You Be The Judge

Still following the evolution of the Iraqi governing coalition. Today, I read a handful of reports, all published within an hour, from three different sources, with very different characteristics.

First the NYT reports:
Iraqi Factions Try to Undercut a Plan to Isolate Extremists 10:15 AM

The NYT tells us that:

Several Iraqi political groups on Thursday maneuvered to undercut an American-backed initiative that would create a multisectarian bloc intended to isolate extremists like the Shiite cleric and militia leader Moktada al-Sadr.

But, then they go on to tell us there's one group and how the rest of parliment will never be able to meet their new demands (not bothering to mention them). Oh, and the negotiations have stopped.

The report then goes on to tell us:

• SecDef Gates visited Iraq to discuss sending more troops.


• 38 bodies were found.


• Three bombs were set off.


• Saddam's trial was adjourned until Jan. 8.


• Sadr's maneuvering, has some control over Maliki, has paralyzed the gov't, and might rejoin the talks.


• Then back to Gates.


• Then back to more troops.


• Then a dig at the incompetent Iraqi troops.

Wow. That was a, confusing, mouthful. So, the point is, the NYT asserted that Iraqi Groups were undermining the talks and then didn't back it up. There's one group according to their own report.

And all of this is followed up with gloom and doom, talk of more US Troops, and incompetent Iraqi support.

Second, the BBC:
Iraq Shia press for Sadr return 10:12 AM

This reports describes attempts to convince Sadr to re-enter the political process during ongoing talks in Najaf with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most prominent Shia cleric in Iraq.

No mention of ongoing talks by the NYT eh?

Iraq tribes 'taking on al-Qaeda' 10:18 AM

The tribal chiefs in the Iraqi province of Anbar joined forces in September in an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda...

"We are fighting the terrorists because they have caused the violent chaos in the country, the instability. They are killing innocent Iraqis and killing anyone who wants freedom and peace in Iraq," he explained...

The sheikh said some of the al-Qaeda fighters and weapons came from neighbouring Arab countries, Syria and Saudi Arabia mainly, but some were from more distant Arab countries and from Afghanistan.

No mention of anything like this in that expansive NYT piece eh?

Third, and finally, the TimesOnline:
Shia leadership agrees deal over sectarian killers 11:12 AM

Two of the senior Shia political leaders in Iraq agreed in principle to crack down on death squads within their own ranks yesterday. The rival Shia factions struck the deal in an attempt to salvage the country from collapse, said Haidar al-Abadi, a Shia MP in the Dawa party, who is close to Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister...

Last night a delegation was on its way to the shrine city of Najaf intent on convincing the anti-Western cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the widespread killing of Sunnis, to join the crackdown. Officials close to Hojatoleslam al-Sadr said he had agreed to rejoin the Iraqi Government.

Although the two parties are agreed on the need for a crackdown, the accord could easily fall apart if Hojatoleslam al-Sadr cannot be persuaded to back it and if Sunni parties fail to take similar steps.

According to the TimesOnline, major Shia parties agree (sans al-Sadr), who agrees but will probably only play if the Sunnis do. No droning on about dooma and gloom. No hints at more troops, no digs at the poor, incapable Iraqi troops. The Times sticks to the story at hand.

Conclusion (or, Questions):
1) What's the political landscape in Iraq relative to the governing coalition?

While it's not crystal-clear, it seems fairly promising. Sure there's some posturing. The fundamental questions is, what will Sadr do?

2) Why the dramatic difference in reporting?

...

Related:
Groundwork
What Next?

Groundwork

Following up on What Next with regard to the groundwork being laid for the deployment of additional troops to Iraq: Has everyone (Iraqi politicians) signed onto "Bush's" plan for isolating extreme elements of the society?

Two articles today provide some insight:
New US defense chief weighs reinforcements on Iraq visit (AFP)
Top Shiite Cleric Is Said to Favor a Coalition for Iraq (NYT)

From AFP:

Hadi al-Ameri of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), described this idea as "madness".

"Any attempt to exclude Sadr's movement would be a strategic error," he warned. "How could you exclude the Sadr movement when the prime minister is working for national reconciliation?"

Instead, Shiite officials from the coalition parties said a delegation would meet Sadr and urge him to restate his support for the political process.

al-Sadr has paralyzed the government since Bush's meeting with al-Maliki in Jordan. Why would he rejoin the government now?

Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq sounds distinctly Iranian to me...which is a bit worrisome.

From NYT:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 19 —Iraq’s most venerated Shiite cleric has tentatively approved an American-backed coalition of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that aims to isolate extremists, particularly the powerful Shiite militia leader Moktada al-Sadr, Iraqi and Western officials say...

Mr. Maliki has expressed strong interest in the coalition but wants initially to welcome all political parties into its fold rather than to limit membership, Iraqi and Western officials say. That would provide additional political cover for any break with Mr. Sadr.

The prime minister’s [al-Maliki] proposal, Mr. Hamoudi said, "is to start with a very wide door and gradually close it."

So, while different groups publicly express strong support and some reservation for the coalition I see a lot of agreement here on specifics. Including, critically, the approach to dealing with al-Sadr. Invite him in, give him a chance...when he rejects it, which I assume he will (why shouldn't I?), the beefed up American force can finally confront his militia head on.

Is that what our troops are going to do?? If not, they shouldn't go.

Lost in Translation

hattip scrappleface

I'm not a religous person. Which is why I've had to read more than a handful of books to understand the motives of radical islamist terrorists. It's that partial understanding that makes this video so amusing.



Gateway Pundit is taking bets on which Democrats will be the first to agree with Zawahiri about the need for us to negotiate with his gang.

That's fairly incendiary. In defense, the jab is being made within the context of the ISG recommending that we negotiate with Iran and Syria (known to sponsor terrorists) and visits to Syria by legislators of a certain political party. The catch phrase being, "all through the Cold War we held talks with the Soviet Union". Well, to that I say, we all know, this isn't our daddy's Cold War. A message that seems to be increasingly lost in translation.

Nature

Some may wonder, why debate all the Shiite this and Sunni that? Why are we even there at this point? Why don't we just leave? There are many reasons, Maj. Ben Connable illustrates some of them for us in his NYT piece.

A War That Abhors a Vacuum

THE niceties are up for debate: phased or partial withdrawal from Iraq would entail pulling troops back to their bases across the country, or leapfrogging backward to the nearest international border, or redeploying to bases in nearby countries.

But whatever the final prescription, the debate must include a sober look at the street-level impact of withdrawal. What will become of Iraqi villages, towns and cities as we pull out? Although past is not necessarily prologue, recent experience in Anbar Province may be instructive...

Read the rest

What Next?

Well, the sineman would seem to be on vacation. He's placed a white board on his fence with some markers. Passers-by have written various foolish things on it. None of which are worthy of comment. And he hasn't posted on his blog in quite a while.

So, what next? Well, President Bush is talking of sending more troops to Iraq. The NYT tells us about it. Quotes some Generals advising caution and then describes the latest attack in Baghdad. I have to say, they do a rather poor job of framing the issue...

It's understood that the Iraqi capital is the focal point of the insurgency in Iraq. At this stage the Shiite militias have the Sunnis backed into a corner, and are holding the government hostage. That is, the al-Maliki government needs al-Sadr's votes to remain in power as Prime Minister and therefore, cannot act against him. Additionally, there's Al Qaeda. Some Sunni groups have thrown in with Al Qaeda as a means of survival, others for theological or political reasons. They're a minority, 25 of 31 Sunni tribes in Anbar province have signed a pact against Al Qaeda.

Still framing here...Bush isn't just "throwing" troops into this. He recently met with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, an Iraqi Shiite leader, and Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni vice president of Iraq. Now we're done framing.

Is President Bush building support for al-Maliki? Or, building support for his replacement? To coincide with the infusion of additional troops. Is it wise to stick with al-Maliki (as it seems to me that we will)? Why? Why not?

Of course, there's no word on what was actually discussed during the talks. Did both parties "sign on" to "the plan"? If we're talking of sending more troops one would have to think so.

With al-Sadr isolated, how will he react? Will he back down and opt for national reconciliation? Or, all out civil war? Is that why we're sending more troops? Are we assuming he'll opt for war?

If anybody would like to offer some ideas, feel free. Someone recently commented that I'm "opinionated". Well, ok, maybe. But I am respectful and do listen and believe it or not, I do consider other points of view. Sineman can vouch for me ;)

Sanity

Wow. Who knew International Law could actually be enforced?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16209844/

NEW YORK - Outgoing U.S. U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and former diplomats from Israel and Canada called on the United Nations on Thursday to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with inciting genocide.

Flying Pig Watch

Every once in a while something is written which is so contrary, profound, and truthful that, well, "bring out the pig!".

Astonishingly, it's from TIME. Lisa Beyer has confronted one of the major premises of the Iraq Study Group. It's one that I have a lot of trouble with as well. I understand the issue being addressed upsets people, and creates tension in the region but, in this case, I think it's being used as a carrot. Although, to quote Mark Steyn, I think it's being used in a rather vulgar way, to "f--k the Jews".

No sensible person is against peacemaking in the Holy Land. Applause and hopefulness would seem the reasonable reaction to the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the Bush Administration "act boldly" and "as soon as possible" to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. But as a front-row observer of similar efforts over the past 15 years, I could muster neither response. In lumping the Iraq mess in with the Palestinian problem--and suggesting the first could not be fixed unless the second was too--the Baker-Hamilton commission lent credibility to a corrosive myth: that the fundamental problem in the Arab world is the plight of the Palestinians.

Read it all.

Spinning Polls

Public optimism fades in Afghanistan

The poll was conducted by ABC and the BBC, and then "reported" by AP. I say "reported" because I don't believe the headline and subsequent "analysis" represents the situation comprehensively.

The number of people who think the country is on the right track has dropped 22 points — to 55 percent — in the last year...

OK, "on the right track" to what? What percentage of respondents were optimistic with regard to the question of getting on the right track?

Optimism had declined on a variety of fronts compared with a year earlier: a 17-point drop in the belief that security has improved since the Taliban was in charge of the country to 58 percent; a 13-point drop in the belief that life in Afghanistan will get better in the next year, to 54 percent; and a 15-point drop in the job approval rating of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to 68 percent.

That approval level would be welcomed by most politicians in the United States.

There are four elements in the two paragraphs cited above. First, a drop in the belief that security has improved. Fair enough, we're all aware of the increase in violence there. Were respondents confident in the government's and NATO's ability to clamp down on it? There's no information presented about population's prediction with regard to future events, only on past events and the present situation.

Second, a drop in the belief that life in Afghanistan will get better in a year. "Life"? For everyone? For the respondents family? For the respondent? Economic life? Social life? Quality of life? What factors are most important? But, at least this question deals with the future.

Third, the job approval of Hamid Karzai. Well, quite a number of factors affect that number as well all know.

Fourth, and finally, the gratuitous dig at western leaders by the anonymous authors.

Then we get to the zinger:

Most in Afghanistan still think the U.S.-led invasion five years ago had positive effects on their country. Almost nine in 10 call the invasion a good thing for their country. Three-fourths have a favorable opinion of the United States and almost nine in 10 prefer the current government to the Taliban.

Most in Afghanistan? Why don't they quantify that more precisely as they did with the previous questions? Because it doesn't fit with the headline??

With the rest though, they completely miss the larger point. For example, Three-fourths [are willing to admit to a stranger that they] have a favorable opinion of the United States and almost nine in 10 prefer the current government to the Taliban [without fear of reprisal].

No reason for optimism there.

EDIT: 12/19/2006 Gateway Pundit is writing about a newer poll in Afghanistan.

Isolating al-Sadr

Last night my wife and I were talking about Iraq and why al-Sadr was such an important person. His armed force aside, he's in control of 30 seats in parliment. The Prime Minister (to date) has relied on his support to stay in power and keep the government together.

So, I suggested that, given the ISG's dismissal of partitioning Iraq, perhaps the purpose of president Bush's meetings with Shia and Sunni leaders from Iraq was to build support for Maliki to a point at which he would no longer have a need for al-Sadr's votes. Originally I thought maybe they would be discussing partition or a conference as I describe here.

The NYT is reporting that the talks with Bush were part of an effort intended to build a coalition to isolate al-Sadr.

Assuming the effort meets with success. Once al-Sadr is politically isolated one would presume that he would "sue for terms" by joining the reconciliation effort and play to the part or, lash out.

With our planning to send more troops to Baghdad...what do you think commanders on the ground anticipate?

Reuters is on the ball

You know how important it is to frame people in the proper perspective right?

Insurgent vs. Terrorist?
Academic vs. Racist?

Iran opens conference questioning the Holocaust

Among the participants was U.S. academic David Duke, a former Louisiana Republican Representative. He praised Iran for hosting the event.

Four hours later, the same "reporter" "published" an updated "article", with a new title, Iran meeting questions Holocaust and gas chambers. The paragraph I cite above is, strangely, missing.

Ya'think there might be some shortcomings in the "process" over there at Reuters?

Apparently, there's also something behind the charaterization of the Jewish Rabbis in attendance. Although I admit to having no first-hand knowledge on the subject. Reuters: David Duke a "US Academic" (LGF)

These so-called "Jewish rabbis" that Reuters casually drops into the article are in actuality members of Neturei Karta—an insane sect with a tiny membership that makes a practice of supporting evil around the world. Sort of the Jewish equivalent of Fred Phelps and his sick bunch. But to Reuters they’re just like any other "Jewish rabbis."

Interestingly, this paragraph is also missing from the second "article" "authored" by the esteemed "journalist".

Resisting Israeli Occupation?

This is what you get when you legitimize armed religous zealots with moral equivelance and pandering.

Children of Islamic Hamas opponent killed (TimesOnline)

But the Times puts a funny slant on it.

In a disturbing sign of wider regional tensions leaking into the Palestinian arena Fatah sought to portray the Iranian-funded Hamas as stooges of Shia Tehran, killing their fellow Sunni Palestinians.

They ignore the 1400 year old divide within Islam. Dismiss the possibility that Iran uses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as political cover for a policy seeking hegemony over the greater Middle East. Instead adopt the recently-made-trendy stance of attributing the violence, in part, to Iraq.

Wait, I thought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the cause of all violence in the Middle East...now it's the other way around?? (hat tip: ISG) hmm...

Turns out, the BBC may have more of the real story.

Mr Balousheh [the children's father] is considered a leading enemy of Hamas. He was the main interrogator of Hamas members during the 1990s crackdown on the Islamist movement.

And there's the ongoing evolution of "democracy":

Mr Abbas has been considering a request by his allies to hold early elections to resolve an impasse in efforts to form a unity government.
Hamas denounced the proposal to hold another election as a "coup against democracy".

In any event, I doubt this was a botched assassination attempt. More likely, revenge.

Now, how has the international community reacted? The UN? Kofi Annan? Well, he was busy (Annan chides U.S. in farewell speech).

EDIT: Gates of Vienna has a similar view:

The initial news reports claimed that Mr. Balousheh was the supposed target of the killing. However, Carl in Jerusalem puts it in even starker terms: “I believe that they were trying to get the kids as a warning to the father and to other Fatah members.”

In other words, they knew the father wasn’t in the car; instead, the targeting of the children was a message to him. And the fact that the message was delivered in a font called Overkill, in a street full of other children, didn’t matter at all. What was important was to deliver the message.

In addition to that, a tidbit, if you could call it that, on politicians from a certain party meeting with HAMAS members. sigh.

Cartoons and Conferences

In a partial response to the Danish Muhammad cartoons Iran hosted a gallery of cartoons from around the world back in August. (BBC)

Organiser Masoud Shojai said: "You see they allow the Prophet to be insulted. But when we talk about the Holocaust, they consider it so holy that they punish people for questioning it."

No mention of the lack of violent protests and out-right murder in response to the anti-semitic cartoons.

So, that wasn't good enough. Didn't provoke enough of a reaction among the infidels. Thus, Iran is hosting a two-day conference which is likely to question whether the Holocaust actually happened. (BBC)

"The first question to be posed is: did the Holocaust actually happen or not? And the second one is: if it did happen, what was the scale of it?"

"The allegation that six million Jews were killed or burnt in this event, is it true or not?"

You know, so what if it didn't. How does that affect anything? Oh, nevermind, I get it, "6 million of you didn't die 60 years ago so, we're going to kill 7 million of you now."

Here's to negotiating with genocidal maniacs.

Mark Steyn on the ISG

The Iraq Study Group report has certainly caused a lot of controversy of late. I actually think it's a faily decent way of airing policy debate in public. Sadly, it's by so shamelessly over-hyped by the media and mischaracterized that it's essentially a wash.

You've heard the press say it's a damning critique of the president's policy. But, have you heard this?

We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the
President: an Iraq that can "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend
itself."

ISG, Pg 40

I'm a fan of Mark Steyn's writing. I recently read this latest book America Alone. I don't always agree with everything he says. But often I find something that seems a bit too far out there...something that seems like pure hyperbole...only to find out later that he was, in fact, using someone elses words or, entirely correct or, indeed sometimes, wrong.

Nevertheless, you have to admire his writing:

Well, it seems Iraq is to come under something called the "Iraq International Support Group." If only Neville Chamberlain had thought to propose a "support group" for Czechoslovakia, he might still be in office. Or guest-hosting for Oprah.

Read it all.

more dead horses

I lied earlier, I really do love beating dead horses, muwahaha...

Cherry-Picking Campaign Promises (NYT)

...Democrats eagerly made a campaign vow to promptly enact all of the [9/11] panel’s recommendations...Now that they can taste power again, however, the victors seem to be having second thoughts...Surely, the leaders of the new Congress know they will be risking the nation’s security, far more than their credibility, if they retreat from the vow to do a stronger job of oversight.

Emphasis Mine. And rightly so.

Buried in the Rubble

During the summer (of 2006) we all witnessed the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. There were many aspects of events which were covered by news media and, among the most prominent was the plight of Lebanese civilians. Qana being the epitome.

In my opinion, one side of the argument sought to appeal to emotion. Citing pictures of dead children as proof of Israeli imcompetence or even malice. Indeed the pictures represented tragic events.

Months later, after extensive research, we can see, clearly, the acts which resulted in Qana and countless other tragic events.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html

I stand by my position on this. All conflict is to be avoided. All conflict is terrible. Nevertheless, there is a meaningful difference between people who, during conflict, act to prevent and minimize civilian casualties, and those who intentionally expose civilians to harm. Even the authors of the Geneva Conventions recognized this...in spirit and letter.

Of course, there are other opinions. Those who adhere to that opinion often cite Qana as a specific case of a systemic failure of that logic. To them, I say, there is an alter-narrative which you should consider: The Corruption of the Media

How Little We All Know Cont'd

Given that it's Sunday, the day of seemingly endless talking heads and expert analysis in all forms of media...and in keeping with the theme of a few previous posts:

Say no to AP’s shoddy work

Curt at Floppingaces, www.floppingaces2.blogspot.com, led the charge. He thought there was something strange about an AP report, and took a second look at it, then a third look. He and others blew the lid off it. The AP is making up war crimes.

And further still:

The AP has another Iraqi stringer problem. Photographer Bilal Hussein is in U.S. custody, and the AP has been clamoring indignantly for his release. AP reports have buried the U.S. explanation that Hussein is being held without charge because - quite aside from producing photos that showed him to be overly intimate with terrorists in Fallujah - he was in an al-Qaeda bomb factory, with an al-Qaeda bombmaker, with traces of explosives on his person when he was arrested.

Stunningly, some in academia are alerted to certain trends as well. Communication professor examines media bias in president's speeches:

Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers strongly illustrates in eight chapters "how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror."

...

Kuypers, of Christiansburg, Va., received his Ph.D from Louisiana State University and both his bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from Florida State. He joined Virginia Tech's Department of Communication last year after having taught political communication for tens years at Dartmouth College.

How can the population understand the tactics, strategy, and even the existance of an ideological opponent in this environment?

Previous Posts:
More Evidence of how Little We All Know
Do any of us really know the truth (Pt II)?
Do any of us really know the truth?

Rebirth: A Constructive Idea

On August 15, 2006 in a post titled A Constructive Idea I cited the Dayton Accords as an example of ethnic conflict, resulting from the downfall of a dictatorial regime, being solved with reasonable success.

Today, the NYT released a memo from Donald Rumsfeld, dated November 6, 2006, outlining potential changes to current policy in Iraq. (article, text of memo)

The memo contains a number of options which, under any circumstances, we must adopt. For example,

Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq...

Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.

Last, and considered 'below the line' or, less attractive, he says "Try a Dayton-like process".

I would note that President Bush met with the Iraqi Prime Minister and Jordanian King this week. Next week, Pres. Bush is meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a Shiite leader. In that piece, it's reported that:

Next month, President Bush is scheduled to meet with Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni Arab vice president and leader of the most powerful Sunni Arab party, a senior administration official said.

The last piece, the Kurds, are not directly involved in the sectarian violence in Iraq. Their part of the country has been and continues to be relatively peaceful. One would presume they would attend any conference with a simple request. However, we should not presume. We should treat them as an equal party in any talks.

Are we building up to a conference of Iraqi leaders? Dayton like? Or, is the President trying to do it 'on the fly'...shuttling messages back and forth between parties? Time will tell. Surely it would be a good step to get Sunni and Shiite leaders in the same room. With a common goal.

Irony of Tolerance

Isn't it ironic that after hundreds of years of struggling against various forms of prejudice under the banners of human rights, civil rights, tolerance, desegregation, women's suffrage, etc, etc multi-culturalism brings us full circle: The end of one law for all? (BBC)

Of course, in new age speak it's called, legal pluralism, not segregation. And true, it has differences. It's not a case of a group of people having "box" drawn around them by others based on the color of their skin. It's a case of a group of people drawing a box around everyone else due to their lack of proper religious values.

Supporters of the extra-judicial systems insist their courts will not delve into criminal mattes. But, precedent is clear. Islam and Sharia must govern all forms of life: domestic, financial, commercial, international, criminal, etc...to comprimise would be to stray from the path. Apostate.

What will be the effect on a society that allows multiple judicial systems to "coexsist"?

Moderate Majority

The Moderate Majority, silenced by the radical minority.

In late October Jamal Miftah wrote:

Because of lack of knowledge of Islam, Muslim youth are misguided into believing by the so-called champions of the cause of Islam that the current spate of killings and barbarism, which has no equal in the recent civilized history, is jihad in the name of Islam. They are incited, in the name of Islam, to commit heinous crimes not pardonable by any religion and strictly forbidden in Islam....
Even mosques and Islamic institutions in the U.S. and around the world have become tools in [Al-Qaeda's] hands and are used for collecting funds for their criminal acts. Half of the funds collected go into the pockets of their local agents and the rest are sent to these thugs.

They are the reason for branding the peaceful religion of Islam as terrorism. The result, therefore, is in the form of Danish cartoons and remarks/reference by the Pope.

I appeal to the Muslim youth in particular and Muslims of the world in general to rise up and start jihad against the killers of humanity and help the civilized world to bring these culprits to justice and prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression.

I appeal to the Muslim clerics around the world that, rather than issuing empty fatwas condemning suicide bombing, they should issue a fatwa for the death of such scoundrels and barbarians who have taken more than 4,267 lives of innocent people in the name of Islam and have carried out more than 24 terrorist attacks on civilian installations throughout the world. This does not include the chilling number of deaths because of such activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is well over 250,000.

I appeal to al-Zawahri and his band of thugs to hand themselves over to justice and stop spreading evil and killing innocent humans around the world in the name of Islam. Their time is limited and Muslims of the world will soon rise against them to apprehend them and bring them to justice

He was then banned from his mosque.

Some 80% of mosques in the US are Wahhabi. http://www.pbs.org...wahhabism.html

A strict, conservative form of Islam that came to power in Saudi Arabia after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (The Caliphate) at the end of WWI. It has grown in influence since then through the use of petro-dollars to fund schools and mosques around the world. It traces its origins to the times of the crusades...a theological rationalization for the military defeats suffered at the hands of the infidel crusaders the wahhabis reasoned that they weren't good enough Muslims...that's why Allah had denied them victory over the invading infidels.

As of today, he has been allowed to return to the mosque. If I were him, I'm not sure I'd go.

dead horses

As much as I despise the beating of dead horses, I'm about to engage it a bit of it.

Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies.

As I recall, Nancy Pelosi beat the drum about the 9/11 Commission repeatedly. Oh look, Sister Toldjah has, in fact, documented this: Promises made, promises broken

Not to mention the corruption issue and the complete lack of understand of Iraq and terrorism which I hint at in my previous post: for all his faults

I saw the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations as a real positive of the Democrat take-over of Congress. Now, I'm having a hard time finding any positives.

for all his faults

For all President Bush's faults, at least he knows who the bad guys are.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Wednesday that she feels it is "sad" that President Bush continues to blame Iraqi insurgent violence on al Qaeda.

"My thoughts on the president's representations are well-known," Pelosi said. "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again."

Somebody please tell me where the 9/11 Commission discussed the issue of Al Qaeda inciting sectarian violence in post-war Iraq. Thought so. Tell me again why this lady should influence the national dialogue? agenda?

Oh, and to address the substance of Pelosi's assertion: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29434212.htm

DUBAI, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Iraq's al Qaeda wing on Wednesday condemned Pope Benedict's visit to Turkey as part of a crusade against Islam...

Make a sentence with these words: Denial, River, Egypt.

So, take this, add it to my previos post, the Murtha fiasco, the Hastings debacle...and you know why I find it so hard to vote for most democrats.

Friends, Not

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28diplo.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — As President Bush and his top diplomats try to halt the downward spiral in Iraq and Lebanon, they seem intent on their strategy of talking only to Arab friends, despite increasing calls inside and outside the administration for them to reach out to Iran and Syria as well.

And with good reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28military.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.

The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

People need to understand that Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, are not "our friends". The countries do not work with us to achieve mutual interests. They work against us to achieve their own interests. What are our interests? Peace, stability, generally representative goverments, each of these has an economic strain as well. What are Iranian interests? Nuclear Weapons, eliminating the Zionist Entity, regional hegemony, theocracy.

Treachery at the NYT

A little background: German American Bund

Wow. Would Americans have stood for this in 1939:

Times reporters tip off Bund

Two NYT reporters alerted members of the German-American Bund to an imminent FBI raid placing officers at risk and marginalizing the effect of the raid from the perspective of law enforcement. Additionally, the NYT is refusing to release records of communication between its reporters and Bund members and taking its case to the Supreme Court.

No? Then why do we put up with it now?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006425.htm
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/047951.php
http://wizbangblog.com...new-york-times.php

Timing is everything. This happened Dec. 14 2001. Just 3 months after 9/11.

French Hypocrisy

French troops in Lebanon authorized to engage Israeli flyovers (but not to stop arms shipments to Hezbollah).

In other news, anti-semitic race riot after a soccer match in France leaves one dead and one seriously wounded.

What else can I say?

Syrian Influence

Is this what Syrian contributions to Iraqi peace and democracy will look like?

Lebanese Minister for Industry Assassinated

And here's a bonus lesson in media literacy folks: Compare my title (Lebanese Minister for Industry Assassinated) to the BBC's (Lebanese Christian leader killed).

In the larger picture, I wonder if today's killing is related to this?
Hezbollah urges mass protests in Lebanon Here are some highlight from the piece:

Hezbollah's leader urged his followers to prepare for mass demonstrations to topple the government...We do not want riots...Shortly after Nasrallah's speech was broadcast, the sounds of gunfire and fireworks reverberated across Beirut's predominantly Shiite southern suburbs...

"Fireworks" eh? Sort of like, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...one man's RPG is another man's firecracker?

Terror Plot Foiled

Apparently, a terrorist plot involving an El Al flight out of Germany was foiled recently. In the ultra-short BBC report on this there's no mention of who might have been involved.

Come to find out, they were Jordanians, from "Palestine", and from other Arab states.

Why would they choose to act in Germany? Is there any history there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre

How about:

• offering "unlimited sums of money to release the hostages"


• failed rescue attempts


• releasing captured perpetrators as a direct result of subsequent terrorist activity

Reason enough?

Reading: An Essential Skill

On a recent business trip I was able to do some reading.

America's Secret War by George Friedman, the CEO of StratFor is an interesting read. The book presents a big picture view of the war on terror (yes, which includes Iraq) and the interplay between the US, its allies, and 'others'.

America Alone by Mark Steyn is not for the weak-minded. One would hope his predictions will not come to pass but, the constant barrage of news from around the world is not encouraging.

And I've nearly finished State of Denial by Bob Woodward. I haven't really come to many conclusions about what's presented in this book yet. It's necessarily a bit dry but, worth reading.

Digging for a Plan

I went digging around for specifics on 'a plan' for dealing with Iraq from a leading Democrat other than stay the course or cut-and-run. I found one in a transcript from NewsHour:

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president said today also he wanted to work in a bipartisan way on Iraq. But then he repeatedly defined the goal as "victory." And he said at one point, you know, speaking of the troops, "I want them home, too, but I want them home in victory, not leaving behind an Iraq that's a safe haven for al-Qaida." And he said repeatedly that victory was leaving an Iraq that was self-sustaining and could defend itself.

Now, can Democrats work with him and embrace that as the goal?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region.

So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.

The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

Sigh. So, apparently, according to Iraqis and others in the region, our being in Iraq is not making America safer. Is that credible?

We are not bringing stability to the region. If preventing a democratically elected government from falling prey to Al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias isn't in the aid of stability I don't know what is.

She wants us to redeploy outside of Iraq. I'm sorry but, that's newspeak for withdraw.

Redeploy outside of Iraq. At the same time disarm the militias. Boys and girls, we're leaving now, as we do, would you please pass your guns and IEDs to the left and front of the class? Thank you kids, yes, that's very good...Good luck with that.

And this part: The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

What does he mean? He's said it repeatedly and it was given to you as background as part of this question. And by the way, victory is *not* subjective. Last time I checked, Madame Pelosi is an elected representative in the US House of Representatives. She took an Oath of Office. Perhaps she needs a refresher?

Setting the Stage

We've cleaned House (so to speak). Now, let's set the stage:

There have been no domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Unemployment is currently 4.4% including gains of 92,000 jobs in October, 148,000 jobs in September, and 230,000 jobs in August. (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Dow Jones: 12,176.54 (+19.77), NASDAQ 2,384.94 (+9.06), S&P 500 1,385.72 (+2.88)
A barrel of oil: $59.83 (+0.90)
A gallon of gas in the USA: $2.21
A gallon of gas in NY State: $2.37

Iraq is a mess. Al Qaeda is in Iraq, attempting to de-stabilize the government. Saddam has been convicted of crimes against humanity and Iran is acting through Shite militias to de-stabilize the government.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is offering to hold talks with Taliban leaders. And members of the same Taliban/Al-Qaeda alliance are threatening the Pakistani government on a nearly daily basis and on some days, killing dozens.

Al Qaeda activity in both of these regions is in following with their agenda of overthrowing non-Islamic Regimes in Muslim majority nations as part of an effort to bring about the formation of 'The Caliphate'. A state ruled by Sharia Law. (CS Monitor, Daniel Pipes)

EDIT: Forgot one thing: From AP via Yahoo, Hamas is now calling on Muslims to attack Americans.

What will a post a year from now look like?

More Fantastic Insight

More fantastic insight into the situation in Iraq that you won't see on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, or the sineman. http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/11/inside_iraq.php

Certainly Iraq is at a critical juncture in its development as a new and independent state. Sunni insurgents are unwilling to consider reconciliation as long as it appears Sadr's death squads will not be addressed by the central government. Maliki is hedging his bets as long as it appear the U.S. may withdraw forces. The much anticipated Baker report on the recommendations for the course on Iraq will be released in the near future. The impression of the report is the U.S. will leave the country to the predations of al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads. Iran and Sadr will push the limits as long as the U.S. appears weak and at the mercy of a fickle electorate. Al-Qaeda and Sadr watch the polls and read the Western media, and ratchet up the violence as election season nears. We have captured al-Qaeda documents that prove this.

Everyone should read it all.

Gates of Vienna: The True Believers

I will freely admit to falling into the category of conservative atheist as stated in this piece...which I found to be a great read not only because of how much of it rang true to me but, because of how much I had to research before I could truely appreciate it.

Gates of Vienna: The True Believers

Blame Misses the Mark

The Sineman's latest sign:



The Sineman's latest post: http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/10/blaming-iraqis.html

It is not wrong to ask Iraqi security forces to establish and maintain law and order in their country. Admitting shortcomings in that effort is not blaming them, it's...admitting shortcomings.

The fact of the matter is that the conflict in Iraq is the central front in two, yes two, struggles at the moment. The sineman hints at this but doesn't elaborate:

...should we simply leave, there will likely be a power struggle that will likely not be smooth. As a starter, the United States should flatly and unequivocally state that we will not maintain a physical presence in Iraq or in the Middle East for that matter. We are the cause celebre. We create the purpose for the terrorism there. Why can’t we absorb that reality? We need a strategy that draws upon the neighboring states and international bodies that will have respect there.

First, Iraqi and US forces are confronting violence perpetrated largely by Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr is a puppet of Iran. He uses his militia to incite sectarian violence to further Iran's agenda of destabilizing Iraq. Iran does not want a stable, democratic Iraq, friendly to the West, on its border.

A complicating factor is that Sadr is a major player in the Iraqi government. He claims that the groups causing the violence in Iraq are "rogue elements" but, he doesn't disavow them, he doesn't reign them in, he doesn't identify them. US forces cannot be seen "going after" him in an aggressive way as it would appear too heavy-handed and Imperialistic on our part. Instead, we are tying to use some finesse to, at a minumum, create the perception that Iraqis are taking control of the country and we are merely supporting them.

We seem to be doing this with some success in Pakistan lately:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/south_asia/6097636.stm

While the Pakistanis are taking credit for this strike, the question arises as to whether this may have been conducted by Task Force 145, the U.S. special operations terrorist hunter-killer teams. Task Force 145 was responsible for the April raid in Danda Saidgai on the al-Qaeda's training camp for Osama bin Laden's Black Guard, his elite praetorian guard. Pakistan initially took credit for the Danda Saidgai strikes, but the Washington Post later revealed this was indeed a U.S. mission. Dawn notes the raid occurred “at around 5:00 am,” which means it was conducted in the dark. Pakistani helicopter pilots would need night training in flight and targeting.

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/10/airstrikes_in_bajaur.php

Despite earlier reports that the missiles had been launched by Pakistani military helicopters, Pakistani intelligence sources now tell ABC News that the missiles were fired from a U.S. Predator drone plane.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/zawahiri_was_ta.html

So you see, in spite of the publicly declared Pakistani position that US forces will not operate inside Pakistan...they seem to be doing just that in such a way as not to get too much of a rise out of the Pakistani population.

Second, it's plain that Al Qaeda has as a major goal, the use of a lawless state in the middle east as a base of operations and a training ground and lauching pad for future attacks. They are pursuing this in Iraq. If US forces "withdraw" from Iraq or the entire middle east (gasp)...exactly how would we prevent this?

We cannot rely on other nations or inept International Organizations to provide our nation's defence.

Lancet Revisited

The sineman had a sign up regarding the Lancet study on Iraqi deaths a couple of weeks ago. Today he posted it online.



While it's true that President Bush disputed the study's findings, he was not the only person to do so. After the study was released I expected the sineman to write about this and so I "presponded" after doing a tad of research.

Since that time, further discussion has taken place and other people and insitutions have weighed in. BBC, Huge gaps between Iraq death estimates. BBC, Lancet Iraq survey methodology under fire. Iraq Body Count, Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates.

I'm sure the sineman was, perhaps until now, a fan of the IBC group. Their analysis is perhaps the most interesting:

If they were true, they would need to be the result of a combination of the following factors:

• incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;


• bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;


• the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;


• an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

Followed by this sober paragraph:

We would hope that, before accepting such extreme notions, serious consideration is given to the possibility that the population estimates derived from the Lancet study are flawed. The most likely source of such a flaw is some bias in the sampling methodology such that violent deaths were vastly over-represented in the sample. The precise potential nature of such bias is not clear at this point (it could, for example, involve problems in the application of a statistical method originally designed for studying the spread of disease in a population to direct and ongoing violence-related phenomena). But to dismiss the possibility of such bias out of hand is surely both irresponsible and unwise.

A question sineman's readers should be asking themselves at this point is: Why doesn't he present any of this information?

Gateway Pundit: Time Traveling With Today's Democratic Party

I like this guy's style: Gateway Pundit: Time Traveling With Today's Democratic Party

Related posts:
Were They Safe Then

3 Pronged Attack

Today I read three very interesting opinion pieces in three different newspapers. The subject of each piece was the upcoming mid-term election.

First, the Ithaca Journal:

Here is something to think about and give some serious thought! If the terrorists were allowed to vote in the U.S.A, who do you think they would vote for, Republicans or Democrats?

Robert H. Gessner
Trumansburg

Second, the New York Times:

A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book "Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner," Al Qaeda's most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. "Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a Muslim authority, established on a Muslim land," he wrote. "Without achieving this goal our actions will mean nothing." Such a jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West...

...Another problem with a total American withdrawal is that it would fit all too neatly into Osama bin Laden's master narrative about American foreign policy. His theme is that America is a paper tiger that cannot tolerate body bags coming home; to back it up, he cites President Ronald Reagan's 1984 withdrawal of United States troops from Lebanon and President Bill Clinton’s decision nearly a decade later to pull troops from Somalia. A unilateral pullout from Iraq would only confirm this analysis of American weakness among his jihadist allies.

Third, The Washington Times:

If Americans vote for what sounds like sweet reason from the Democrats, bin Laden and company will rejoice. What they will hear is the death knell for any prospect of effective U.S. military resistance to militant Islam. With the Republicans out, the Islamists will be confident that Democrats will deliver the best of both worlds: less emphasis on military force and a rigid maintenance of U.S. foreign policies that are hated with passion and near-unanimity by 1.3 billion Muslims. If Osama approved of music, he would be whistling "Happy Days Are Here Again!"

The first piece is remarkable for the fact that it was published at all in my opinion. I'm stunned that the journal put it in their paper. Or, maybe impressed is a better word? Either way, kudos to Robert!

The second two pieces are remarkable, in my opinion, because of who wrote them. Peter Bergen is CNN's Terrorism Correspondent. I believe he actually interviewed Bin Laden...anyway, I wonder how his career at CNN is going nowadays? I actually haven't seen him on air in a while. Michael Scheuer is a former CIA official. He actually created the Bin Laden unit. He is no fan of Republican or Bush administration strategies or tactics. He wrote a rather controversial book, Imperial Hubris, which is critical of both on several key issues.

The underlying theme in each of these letters, I believe, is that when we confront Radical Islam on the battlefield, we cannot yield.

Developments in Europe

Continuing my theme from a couple of posts ago (More Like France), a couple of new and interesting pieces have come out of European press recently. Neither of these items have received substantial coverage in American media.

First, courtesy LGF, French "Youth": Elect Sarkozy and People Will Die

"Sarko is the provocative element," said Kiko. "And if he is elected next year I warn you: people will be killed."

Nicolas Sarkozy (Sarko), a minister in the current goverment, is planning on running for President. The major issue in his campaign is law and order.

Second, via BBC, France in Rawanda Genocide Probe. To be clear, France is not investigating the genocide in Rawanda. France is being investigated for the role its troops may have played in the genocide.

EU Referendum has some fascinating commentary and a very interesting picture.

Given that the continuous and expanding threads of evidence point to France as a country that has, from Vietnam through Algeria and a succession of African colonies up to and including the Ivory Coast, exercised a wholly malign influence, we really do have to ask ourselves whether this is a country with which we can afford to be associated.

For so long we have heard all manner of jibes and accusations against the United States but, if we are to choose between allies, the murderous history of the French would seem to make them a very poor second-best.

Sadr driving violence in Iraq

Very intelligent, non-political, coverage of Iraq (and other global hot spots) can be found here: The Fourth Rail. His latest post is about Sadr and his latest activity...

Sadr continues to maintain he is against the sectarian violence, and the media has been complicit in providing him cover by claiming the violence conducted by the Mahdi Army is due to rogue elements outside his control...

His followers are complicit in numerous incidents of sectarian murders,and yet Sadr has yet to denounce a single incident. As we noted on October 20th, "He has not identified these out of control militias, closed offices or denounced them specifically. Sadr is playing a double game of maintaining his militia against the law while pretending to be a responsible member of government."

When reading this article and considering events you should keep in mind that Sadr is at least supported by Iran. It would be guesswork on my part to discuss the degree to which he was directly controlled from Iran but, recall the Cox and Forkum cartoon on the subject...

More Like France

We should be more like the Europeans I hear people say frequently. France is often cited as an example of a progressive nation, with reasonable policies, well respected, blah blah blah.

Interesting to compare casualty figures from Iraq vs. those of the French Police:



3,000 police officers wounded (so far). Apparently an average of 112 cars burned per day. Quite a set of policies they have at work 'over there'.

http://news.yahoo...france_suburban_violence_4

EPINAY-SUR-SEINE, France - On a routine call, three unwitting police officers fell into a trap. A car darted out to block their path, and dozens of hooded youths surged out of the darkness to attack them with stones, bats and tear gas before fleeing. One officer was hospitalized.

The recent ambush was emblematic of what some officers say has become a near-perpetual and increasingly violent conflict between police and gangs in tough, largely immigrant French neighborhoods that were the scene of a three-week paroxysm of rioting last year.

One small police union claims officers are facing a "permanent intifada." Police injuries have risen in the year since the wave of violence.

National police reported 2,458 cases of violence against officers in the first six months of the year, on pace to top the 4,246 cases recorded for all of 2005 and the 3,842 in 2004. Firefighters and rescue workers have also been targeted — and some now receive police escorts in such areas.

On Sunday, a band of about 30 youths, some wearing masks, forced passengers out of a bus in a southern Paris suburb in broad daylight Sunday, set it on fire, then stoned firefighters who came to the rescue, police said. No one was injured. Two people were arrested, one of them a 13-year-old, according to LCI television.

More broadly, worsening violence in France testifies to Europe's growing struggle to integrate its ethnic minorities. Some mainstream European politicians - adopting positions previously confined largely to far-right fringes - are suggesting that the minorities themselves are not doing enough to adapt to European mores.

Bill Clinton on "Torture"

This is very interesting for a couple of reasons. Most of all, for how little attention the comments received.

From a NY Sun article by Alan Dershowitz titled "Clinton and I":

Mr. Clinton was asked, as someone "who's been there," whether the president needs "the option of authorizing torture in an extreme case."

Look, if the president needed an option, there's all sorts of things they can do.Let's take the best case, OK.You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or water-boarding him or otherwise working him over. If they really believed that that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternate proposal.

We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture.They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

This is basically what I wrote here on Sept 17th. In just about every respect.

I'm not trying to toot my horn. I'm trying to highlight two things: 1) the validity of my idea 2) the potential for agreement between two people of different political underpinings on important issues.

Three Videos

This is really a bit twisted (hat tip: The Coalition of the Swilling)

First, from the BBC, an interview with a teaching assistant who was placed on leave for refusing to remove her veil at school. Watch the entire interview, you'll see that she's really nothing but a trouble-maker.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...asx (Windows Media)

Terrorism has no religion

This group has apparently managed to get these ads on air in the middle east. It's unclear who's behind them. Hopefully, our government is and it's only the beginning. (hat tip: LFG)

• Suicidal Terror: http://www.noterror.info/STL-High.wmv (11+ MB, Windows Media)


• Routine: http://www.noterror.info/Routine-45sec-High.wmv (8+ MB, Windows Media)

Check out the entire website here: http://www.noterror.info

Newsweek Hatchet-job

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239205/site/newsweek

In this Newsweek article by Lisa Miller And Matthew Philips the issue of a new, greater Caliphate, or Islamic State, gets a perfect whitewash and Pres. Bush gets a dose of moral equivalency via OBL.

Is there any bias in the article? Well, try the first sentence:

When President George W. Bush starts using fifty-cent words in press conferences, one has to wonder why, and on Wednesday, during his Rose Garden appearance, he used the word "caliphate" four times.

A fifty cent word? Four times? Something is definitely afoot. In the same opening paragraph, we get the whitewash:

Caliphate? Really? Many people live long, fruitful lives without once using the word caliphate. Almost no one, with the exception of our president and some of his advisers, uses it as a pejorative.

Pejorative? Wow. A seventy five cent word? But, only used once...

The article continues on and the authors explain how nobody knows what a caliphate is. So, they look up "caliph" not "caliphate" in an online dictionary..."blah blah blah" and proceed to equate Pres. Bush with OBL:

Bush isn't the first person in recent history to appropriate the word caliphate and use it as a weapon. Osama bin Laden did it himself, most notably three years ago...

The esteemed authors never bother to say exactly what the caliphate is. Some [high school level] research on Wikipedia yields the following:

• Caliphate:
  

  "[T]he caliphate means to cause the masses to act as required by religious insight into their interests in the other world as well as in this world. (The worldly interests) have bearing upon (the interests in the other world), since according to the Lawgiver (Muhammad), all worldly conditions are to be considered in their relation to their value for the other world. Thus, (the caliphate) in reality substitutes for the Lawgiver (Muhammad), in as much as it serves, like him, to protect the religion and to exercise (political) leadership of the world."

  
  


• Islamic State:
  

  An Islamic State is referred to a state which is governed by the Sharia. That is, all the laws are developed using Quran, Hadith and Sunnah. Such a state is governed by a Caliph and is for whole Muslim Ummah (instead for a specific group).

  
  

Sharia Law? Leadership of the world? Sound pleasant to you?

Having omitted this bit the authors couldn't possibly mention that it would extend from North Africa through the Middle East to South East Asia and require the overthrow of moderate goverments like those of Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. Nor could they possibly be bothered to mention the potential impact of this on world events.

Perhaps worst of all, the authors never consider just who is actually seeking to establish this new and greater caliphate. Afterall, it's just in "Bush's" imagination right? Well, no, not exactly (Muslim Brotherhood via wikipedia). And of course, nobody really dangerous belongs or has ever belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood (BBC).

So, rather than tackle an important issue with even a sophomoric degree of journalism, Newsweek has opted to take the opporunity to slam Pres. Bush during an election year. Journalism?

Outrage of the Year

Regarding the recently release study indicating that 600,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S led invasion...I'm going to call this the Outrage of the Year.

I'll begin on a personal note: I work 5 days a week with scientists in multiple fields; Material science, biodiversity, finance and economics, bioinformatics, astronomy, and various social sciences. I am not a scientist but, I am familiar with many of the basic principles of science and its methods. This study is not science. It's trash. But don't take my word alone, here's some of the methods used:

For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.

1,850 households with 12,800 residents. No information on the demographics of the residents (for example, were 18% adults who considered themselves "head of household"?). How many were over 18 yrs of age? under? HOW MANY WERE INTERVIEWED? DOESN'T SAY!!!

Even the NYT interviews Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy who says:

the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country

And later,

Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had "a tone of accuracy that is just inappropriate."

Another interesting point which isn't intended to minimize the importance of a single death but, merely marginalize the value of this study (courtesy Gateway Pundit):

• The AP reported that 2,660 people were killed this month in Iraq


• But, according to this study, you'd expect 22,800

Finally, you shouldn't discount the fact that the same group released a similar study just before the 2004 elections in which it claimed 100,000 Iraqi deaths. It was roundly criticized (even by Slate!). Now, is it any surprise they release a study just before the 2006 elections!?

Indictment of Gadahn

On Saturday Sept, 2 2006 in a post titled Al-Qaeda and 1984, in reference a recently release video featuring Adam Gadahn, I wrote:

if ever there was evidence that laws against sedition and treason should be enforced, for the benefit of all, this joker's video is it.

Today it was announced: US Files First Treason Charges in 50 Years Against Accused al-Qaida Member

Here's a copy of the indictment: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/adam_indictment.pdf

The goal should be to put him on trial, for all to see, to show-case his twisted worldview and disconnected logic. To allow everyone to see the world as he would have it.

Let's Read the Law

The sineman has written extensively on the subject of detainees, their rights, and prosecution in a post titled Constitution Bushwhacked.




He writes that the legislation (as he understands it) does the following:

It establishes military commissions to try the so-called “enemy combatants,” based on evidence that can be obtained without search warrants and that does not have to be revealed to the person charged in order to be rebutted.

And:

It eliminates the right of habeus corpus so people can be imprisoned indefinitely without charge with no recourse to any court and not knowing, even, the reason that they are being held.

First of all, you may want to read the legislation for yourself. The sineman neglects to point out that the legislation explicitly applies to what it defines as unlawful combatants only. That definition is in 100% compliance with International Law.

I wrote about this extensively a couple of weeks ago. Let me be clear, I do not want to "torture" people. My writing is an exercise in research and critical thinking that seeks to facilitate decision making with respect to the issue as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction. In one of my very first posts, I advocated public trials for terrorist detainess.

First, in The Spirit and The Letter, I write about the specifics of the Geneva Convention as I see them. It is my opinion that some (many? most? all?) of the people we're discussing are not protected by the conventions (as POWs or otherwise), in part, due to their failure to properly distinguish themselves from civilians and, are indeed guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and should be tried on those as well.

In the same piece, I recognize that many people will not accept a legal "loophole" as some will call it as justification for harsh interrogation. With that in mind, I briefly examine the origins of the Geneva Conventions and address the issue of The Spirit of the Law (as the title suggests).

In another writing, I discuss the very real possibility that other very unpopular programs may very well preclude the need for harsh interrogation.

The sineman also writes:

It was made retroactive to a convenient time to avoid complication with the scandals of our earlier treatment of detainees

Why is the legislation made retroactive? To avoid scandal or so that it will apply to detainees currently in custody? If it wasn't made retroactive....it would only apply to detainess captured after the bill was passed.

There are other critical sections of the law that are omitted. For example:

§ 948s. Service of charges
The trial counsel assigned to a case before a military commission
under this chapter shall cause to be served upon the accused
and military defense counsel a copy of the charges upon which
trial is to be had. Such charges shall be served in English and,
if appropriate, in another language that the accused understands.
Such service shall be made sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare
a defense.

If I list them all, nobody will read this. You need to read the document for yourself.

I guess I could sum my thinking up like this: In previous conflicts our predecessors sacrificed in significant ways to achieve victory. I see that in this case, we have a choice, we can sacrifice some of our rights, or some of our sense of holding the moral high ground. In reality, I don't think it's that bad. I think we need to hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Keep in mind the nature of sacrifices others have made throughout history...Which would you choose?

Additional Perspective

In the spirit of my previous post, some additional historical perspective applied to the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate.

by Tim Reagan
Scientific Christian Monitor
January 18, 1944

A classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Japan has increased Shinto radicalism, and has made the kamikaze threat around the world worse. Based on information from US government officials who had seen the document and spoke on condition of anyonymity...

read it all here.

Were They Safer Then

The Sineman asks, "3 1/2 years later, are we safer now"?

We're 5 years into Bush's War on Terror as some like to call it. Others call it the struggle against radical Islam. Call it what you may, it's going to last a while longer. Some say 20 years. Some say 50 (BBC).

So, go ahead and answer Sineman's question to yourself, honestly, using whatever logic you choose. I'll not debate your reasoning or your answer. What I would like to do is, by way of example, help put your answer in perspective. Let's pretend the War on Terror will last 20 years. That means we're 1/4 of the way through.

How would Londoners have answered the question "are we safer today?" 1/4 of the way through WWII? In say, Fall/Early-Winter of 1940? Not sure? Read up on The Blitz. Oh, and Italy invaded British controlled Egypt in September 1940 also. Not exactly glorious days.

Further back, the American Civil War, how was that going about 1/4 of the way through? Did you ever wonder why the Confederates had Lee in command and the Union had McClellan then Burnside then Hooker and then Meade? Well, lets just say things weren't going so well for the Union. About a year after the start of the war, the Battle of Shiloh was fought. Casualties, 23,741 (13,047 USA, 10,694 CSA). Numbers like that redefine the word safe as we use it in modern times.

On a larger scale, imagining the struggle against radical Islam runs on for 50 years...that means we're 1/10th of the way through. Ugh. How would people in North America or Western Europe have answered Sineman's question in the 1955-1965 timeframe? They might have mentioned things like the Warsaw Pact, Mutually Assured Destruction, The Bay of Pigs Invasion, and The Cuban Missile Crisis. Or even The Bomber Gap, The Missile Gap, or Duck and Cover (Google Video).

The whole point is, take sineman's question seriously. Answer it honestly. Then, put your answer in perspective.

Conceptual Error

If you can't figure out what's wrong with this headline...then pack it in now.

Palestinian supporters from Hamas burn an Israeli flag during a demonstration against Pope Benedict's remarks in the West Bank city of Ramallah September 22, 2006. REUTERS/Loay Abu Haykel

Can "torture" be avoided?

Perhaps the most difficult 'response' to articulate regarding my previous post about questioning detainees could be, how can we make sure that we are never in a position to consider unconventional interrogation techniques?

It's easy to say, "no torture". But when you frame the question against an imminent attack threatening people's lives, it becomes a bit harder to say "no". We'd be smart if we devoted our energy and attention to making sure we never find ourselves in that position.

So, how do we prevent a situation when "torture" seems to be a realistic option? Programs like the NSA surveillance program could help. Allowing us to detect and disrupt plots before the develop into a real threat.

Now, I can hear you saying already, we're giving up our libery to be safe. We shouldn't have to do that! What good is a country like that?

In this case, we'd be balancing our rights with the rights of others. Our right to a private phone call with a suspected terrorist overseas, balanced with our neighbors right to life, balanced with an Al-Qaeda fighters right not to be interrogated harshly.

Or, we can refrain from harsh interrogation. Refuse to monitor communication of those who would attack us. Thereby refusing to protect ourselves and our neighbors.

What good is our country then?

I say, let's hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Monitor the communications of suspected terrorists regardless of the geographic location of the participants. Sure, get some legal oversight but, don't let it slow things down to a point where the program is ineffective.

Make provisions for dealing with the Hollywood scenario. An imminent attack threatening lives, and a knowledgable detainee who's unwilling to share information. Demand full accountability afterwards to prevent abuse of the provision.

The Spirit and The Letter

The issue of the status and treatment of detainess has become heated. My opinion on this subject can not be charaterized as 'black and white'. If you're not going to read the whole thing, don't read it at all.

• I do not advocate cruel treatment or torture as a general policy regarding detainess.


• I do advocate public trials for detainees when appropriate.

The section of the Geneva Conventions most often cited with respect to this issue is Convention III, Part I, Articles 3 and 4. These were authored and agreed upon after WWII to improve and guarantee the treatment of members of the Armed Services of a nation, militia, volunteer corps, and civilans, in non-occupied territory, who spontaneously take up arms to resist and invader:

"without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

History had shown the need to protect these categories of people from reprisals and cruel treatment in efforts to gain intelligence about military operations.

Using cruel treatment and torture to gather information (morality aside) is unwarranted as every person on the battlefield is aware of the risk they are exposed to. Every person on the battlefield has the ability to defend himself, to call on the support of his countrymen and allies, and can rest assured that, at his time of surrender, he will be treated humanely.

Other sections of the Geneva Conventions, which are less often cited include:

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

• Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.


• Civilians must not be used as hostages.


• Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.


• Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.


• Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.

And finally:

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured.

So, we learn several things from these citations. First, if you violate the laws, you do not forfeit your right to be protected by them. Second, intentional attacks on unarmed civilians in occupied or non-occupied territory is forbidden. Third, if a combatant attempts to hide among civilians he looses his protection under the conventions.

How does this apply to the current situation?

The argument that our actions will influence the treatment of US soldiers or civilian captives/hostages has no legal basis. Is it based on reality? How have captured US Soldiers and civilians been treated since 2001?

Some Taliban fighters and certainly all terrorists gave up their protections under the Geneva Conventions long ago when they adopted the strategy of hiding among civilian populations.

Some Taliban may be, and certainly all terrorists are guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and should be tried. Grave breaches include:

Any unlawful act which causes death or seriously endangers the health of a prisoner of war. (Convention III, Art. 13)

Unlawful transfer, deportation or confinement of civilians, willful killing, hostage taking and torture . (Protocol IV, Art. 147)

Attacking cultural objects when they’re not located near a military target or used for the war effort. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4D)

Depriving civilians who are under the control of an enemy power of the right to a fair trial (Convention IV, Art. 147)

Depriving combatants, prisoners of war, refugees, or medical or religious personnel of a fair trial. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4e)

Most importantly, the authors of the Geneva Conventions did not contemplate protecting non-uniformed combatants who attack or seek to attack civilains in occupied territory. The spirit of these laws was to protect civilians from war, and lawful combatants, capture in non-occupited territory, from abuse. I believe the current situation calls for a reinterpretation of various articles opposed to following them to the letter. Specifically, when the detainees are part of conspiracy or plot which poses direct and imminent threat to civilians.

As distasteful as it feels, we should all put our right to live above the rights [arguably] afforded to the attackers under the Geneva Conventions.

Civilians are not alert to the risks posed by terrorists (they don't carry arms openly). Civilians can not defend themselves. We can not shoot back. We don't wear helmets, body armor, camoflage. We don't drive APCs to work. We've seen numerous videos of terrorists cutting the heads off journalists and other civilians. We have no guarantee of proper, humane treatment by our would-be captors.

In the unlikely, Hollyood-like case when unconventional interrogation techniques would be necessary (a near last-minute effort to prevent an attack) the government should be required to provide a full accounting of its evidence and its actions in a public court after the fact. If the case can't be made, officials at the highest levels should be tried.

Great Minds

How does the saying go? Great minds think alike?

Terror Cells Tracked in Palestinian Territories

One interesting point here is that you've got the Israelis, Palestinians, and Jordanians all agreeing on something.

Both the Palestianian and Israeli intelligence services report that terrorist cells with connections to al-Qaida have been established.

and later:

Jordan's King Abdullah II, whose secret service has solid West Bank intelligence, has also confirmed activity within the terror cells.

Palestinians are sent off to "religious schools" where they are recruited into the terror network. Then they are sent home to "spread the good word". Additionally, agents of Al-Qaida are infiltrating the area.

Another interesting point:

European Union border patrols are also stationed at Rafah, but they only have observer status and can do little to stop the problem.

sigh