: "Before getting into the intricacies of the debate, let me state my position up front: I'm with Peter Beinart...." * Gene at Harry's Place looks at 2 interesting constituencies on the Left: the Humanitarian Interventionists, and the Don't Quit on the Iraqis crowd. "While the two groups have their differences, I think its safe to say we have certain beliefs in common that we share with neither the top officials of the Bush administration nor with the 'US/UK Out Now' crowd." * Meanwhile, back on the Right, Porphyrogenitus prefaced the whole dust-up on Oct. 28th with a good roundup of interesting and welcome statements from prominent Democrats. Over 100 commenters chime in on A.L.'s posts alone, and the vast majority have intelligent stuff to say that adds to the debate.

« ok, I'm done now

REPORTS FROM THE FIELD * JK: Norm Geras has a link to a look at the ongoing conflict from inside the Saddam Fedayeen and their (mostly Syrian/Lebanese) allies. * Six months after the fall of the Baathist regime, Iraqis are still settling scores with old enemies. * Following last week’s deadly bombing of Iraq's International Red Cross headquarters, Colin Powell urged the Red Cross and the United Nations to remain in Iraq, but then softened his stance once the decision was final. RECONSTRUCTION & THE ECONOMY * Are we making progress in post-war Iraq? The diversity of opinion ranges wildly, as the world is flooded with different versions of the truth. But which source of information most accurately depicts the reality of the situation? This Iraqi at Healing Iraq or that Iraqi at Riverbend? The brave soldier in Iraq? Or a NY Times journalist? * Boomshock considers the relevant facts in his analysis of post-war reconstruction efforts, with a little help from Michael O'Hanlon and the procedings of last Wednesday's House Armed Services Committee. * Meanwhile Bjorn Staerk searches for the meaning of Truth. * In Iraq, today’s children are tomorrow's leaders. Now's the time to show some love and let the kids know that we care about them. Participate in Chief Wiggles’ Toy Drive! THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE * While blood is spilling across Iraq, the terrorists believe that their war will be won on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately for them, the Coalition Provisional Authority is already planning a well-coordinated and orderly future withdrawal by coalition forces. * The Syrian government decided to hold a meeting of Arab, Iranian and Turkish foreign ministers to "study means to alleviate the sufferings of the Iraqi people". Interestingly, there was one glaring omission on the invitation list - the Iraqi Governing Council! Following a deluge of international pressure, Syria finally extended an invitation to the fledgling Iraqi government, but it was too late. IGC Foreign Minister Zebari had already been dissed, and so refused to attend. The meeting was held over the weekend and the foreign ministers released their final communique anyway. ETCETERA * Al Jazeera reports that the number of Iraqi babies named 'Saddam', 'Uday' and 'Qusay' have plummeted to zero since the ouster of Saddam's regime from power. "Today an Iraqi can even call his son Bush if he wants...Thank God, nobody has done it yet, " says Emad Fakher Hassan, an employee at the public records office in Baghdad. Perhaps Mr. Hassan missed the inter-office memo? * Which "cards" have we captured so far? The CENTCOM list. And the visual version of "Ba'ath Poker." * The troops are still there. So is the Winds of Change.NET consolidated directory of ways you can support the troops. American, British and Australian. Thanks to Blogo Slovo, we've added ways to thank the Polish forces, who helped liberate Iraq and now lead a division in the Shi'ite south. [updated Nov. 2nd, 2003] * We try to close on a lighter note if possible. Dave the Peace Man is recruiting some more human shields for Iraq. Please check in if you would like to fulfill your destiny. We're sure the same group who went last time will be eager to show up again, and protect the ordinary Iraqis who are becoming casualties.

« ok, I'm done now

IRAN REPORTS * The IAEA has yet to complete its review of Iran's latest submission on its nuclear plans, but Iran has already begun to reap the benefits of 'good progress'. * Russia and the EU aren't the only ones to cozy up a little closer to the Mullahs in recent days. So have Japan and the United States of America. Looks like a victory for the State Department. * In case there were any doubts, a top Iranian MP has confirmed the arrest and detention of Dariush Zahedi, an Iranian-American academic. On the flip side, the Iranian regime is wondering what the US is doing with two Iranian journalists captured in Iraq on suspicion of spying. * Amir Taheri knows that there is almost universal agreement in Iran on one word: Referendum * Sneak a peek at the latest and greatest Iranian interrogation techniques here. U.S.A. HOMELAND SECURITY BRIEFING * The State Department is taking some serious steps on US immigration policy in order to protect the nation from infiltration by terrorists. All visa applicants will be required to have their fingerprints taken before a visa is rewarded. The new fingerprinting technology is now being introduced in some locations, and will be installed in all US embassies by October 2004. Also, the green card lottery will be fully processed online, so that the reviewers will be able to 'skim off the people who send in 50 applications'. * The Homeland Security Department has some money to spend, and hundreds of businesses are hungry for a piece of the action. In these last two years, the "homeland security" market has soared like a skyrocket, and America is safer for it. * Here's a military, social and homeland security issue wrapped in one. THE WIDER WAR * Axis of Evil News Flash: North Korea uses nukes for leverage. The Sunshine Policy is setting over the Korean Penninsula, and the South Korean government may be waking up to reality. * Afghanistan continues to be a very dangerous place. The guerilla warfare is actually becoming even deadlier, and it is becoming more difficult to tell if the US is winning. * The UN has recognized the seriousness of the situation and has dispatched a mission of Security Council ambassadors to express support for the Karzai-led government. * Is the US military to blame for recent instability because it handled the Afghan warlords with kid gloves? * And will Hamid Karzai win next year's election? * Meanwhile, Daniel Drezner has a very good article about some Afghani successes. This one involves a British Provincial Reconstruction Team. Hat Tip: Oxblog - who then adds a letter from a correspondent in Kabul. * The War on Terror is a global challenge, and so it's important that Americans listen to the advice of our allies. University of Alberta Professor Andy Knight offers his strategy for dealing with the remaining members of the Axis of Evil. * Of course there are allies, and then there are 'allies'. Here's some words of advice for the American people from a columnist with the Arab Times. This Aussie decries another fine mess. And here's some words from Marcus Gee: USA Must Not Flee. * At this pivotal moment in history, self-criticism is critical, and that goes for everyone, including the Arab world, the EU, Russia, Israel (via its military Chief of Staff), and the USA. * The German weekly Zeithas published some fresh new testimony detailing the sinister plot of the neo-cons to trick President Bush on the Iraq threat and cause a war. Davids Medienkritik takes a closer look at the bios of ze whistleblowers. * We try to close on a lighter note if possible. Dave the Peace Man recruiting some more human shields for Iraq. Please check in if you would like to fulfill your destiny. We're sure the same group who went last time will be eager to show up again, and protect the ordinary Iraqis who are becoming casualties. Thanks for reading! If you found something here you want to blog about yourself (and we hope you do), all we ask is that you do as we do and offer a Hat Tip hyperlink to today's "Winds of War". If you think we missed something important, use the Comments section to let us know.

« ok, I'm done now

At a dinner at Kevin's, I met some other bloggers - other than Tom of TBogg, I haven't retained names - and we had a telling exchange.

Kevin asked me a direct question: "So is it that you buy into the 'restructuring the Arab world' justification for the war?" As I started to answer, one of the other bloggers, his voice honeyed with superior knowledge, added "Why in the world did you let yourself get spun so badly by the White House?"

My reply was Mad Dog Stare #2 (a personal favorite) and a simple statement: "Thank you so much for granting me the courtesy of assuming that I may have examined the information and made up my own mind." He and I didn't have much to say to each other for the rest of the evening.

Matt (whose post on Michael Totten's 'schtick' lit me up like a Christmas tree - Matthew is, after all, the one who parlayed his blog into a cush media job, which in his own terms means that it's his blogging that qualifies as 'schtick') posts the following. I'll intersperse my comments.

Kevin Drum's got himself embroiled in a quagmire-like debate with hawkish liberals or ex-liberal hawks or whatever you want to call them. In response, some things to consider doing before you defect from the Democratic Party:

Well, first of all, I don't have any plans to defect from the Democratic Party. I may or may not vote the party line; personally, I'll take each campaign as I see them. But I've been critical of the Democratic Party because I think it's headed off a cliff into electoral oblivion, and I intend to publicly kick it's ass as hard as I can to do what I can to get it steered in a more successful and productive direction.

Take a deep breath. Look in the mirror. Take another deep breath. Look at some photos of your liberal friends and family. Ask yourself: Do you really believe that they opposed the Iraq War because they wanted Saddam Hussein to stay in power; do you really think they don't care if your hometown gets destroyed by terrorists?

No, I think they opposed the war because they believe they can have the benefits of modern liberal society without getting their hands dirty. They value moral purity and self-satisfaction above everything else - with the possible exception of creature comfort.

Try reading some actual policy statements put out by Democratic foreign-policy hands, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and members of the Armed Services Committee. Ask yourself: Do the views expressed therein really sound like the characterizations of them you've read on NRO and the hawk blogs?

Actually, I do read the policy statements and talk to people who work within the political and defense establishment. I don't base my opinions on Instapundit, NRO and Fox News And, believe it or not, I'm actually unhappy with much of what I hear. I'm trying to engage in a broader dialog about what makes me unhappy, in the hopes that I and others like me can have some impact on what the Democratic Party thinks and does.

Look again in the mirror, focusing this time on your hairline and that little space next to your eyes that gets wrinkly when you squint. There's no easy way to say this, but . . . you're getting old. I am too. It's scary, it happens to us all. Ask yourself: Has the left really changed, or am I just that cliched guy who stopped really caring about the poor as I aged?

Tell you what, Matt - you look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're just another jejune 20-something year old who thinks he knows everything; it's a painfully familiar condition to me - I used to be one too. Back when I worked in politics and wrote laws and policy. But philosophically, I was uncomfortable with the idea that I could be a part of the political class, and make a damn comfortable upper-middle class living as a policy wonk, staff to an elected, or commentator - all without ever getting my hands dirty in the real world.

I was uncomfortable with the love of power that I saw in my peers, and the lack of wisdom, humility, and openness to have one's views changed through experience. Sound familiar? It's OK, you're smart, and if you're lucky, you'll grow out of it.

Take a look at the transcript of the latest White House press conference. Find some other examples where the president had to respond on-the-fly to questions. Ask yourself: Given the perilous international situation, am I really comfortable with the fact that a total moron is president of the United States.

Gosh, Matt, I just love the schoolyard names. Here's a clue: Bush isn't a moron. I doubt that he's even particularly stupid; I've met and had business with a fair number of elected officials, and the stupidest one I know (Barbara Boxer - most of the ones I've met are Democrats, so there may be a Republican who'se worse) is probably as smart as any of the bloggers I have met to date. One doesn't get to high elected office in this land by being stupid, stories of Chauncey Gardner aside.

I'll also add one of the hard truths that came to me several years out of grad school - life isn't like school, and being smart and clever alone are not decent predictors of future success.

And having been elected, these officials - even Boxer, or my own detested Jackie Goldberg - are worthy of some basic measure of respect by all of us. I may loudly and publicly disagree with Jackie's policies and politics, I may think that she's deeply wrong and happily look forward to the end of her term, but I would never suggest that she's an idiot or a moron, or that the public that elected her are idiots for electing her.

Read this post again. Consider the condescending tone, the cheap psychoanalysis, the refusal to confront your actual arguments. Ask yourself: Isn't this exactly what I've been doing all this time? Just an exercise.

Matt, here's a proposal. Go through all my stuff on Armed Liberal and Winds of Change. Find me five posts with condescending tone. Find five posts where I psychoanalyze you or any of the liberal Democrats (or even wacky leftists) with whom I disagree. Email me the cites. If we disagree, I'll let Kevin or Brian Linse act as a referee. Find five, I'll send you a nice crisp $100.00 bill. I'll bet I can easily find ten quotes like that from you. I'll even give you 2-1 odds; I'll only ask for $50.00 if I do. Are you in?

I'm out here looking for arguments, and I have the habit of allowing that people who say things mean what they say. Perhaps it would be a good thing if you did too.

Here's a little quote to put all this in a larger perspective. John Schaar was a political theorist, and a staunch member of the New Left - and one of my professors as an undergrad. This is from his essay on 'The Case for Patriotism':

"Finally, if political education is to effective it must grow from a spirit of humility on the part of the teachers, and they must overcome the tendencies toward self-righteousness and self-pity which set the tone of youth and student politics in the 1960's. The teachers must acknowledge common origins and common burdens with the taught, stressing connection and membership, rather than distance and superiority. Only from these roots can trust and hopeful common action grow."

...it's something that Matthew hasn't learned yet, which is a personal problem for him. But it's something the left in this country hasn't learned yet, which is a political problem for me and the rest of us.
-

« ok, I'm done now