Streaming audio at the Heritage Foundation of Andrew Bostom and Laurent Murawiec. Bostom's presentation is specifically about Muslim conquests of Palestine, the particulars of which are emblematic of the Arab bloc's current attitudes toward Israel. Pamela's phone interview with Andrew Bostom.
Many have commented on Bush's allusions to Truman in his commencement speech at West Point. It's certainly not the first time his deliberate naming of Islamism as the enemy has been compared to Truman's confrontation with Communism. Nor is it the first time the Administration's making democracy central to its reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan has been compared to the Marshall Plan. But this is what I think is interesting:
West Point has adapted to prepare you for the war you're about to enter. Since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, this Academy has established a new Combating Terrorism Center, a new minor in Terrorism Studies, with new courses in counter-insurgency operations, intelligence, and homeland security, and winning the peace. West Point has expanded Arabic language training, has hired new faculty with expertise in Islamic law and culture, brought in members of the 101st and 82nd Airborne to train you and share their experiences on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. And each of you endured grueling Saturday training events where you practiced identifying IEDs, conducting convoy operations and running checkpoints. By changing to meet the new threats, West Point has given you the skills you will need in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and for the long war with Islamic radicalism that will be the focus of much of your military careers.
Yup.
Actually, it covers Islam more broadly as a Religion of War, imperialism, and dhimmitude - Palestine is just the focus of observation.
The point about US military and policymakers have the tactics and management, but don't really understand their enemy, remains apt.
Troll clean-up in Aisle 10.
Hearing that soldiers are being pulled from the field and sent to the academy is the best news I have heard in quite some time. The descriptors that come to mind are serious and sober.
Someone remind me what the opposition is bringing to this table.
GREAT JOB IN IRAQ GUYS.
JPost.com » International » Article
May. 18, 2006 23:52 | Updated May. 19, 2006 0:44
US fumes as Iraq backs Israel boycott
By MICHAEL FREUND
The US-backed Iraqi government sent an official representative to this week's meeting of the Arab League Boycott Office in Damascus, The Jerusalem Post has learned, prompting criticism from members of Congress and the Bush administration.
Liaison officers from 14 countries met for four days this week to discuss ways of intensifying the Arab embargo against Israel. Among those taking part were delegates from several ostensible US allies, such as Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait.
Tom Casey, a spokesman for the US State Department, told the Post that Washington was unhappy with Baghdad's action.
"We are disappointed by the decision of the Iraqi government to attend this meeting, and will be noting our concerns with Iraqi officials," he said. "We have raised this issue with Iraqi officials in the past and expect to raise it with them again."
"The US position on the Arab League boycott is well known," Casey noted, adding that "perpetuation of the Arab League boycott does greatest harm to those who participate in it by hampering their efforts to develop their economies."
Members of Congress were also critical of the Iraqi move.
Rep. Paul Ryan, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, told the Post that "the US government has been very successful in negotiating the cancellation of Israeli boycotts from many countries throughout the Arab world. This would appear to be a big step in the wrong direction on the part of the new Iraqi government."
Ryan, a Republican, said he expected Washington to bring the matter up with Baghdad. "We should make our position clear, just like we do with every other Arab government," he said.
Contacted by phone, a spokesman for the Iraqi embassy in London declined to comment.
According to figures released this week by the Israel Export Institute, there has been a 46 percent rise in Israeli sales to Iraq (valued at $320,000), with 27 exporters active in that market dealing primarily with the US military.
So what's your point? They have a government in which both genders and all the ethnic groups are represented, they have MPs, they vote, they hash things out. No they are not the perfect democracy, no they are not the puppet of the US.
I don't like it that they are attending this meeting, but we don't know if they are going to agree with the agenda, maybe they are going to establish their bonafides with other Arab governments who do think they are puppets of the US. None of this is cast in stone.
So Washington registers its displeasure, as it should.
What would you prefer? The return of Saddam? The installation of another strongman? Permanent rule by the USA?
Of course if they decided not to go because the US disapproved, you would be the first one to call them puppets.
What a red herring. What is the big deal about the Arab boycott? What self-respecting Arab would ever buy anything with a "Made in Israel" label on it, and what Arab Gov would ever encourage it? This is just another way for Israel to jerk our chain and keep us as a co-target for Arab hatred. It is not paranoia for me to wonder if our Military/War Industry would also like us to be a co-target for Arab hatred for the "Long War". Starting to sound like the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty"--a never ending Federal Jobs program with lucrative corporation sub-contracts.
Dave --
Why not a "Muslim boycott" and have official exclusion of all Muslims, laws preventing Muslims from entering the country, and practicing their religion inside the country for those who are here, who live under suppression of all rights.
Perhaps laws preventing any individual or business from purchaing ANYTHING from a Muslim country?
You'd be the first to scream about that.
Why shouldn't Moroccans and Saudis buy Israeli products, unless religious hatred and bigotry drive them?
I read an article a while back about how they were all doing surreptitious deals with Israel under the table while they retained their high-minded boycott. Which is how it usually goes.
Chaim Herzog, who famously tore up the UN resolution equating zionism with racism, gave another great speech at the UN after the sanctimonious "Israel trades with S. Africa" condemnations, he had all the facts and figures about all the trading the adjacent African states did with SA, and all the arms the USSR sold SA, etc.
What was this thread about again?
Red herring? Then why does Kesher Talk spend so much time whining about other boycotts of Israel?
Iraq is now a node of Islamic fundamentalism and you think that somehow it's going to be good for Israel. You are all barking mad.
Sophia, it's hard to be sure what's good for israel. My own preference would be for the large majority of the israeli population to live somewhere else. Nuclear nonproliferation is dead. Therefore it is a mistake to concentrate so many israelis in such a small space.
In the short run destroying the iraqi army was a small benefit to israel. We talked up what a very large army it was. Now it's a much smaller army with very little armor, no planes, no artillery, logistics supplied entirely by the USA, and commanded by american higher officers. The old iraqi army wasn't much of a threat to israel but the new iraqi army is completely castrated and is no threat at all.
In the old days Saddam talked against israel when he wanted public approval in iraq, but he didn't actually do much against israel except for strategic purposes when we were attacking him. Now iraq has an Assembly that sometimes talks against israel to get public support, but that can't actually do anything -- the iraqi executive arm so far ignores the Assembly. It isn't a big change but for israel it's in vaguely the right direction.
Then why does Kesher Talk spend so much time whining about other boycotts of Israel?
Not to be insensitive, but -- national culture?
I went to high school a couple of years with a guy from israel. He'd get into fights and whine afterward about how bad he got hurt even though the other guy got hurt a lot worse. It was just how he talked, he wasn't the least bit wimpy when it came to looking after himself.
"Sophia, it's hard to be sure what's good for israel. "
I can tell you what's bad: what is going on in Iraq right now.
"My own preference would be for the large majority of the israeli population to live somewhere else."
I'll let the wackos on this website deal with you.
"In the short run destroying the iraqi army was a small benefit to israel. We talked up what a very large army it was. Now it's a much smaller army with very little armor, no planes, no artillery, "
It was never a threat to Israel.
"In the old days Saddam talked against israel when he wanted public approval in iraq, but he didn't actually do much against israel"
He couldn't. Iraq was broke, backward and bankrupt.
"Then why does Kesher Talk spend so much time whining about other boycotts of Israel?
Not to be insensitive, but -- national culture?
I went to high school a couple of years with a guy from israel. He'd get into fights and whine afterward about how bad he got hurt even though the other guy got hurt a lot worse. It was just how he talked, he wasn't the least bit wimpy when it came to looking after himself."
Not insensitive, just totally anti-Semitic.
Asshole.
This is who supports this war.
Sophia, J, chill pills please.
Israel has the right to exist, and to embrace as many people as she wants.
Iraq not a threat? Get real. Saddam was reimbursing the families of "martyrs". How much might he have given a boatload of them with anthrax backbacks, do ya think?
In a nice world (not a perfect world) Saddam would have had to answer to an electorate who might (might) have said, "whoa, dude, that's a bit extreme". Instead, he fed those people to wood chippers.
Sophia, I'm all for letting Israel look after herself. But I do think you're wrong in your threat assessment, and I do think the US is following a policy in its own best interests, and by happy coincidence I think in the short, medium, and long run it works for Israel too.
But then, I'm a demon from the 9th level of hell, so what do I know?
Sad that you have a good point. I guess that's on the "Treaty of Westphalia dead? Faster, please!" side of the balance sheet. Too bad that we poor apes really do like big bounded tracts of land so much.
I do fear we are in for rougher Jeux sans Frontiers, 21st century style... [grimace] I just can't see why not. But then, I've been worried about an Iranian Bomb since about 1980.
Sophia,
Can you name the only non-bordering Arab nation to put armed forces into the field against Israel?
Iraq.
"Sophia, J, chill pills please."
Confine your comments to the issues. I'll say what I want how I want.
Or maybe I should say to you, "Brain pills, please."
"Israel has the right to exist, and to embrace as many people as she wants. Iraq not a threat? Get real. Saddam was reimbursing the families of "martyrs"."
I never said Saddam was a friend to Israel. I only said he was no strategic threat. Yes, he gave money to suicide bombers' families. But that's irrelevant to the core issues of terrorism against Israel; it was an after the fact epiphenomenon.
Learn to distinguish between CAUSES and EFFECTS.
"How much might he have given a boatload of them with anthrax backbacks, do ya think?"
Stop being a jerk; he had no such capabilities.
"In a nice world (not a perfect world) Saddam would have had to answer to an electorate who might (might) have said, "whoa, dude, that's a bit extreme". Instead, he fed those people to wood chippers."
Iraq now does have an electorate: it is made up of paranoid anti-Semites and fundamentalists.
All at a cost of more than $1 trillion USD.
Great job!
"Sophia, I'm all for letting Israel look after herself. But I do think you're wrong in your threat assessment, and I do think the US is following a policy in its own best interests, and by happy coincidence I think in the short, medium, and long run it works for Israel too."
I brought up the issue of Israel because that is the lurking premise to everything Yehudit writes.
Of course if the US wants to follow policies that benefit it, and do not benefit Israel, it has a right to. But I happen to think that the interests of both countries are roughly parallel, and that in this case destabilizing Iraq was a crazy course of action.
You have not offered one bit of evidence to support your allegations that this war benefits Israel. How on earth could the installation of an unstable government dominated by radical Shi'a benefit Israel?
Answer: it can't.
"But then, I'm a demon from the 9th level of hell, so what do I know?"
No, you are a jerk.
"Sophia,
Can you name the only non-bordering Arab nation to put armed forces into the field against Israel?
Iraq."
You are wrong: other Arab countries put armed forces into the field against Israel in '48, but so what? They got slaughtered. There is only one Arab force that ever got the better of Israel (I'm sure you know what that was), and it was not Iraq.
Iraqis who "went into the field" were dummies who were brainwashed by their incompetent, barking mad leaders. After you finish killing them, you have to pity them.
Like I pity you: brainwashed dopes.
Saddam was reimbursing the families of "martyrs".
This is gray propaganda. Saddam might have been supporting terrorists, but this isn't it.
Just as an academic exercise, look at the details.
Palestinians took up suicide bombing partly because they didn't dare get captured alive by the israelis. I claim that israeli torture wasn't primarily about getting information, it was primarily revenge. (If somebody wants to argue this I'm willing to give some arguments. Claims about why a third party does something are never definitive, though.) Suicide bombers actually felt like they were getting away with something to blow themselves up and deny israelis the chance to retaliate.
So the israeli government retaliated against their families. Imagine how that might go in the USA. Say your son or nephew shoots a policeman, so they come around with armored bulldozers and destroy your house. They confiscate your bank account and get you fired from your job. Once you're on the street they deny you welfare or unemployment benefits. Because of something somebody else did.
Various arabs have argued that this is unfair. They regard relatives of suicide bombers as victims of the israelis. Rightly, in my opinion. Saddam (and also the saudis, if I recall) sent money to israeli victims, and they'd send you money just as readily if you had a nephew who died bombing israel as they would if you were walking down the street when somebody else threw a rock at the IDF and you got your leg blown off. Fellow victims.
But the israeli government view was that if you blow yourself up to hurt israel and the israelis try to make your grandfather die of exposure or get your sister forced into prostitution, and then somebody tries to help your relatives, they're encouraging suicide bombing. They're paying suicide bombers to do their dirty work by paying their families.
It bothers me that this was the best we could do to accuse Saddam of encouraging terrorism. Surely we knew more about Saddam's connection to terrorists than this. Maybe the US government felt like people would believe this one so it was all they needed.
Yes, he gave money to suicide bombers' families. But that's irrelevant to the core issues of terrorism against Israel; it was an after the fact epiphenomenon.
Learn to distinguish between CAUSES and EFFECTS.
Sophia, your explanation here was admirably short. But I strongly doubt that many people here actually took it in.
In general, when you use phrases like "after the fact epiphenomenon" only the people who want to agree with you will bother to figure out what you mean. It bothers me when smart people fail to make their points. I fail so often to make mine.
But I happen to think that the interests of both countries are roughly parallel, and that in this case destabilizing Iraq was a crazy course of action.
I think that the interests of both countries are mostly not parallel at all -- or rather that the perceived interests of recent israeli governments have not at all matched up to US interests. But I tend to agree with you that the iraq mess is turning out not to be good for either one.
So far, we have Mark Poling who thinks that
US/israeli interests are parallel
US interests served by iraq
israeli interests served by iraq.
You think
US/israeli interests parallel
US interests hurt by iraq
israeli interests hurt by iraq.
I think
US/israeli interests not generally parallel
US interests hurt by iraq
israeli interests hurt by iraq.
That's 3 of the 8 possibilities. Maybe other posters will fill in the other 5. There's more diversity here than shows up at first.
J Thomas:
The Israel issue is in fact not the main issue. I only brought it up because the Winds of War crowd is obsessed with it.
It doesn't matter to me one way or another whether you think that Israel's interests are parallel to the US's, Warren Buffett still bought an Israeli company, and said that if there were any other such companies in Israel, "they can call me collect."
I don't read many blogs in general, warblogs less than others, because they make me sick, they are so stupid.
But I read a few warblogs around the time that Buffett bought that company and not one of them mentioned the deal.
They are too sunk in the fantasy that Israel is in mortal danger to comprehend the fact that it is way ahead of all of its neighbors in every way, shape and form.
As you are yourself, probably. America's interests are parallel to Israel's because they are similar countries: scientific, commercial, and based on rational ordering of production and human capital.
If you don't agree, too bad.
More great news....
"Men in black terrorise Iraq's women
Marie Colvin and Widiane Moussa
Western clothes are death sentence
NOOR and her boyfriend used to go out a lot and listen to dance in their favourite restaurant in Baghdad. The 26-year-old university lecturer also used to enjoy going window shopping at night in the city’s once-glitzy Mansour district, dressed in the latest fashions.
That was before the “men in black”, the Taliban-style militias waging terror against the urban middle class, arrived in Noor’s neighbourhood, threatening to shoot, kidnap and shave the heads of anyone who challenged their draconian strictures.
The militias are part of a hardline religious crackdown organised by Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. On Friday he released a four-hour sermon, effectively a message of hate, calling on Sunni Muslims to confront adherents of the rival Shi’ite branch of Islam.
Zarqawi, who appears to act with impunity in Iraq despite a £13m bounty on his head, has printed pamphlets that were delivered through doors in the Amariya district of Baghdad, one of his self-declared Sunni “emirates”. ""
Yada yada
What is your point?
Yada yada.
Yehudit and her defenders here are insane.
Really really insane.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2209866,00.html
"As you are yourself, probably. America's interests are parallel to Israel's because they are similar countries: scientific, commercial, and based on rational ordering of production and human capital."
I thought Marxism was all about the supremacy of science and the rational ordering of production and human capital.
Silly me.
Mark, are you against science or the rational ordering of production and human capital?
Just because the marxists said they wanted it doesn't mean they did it very well.
Come to think ofit, though, these were things the nazis were in favor of and that wasn't enough to put us on the same side. It doesn't have to be enough to put us on israel's side either.
I think Sophia's rant was just the long form of "it' all about the oooiiiillll!" argument against Administration policies.
Science: for. Rational ordering: against. Because anyone who actually gets sience enough to understand the basics of non-linear dynamics understands that rational ordering of a system of n indeterminately-linked elements is a fools' game.
That's why all forms of centralized social engineering are bad ju-ju. Not only is it de-humanizing, it doesn't work. (Now that would be an interesting way to critique the United States' Iraq policy.)
Sophia,
Your rants are mostly incoherent, but you are wrong about the Arab-Israeli conflicts, Iraq was the only non-bordering Arab nation to commit ground forces against Israel.
Mark, I see. Personally I think it's rational to build systems that do a whole lot of self-tuning, and then try to break the feedback loops that look particularly pathological. Sure, it doesn't make sense to try to do too much centralised social engineering. That wouldn't be rational.
I think we're probably agreed about the facts. I was just amused that you appeared to be in favor of irrational ordering of etc. It sounds like being against motherhood and apple pie. The nazis weren't exactly in favor of rationality in all contexts, but they were in some contexts, as were the soviets, the british, the americans etc. An argument against what the americans, british, germans and russians had in common would surely be an interesting one. ;)
"Iraq not a threat? Get real. Saddam was reimbursing the families of "martyrs"."
Plus - hello! SCUD missiles!
"They are too sunk in the fantasy that Israel is in mortal danger to comprehend the fact that it is way ahead of all of its neighbors in every way, shape and form."
Those two states are not mutually exclusive.
"Then why does Kesher Talk spend so much time whining about other boycotts of Israel?"
Because they all evince double standards, penalizing Israel for actions that other nations do much more of, or that Israel doesn't do at all. It's slander on a global scale. If you were subjected to that kind of treatment you would be "whining" too. Actually, you would be protesting and angry when everyone told you to shut up and stop whining.
J Thomas, I'm a Libertarian, not an Anarchist. Give me a State that protects me from outside threats and that doesn't limit the personal choices I can make and I'd be a blissful little monkey. Otherwise give me a State that does the best it can balancing those (sometimes contradictory) goals, and I'll just grumble a little.
I just find it vastly amusing when Transnational Progressives (into which category I think Sophia fits) start frothing about large faceless entities controlling all apects of our lives.
Hello? Isn't that what Scia1ism (cia"i"s is banned as spam -- funny) is all about? My problem with the TP crowd isn't that they're paranoid; instead I think they're not nearly paranoid enough.
As to science and politics, as a rule the two don't play nice together. (At least, that's the overwhelming impression I get.)
"I think Sophia's rant was just the long form of "it' all about the oooiiiillll!" argument against Administration policies."
Nice rant yourself.
Back to the subject matter, I want somebody to tell me how fundamentalist beasts hunting down women, shaving their heads and killing them has advanced the cause of Iraqi women.
Re: double standards.
It's Yehudit who evinces a double standard when she complains (perhaps a better word than "whines" because I'm on the same side as she is on that subject) about boycotts against Israel on the part of Brits & Canadians, but then excuses her pet Iraqi puppets when they partake of the same boycotts.
Sophia, I suppose they could just be shot in the back of the head and buried in mass graves.
At least those women had equality under the ground as well as equality under the law.
Back at'cha.