#1
To sum up before the rhetoric flows in, while the article's take is that the Europeans are uncomfortable with the American approach simply for being so different, it also states that the European preference for a law enforcement approach has three supporting bits:
#1: They beat their domestic terrorists (who were nasty themselves) with this approach.
#2: Treated the terrorists as crooks instead of a 'legit' enemy (as in war) and didn't have to deal with the concept of illegal/legal combatants.
#3: European police do in fact have more powers than U.S. police (see: "secret police," paramilitaries, stringent anti-terrorism/conspiracy laws, and no Posse Comitatus Act).
ICC aside, the European countries' courts don't have the media circus surrounding terrorist trials that ours do. And the cops can pretty much do what they want to get evidence.
In continential Europe, at least, you're pretty much guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
They can go their way - and we'll go ours. I know who I'm betting on in the long run - unless the AmericanEuropeans Democrats get back in power.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/07/2006 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
Posted on the off-chance that France still matters. Also posted for comic relief. You decide which is more important.
PARIS -- When French criminal investigators finish their probe of the smear, who was smeared and who did the smearing may be little more than a footnote.
A burgeoning political scandal of alleged dirty tricks involving the cabinet's two top ministers has tainted the entire French government, pushing it to the brink of paralysis and collapse in the final year of President Jacques Chirac's administration, according to government officials and political analysts.
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin who is a man faces daily calls for his resignation. Flanked by somber-faced ministers, he told reporters at a packed news conference Thursday that the corruption investigation would "not deter me one second from my mission."
Not that he or anyone else knows what that is, and that's the underlying problem. I suspect the average Frenchman really doesn't care about the scandal per se -- it's no big revelation to them that their politicans are, by and large, sneaky, conniving scum. This particular scandal has become larger than itself because one, de Villepin is recognized properly as a fool who's promoted himself to the top without ever getting a seal of approval from the public, and two, he's recognized as an incompetent who not only can't properly put a knife into Sarkozy's back but also can't manage the government.
What's known as the Clearstream scandal centers on whether Villepin secretly ordered a criminal investigation to damage the reputation of Interior Ministry Nicolas Sarkozy, Villepin's party colleague and rival for the presidency. Villepin on Thursday denied ordering the probe, calling allegations that he did "lies, slander and attacks."
Which fall on deaf French ears. Is there anyone in France who thinks that Villepin is somehow above smearing a political rival?
The investigation is the latest blow to a government already weakened by riots last fall in immigrant-populated suburbs of Paris and around the country and crippling student demonstrations and workers' strikes this spring. "The situation is extremely volatile," said Renaud Dehousse, director of the Center for European Studies at the Institute of Political Sciences in Paris. "The government has lost any credibility whatsoever."
And Renaud would know, 'cause he's an expert, as you can tell by the director title. Truth is, he's part of the class of 'elite' people responsible for this whole mess, and for the larger mess that is France.
The scandal is unfolding as French politicians and pundits struggle to assign blame for decay in many aspects of French society -- government, economy, and the nation's general standing in the world. "The problem in France is that the political and diplomatic and official elite are stuck in a time warp of believing in l'exception française ," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform in London, referring to a belief that France is in a class of its own.
How long is that time warp? At least five centuries? Fifteen? The French have always thought they were at, or at least near, the center of the universe. The tribal Franks thought they had special status in the late Western Roman Empire. Ever since the French have either fought to be at the center, or fought to dislodge someone else from the center. They've always been an exception, though infrequently exceptional.
In an opinion poll published this week by the newspaper Liberation, Villepin's approval rating was 20 percent, only 2 percentage points above the record low for a prime minister, set in 1992. Previous polls indicated that only 1 percent of surveyed French voters wanted Chirac to seek reelection.
The chattering class in the U.S. hammers GWB for his low approval ratings (which they helped to create). Chirac would kiss Dominique's pointy nose for a 33% approval rating.
Villepin was appointed by Chirac and has never held elective office. For many in France, he has come to epitomize a political elite deemed out of touch with most voters. Those calling on him to step down include members of his own party. "Why doesn't Villepin resign?" said Cyril Enghin, 25, a physics student. "Nobody supports him anymore."
Why don't you vote for an effective political party? Better yet, why don't you go start a business and amount to something in your country? Pull your country out of the fire, young man, 'cause we Amis aren't going to do it this time.
The weakness of the government and an opinion backlash against immigration following last fall's violence has allowed the resurgence by France's ultra-nationalist candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front. He had approval rates of 12 to 14 percent in recent opinion polls.
Le Pen, 77, who calls for strict controls on immigration, caught the French mainstream by surprise by placing second to Chirac in the first round of the 2002 presidential election, winning 17 percent of the vote to Chirac's 19 percent in a crowded field. Announcing his bid for the 2007 presidency to a boisterous crowd Monday, Le Pen blasted the government's role in the Clearstream scandal, saying: "Lies of state are now the rule in our banana republic."
This is a disservice to banana republics all over Latin America.
Le Pen's current popularity has alarmed many French voters. "The government is in terrible shape," said Claire Terrier, a dental assistant. "Who's lying? I don't really care. This affair is great for Le Pen but bad for democracy."
If you don't start caring, Claire, you'll end up with one of the following outcomes, all of which are bad: Le Pen gets elected, and he's a nutcase; another stooge/hack/elite goof gets elected, in which case your country continues to slide; or your fifth column Islamicists decide that French will is so non-existent that they try to seize power. Enjoy your apathy.
The fracas between Villepin and Sarkozy stems from an investigation into allegations that senior French officials received kickbacks from a $2.8 billion sale of frigates to Taiwan in 1991. Two years ago, the judge investigating the sale received an anonymous CD listing dozens of French officials, including Sarkozy, who allegedly laundered their money through the Luxembourg-based Clearstream financial institution. After a year's investigation, the judge concluded that the information on the CD was bogus, and the probe shifted to who was peddling what was seen as an attempt to smear Sarkozy.
Last week, the newspaper Le Monde ran a lengthy article quoting testimony and notes from a senior French investigator indicating that Villepin, possibly at Chirac's urging, had ordered the investigation of Sarkozy, and that the prime minister did not announce that Sarkozy and others had been cleared even after the judge determined there was no case against them.
Hoping that the whole thing would die a quiet death at that point ...
Villepin and Chirac have denied ordering an investigation of Sarkozy. The investigator has denied being ordered to probe him, saying that Le Monde took his testimony and notes out of context.
"Non, non, certainement pas!"
Many analysts here believe that Villepin's misfortunes have killed his chances as a presidential candidate for the ruling Popular Movement (UMP) party next year. In the meantime, the government will probably remain in limbo. "It's difficult for Villepin to govern with such a lack of support," and he probably will be dismissed eventually, said Alain Duhamel, a political analyst. "Daily decisions will be made, but France will lose a year."
Why worry about a lost year when you've lost at least eight decades? French political incompetence threw away a pretty commanding position right after the First World War, where the French and Brits together could have dictated a transformation of Europe pretty much to their liking. French connivance and collaboration eviscerated their collective heart during and after WWII. The Algerian war, Indochina and the Suez affair demonstrated the bankruptcy of French foreign and military policy. A refusal to face simple economic facts has led to an ennervated economy where the students at the Sorbonnne think they should have jobs (in the government or a think tank, of course) for life, and where a young person with promise but no connections ends up in a factory job -- at best -- for life. A refusal to face up to racism has led to an inability to recognize the ticking time bomb of Islamic immigration in the citíes and housing developments, so that the term 'Car-B-Q' is one that many recognize as uniquely French.
And you're worried about a lost year?
Sarkozy, the head of UMP, now appears to be the party's leading candidate. In most opinion polls he leads or runs second to all other potential contenders. Though he was partially blamed for fueling last fall's unrest -- referring to rioters as "scum" -- he has avoided being dragged down by painting himself as an outsider running against the party's elite, represented by Villepin and his mentor, Chirac. Sarkozy has increasingly courted the far right with tough anti-immigration measures.
It's not clear to me that Sarkozy actually has a clue as to what is ailing his country, or whether he's just another elistist and opportunist who sees an opening to the right of Chirac and the left of Le Pen, and is trying to wedge himself into that space so that in the next Presidential election, he can gather up the center and right against the socialist-communist candidate(s). If he's the latter, then the tough talk will remain just that, and the government will continue to avoid studiously any measure that might begin to address the many problems in France.
The spat came as newspapers published scathing exposes of Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy, a 53-year-old cardiologist with no diplomatic experience who was appointed to the job last year after French voters rejected a draft European Union constitution. Le Monde last week published an unflattering profile of the man, who has publicly confused Taiwan with Thailand and Croatia with Kosovo, and who once was unable to respond to a weekend telephone call from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice because he had no translators with him. France's chief diplomat speaks only French.
Doesn't everyone? The Euros laugh and gee-gaw every time we elect some (obvious to them) country bumpkin president. Here's a French Foreign Minister who can't speak English and can't find countries on a map, and we're supposed to remember that the French are a sophisticated nation, far more so than we Ami rubes.
The satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaine last month reported an incident in which Douste-Blazy and his female companion, TV producer Dominique Cantien, allegedly engaged in a brawl at a hotel in Marrakesh last New Year's Eve that spilled out of their room into a hallway. Douste-Blazy denied reports that the room was extensively damaged and that Morrocco's government paid to repair it.
Can you imagine the reportage that would be generated if Condi and a male companion got into a fight somewhere?
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/07/2006 01:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lawmakers from both parties expressed concern Sunday that President Bush reportedly will nominate a longtime military officer to head the CIA. Geez, can't have a military man in time of phueching WAR!
According to senior administration officials, Bush will announce Monday that he has chosen Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden as the next director of the civilian spy agency. If confirmed, he would replace Porter Goss, who abruptly resigned the CIA post Friday after losing what intelligence sources described as a power struggle with National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.
"Bottom line: I do believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place at the wrong time," Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told "Fox News Sunday." Hoekstra said he was asked by the White House for his input on suggested replacements for Goss and offered his opinion on Hayden. Who would have have then Hoekstra, Cindy McKinney?
"I don't think anything I've said is new to the White House," the Michigan Republican said.
If Hayden took the helm at the CIA, Hoekstra said he believes the perception would be that Hayden was under the sway of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. You damn sure don't know Hayden very well.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, a member of the Intelligence Committee, told ABC's "This Week" that while Hayden was well-respected, the CIA "is a civilian agency; it operates differently."
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told "CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that Hayden could head off the issue by resigning from active military duty. "That'd be his call," said Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican. "But if somebody is concerned about that, he could certainly do it. He's had diplomatic experience. He's had civilian experience in the past."
But Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, downplayed Hayden's military background and also pointed out that some CIA directors have been former military. "Gen. Hayden is really more of an intelligence person than he is an Air Force officer," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "As you know, his career has been spent in that area, and his background -- of course, he comes from the [National Security Agency]."
Former CIA director John McLaughlin, a CNN analyst, said it would be important for Hayden to have a civilian deputy "who is steeped in the culture of the business, and very familiar with what CIA does day-to-day."
Hayden, 61, is the principal deputy to Negroponte. If Hayden is nominated, he would have to gain approval of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and then the full Senate.
Hayden's tenure as NSA director potentially could lead to a contentious Senate hearing. He led the NSA when Bush authorized a controversial anti-terrorism spy program shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Without court warrants, the NSA monitored the communications of people inside the United States who were in contact with suspected terrorists outside the country. Critics -- many of whom are members of the Senate -- charge the surveillance program is a violation of law and an assault on civil liberties.
Hayden has defended the program, insisting that it is a necessary tool to thwart terrorists and that the process of obtaining warrants is too slow and cumbersome to deal with "a lethal enemy."
House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California said the questions surrounding the wiretapping program will "make it difficult for him to be the head of the CIA."
Fortunately she has no say about it.
Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, warned against making the wiretapping the focus of hearings. "His confirmation should not be about whether you're for or against the NSA program," the California Democrat said. "It should be about whether he's the best man to transform the CIA into the premier clandestine service for the 21st century.
"Porter Goss was the wrong guy and had a politically inexperienced staff with him. Mike Hayden is capable, but it's up to the Senate to ask him tough questions." Wild Bill Donovan didn't to such a bad job and he was just an old colonel as I recall.
#1
LOL. There certainly is a great deal of "concern" being shown for the CIA's "culture" and the fact that Hayden wears a uniform.
Seems to me that the "culture" is precisely what's broken. It needs to be dumped, rebuilt from scratch and anyone unable to adapt fired.
It also seems to me that Hayden is an intel professional with a far more successful track record than any of the whiners - his external appearance is certainly irrelevant.
The "concern" stinks of the usual partisan BS. Count noses and, if at all possible, shove him down Congress' throat. Make Negroponte earn his keep button-holing the various committee members who aren't leak-sucking morons (and I believe this is behind some / much of the bogus "concern") and bringing them on board.
#2
I can appreciate their 'fear'. Given the Pew Poll last month showed Congress has a 10% positive rating and the military 47%. However, the way to eliminate that fear is to provide a better service or product. That's the problem. For Congress, its business as usual. Notice what happened to oversized organizations which just wanted to maintain business as usual?
#3
The CIA needs someone as smart as Condi and as assertive as Norman Schwartzkopf. Organizational efficiency usually jumps when it adopts a more military-style table of organization.
In fact, if the CIA leadership was filled with hand-picked military combat generals, it would finally get the enema it so desperately needs. Granted, there would be a lot of Yale graduates looking for their rear ends after.
#5
If the CIA insists on a civilian mindset and culture, then limit their mission to political and economic intelligence. By insisting on Marcus of Queensbury rules, CIA personnel are overmatched by those who will slit their children's throats.
Posted by: ed ||
05/07/2006 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
America, you lose," said Zacarias Moussaoui as he was led away from the court last week.
Hard to disagree. Not just because he'll be living a long life at taxpayers' expense. He'd have had a good stretch of that even if he'd been "sentenced to death," which in America means you now spend more years sitting on Death Row exhausting your appeals than the average "life" sentence in Europe. America "lost" for a more basic reason: turning a war into a court case and upgrading the enemy to a defendant ensures you pretty much lose however it turns out. And the notion, peddled by some sappy member of the ghastly 9/11 Commission on one of the cable yakfests last week, that jihadists around the world are marveling at the fairness of the U.S. justice system, is preposterous. The leisurely legal process Moussaoui enjoyed lasted longer than America's participation in the Second World War. Around the world, everybody's enjoying a grand old laugh at the U.S. justice system.
Except for Saddam Hussein, who must be regretting he fell into the hands of the Iraqi justice system. Nine out of 12 U.S. jurors agreed that the "emotional abuse" Moussaoui suffered as a child should be a mitigating factor. Saddam could claim the same but his jury isn't operating to the legal principles of the Oprahfonic Code. However, if we ever catch Mullah Omar or the elderly Adolf Hitler or pretty much anyone else we're at war with, they can all cite the same list of general grievances as Moussaoui.
He did, in that sense, hit the jackpot. We think of him as an "Islamic terrorist," an Arab, but he is, in fact, a product of the Western world: raised in France, radicalized in Britain, and now enjoying a long vacation in America. The taxpayers of the United Kingdom subsidized his jihad training while he was on welfare in London. Now the taxpayers of the United States will get to chip in, too.
On the afternoon of Sept. 11, as the Pentagon still burned, Donald Rumsfeld told the president, "This is not a criminal action. This is war."
That's still the distinction that matters. By contrast, after the 2005 London bombings, Boris Johnson, the Conservative member of Parliament, wrote a piece headlined "Just Don't Call It War." Johnson objected to the language of "war, whether military or cultural . . . Last week's bombs were placed not by martyrs nor by soldiers, but by criminals."
Sorry, but that's the way to lose. A narrowly focused "criminal" approach means entrusting the whole business to the state bureaucracy. The obvious problem with that is that it's mostly reactive: blow somewhere up, we'll seal it off, and detectives will investigate it as a crime scene, and we'll arrest someone, and give him legal representation, and five years later when the bombing's faded into memory we'll bring him to trial, and maybe conviction, and appeal of the conviction, and all the rest. A "criminal" approach gives terrorists all the rights of criminals, including the "Gee, Officer Krupke" defense: I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived. If you fight this thing as a law enforcement matter, Islamist welfare queens around the world will figure there's no downside to jihad: After all, you're living on public welfare in London plotting the downfall of the infidel. If it all goes horribly wrong, you'll be living on public welfare in Virginia, grandstanding through U.S. courtrooms for half a decade. What's to lose?
It's a very worn cliche to say that America is over-lawyered, but the extent of that truism only becomes clear when you realize how overwhelming is our culture's reflex to cover war as just another potential miscarriage-of-justice story. I was interested to see that the first instinct of the news shows to the verdict was to book some relative of the 9/11 families and ask whether they were satisfied with the result. That's not what happened that Tuesday morning. The thousands who were killed were not targeted as individuals. They died because they were American, not because somebody in a cave far away decided to kill Mrs. Smith. Their families have a unique claim to our sympathy and a grief we can never truly share, but they're not plaintiffs and war isn't a suit. It's not about "closure" for the victims; it's about victory for the nation. Try to imagine the bereaved in the London blitz demanding that the Germans responsible be brought before a British court.
Agreeing to fight the jihad with subpoenas is, in effect, a declaration that you're willing to plea bargain. Instead of a Churchillian "we will never surrender!", it's more of a "Well, the judge has thrown out the mass murder charges, but the DA says we can still nail him on mail fraud."
And, even if the defendant loses the case, does that mean the state wins? Here's an Associated Press story from a few weeks ago recounting yet another tremendous victory for the good guys in the war on terror:
"A Paris court fined the terrorist known as 'Carlos the Jackal' more than $6,000 Tuesday for saying in a French television interview that terror attacks sometimes were 'necessary.' The 56-year-old Venezuelan, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, was convicted of defending terrorism. The court did not convict him for expressing pleasure that 'the Great Satan' -- the United States -- suffered the Sept. 11 attacks, saying those comments were his personal reaction."
That's right, folks. The French state brought a successful hate-speech prosecution against Carlos the Jackal, albeit not as successful as they wanted:
"Prosecutors asked for a fine four times larger than the $6,110 penalty imposed. But the judges said they did not see the need for a higher fine because Ramirez's comments referred to the past and aimed to justify his own actions. Ramirez, dressed in a red shirt and blue blazer, kissed the hand of his partner and lawyer, Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, during the judgment."
Coming soon to a theater near you: The Day of the Jackal's Hate-Speech Appeal Hearing.
#1
Argg! Moussaoui was a small player. Frying him would have been more vengfull that justice. Let's not elevate his stature any higher than he deserves, a small player on a big event. Rudolph Hess only got life, was he a larger criminal than him? I doubt it. Let this jerk suffer in prison and by the time he's 45 his brain will be jello and the taxpayer will have not spent millions on apeals.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/07/2006 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Pan: Yes, a "well reasoned" approach. To those who do not value life, and wish to kill themselves anyway, rotting away in cell is the only course of action suitable. It sends a strong message to his pals as well. ie., no quick and easy road to the 70 virgins here in the States. You must wait like everyone else.
#5
What a waste of resources. $100,000/year will buy 100 1000 lb bombs and the gas to deliver over any middle eastern city. Moussaoui should have been shot and mommy M billed for the bullet.
Posted by: ed ||
05/07/2006 21:25 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Uh, oh, ed - shoot him!??!?! Oh man, you got me feeling all huffy 'n puffy. I served in the shit and I know what's what, but that's over the line, bud. I might just go away... After the swelling goes down.
While much of the world is focusing on the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program, the United States should be equally concerned with the fragility of Pakistan, a Muslim nation that already has nuclear weapons.
Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden is hiding and the Taliban is regrouping and regaining strength, is among the world's 10 most vulnerable states - just ahead of its neighbor, Afghanistan - according to a new study. Both are only a few steps away from becoming failed states. The study - compiled by Foreign Policy, an influential American quarterly, and the Fund for Peace, a U.S.-based think tank - is the second annual Failed States Index, which tracks countries on the edge of collapse. Last year, Pakistan ranked 34th. Today, it has jumped to 9th, just below Haiti.
Worse yet, Pakistan is the only nation on the top-10 list to have nuclear weapons. If it became a failed state, the Bomb would likely come under the control of radical Islamists.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, once considered to be one of Washington's top allies in the war on terror, sits on a political razor's edge. He is pressed on one side by Washington's growing impatience with his failure to track down bin Laden and rein in the resurgent Taliban. Within Pakistan, Musharraf is under pressure from Islamist parties critical of his cooperation with Washington, but he is also feeling the heat from secular parties fed up with his unwillingness to hand over control of the military to civilians after next year's scheduled elections.
Secular party leaders also are frustrated with Musharraf's failure to get much tougher with the rising militant Islamist parties challenging his rule. And in his own government, Musharraf's authority is undermined by a military and intelligence establishment that sympathizes with radical Islamists' goals and seems reluctant to crack down on the Taliban or the al-Qaida remnants in western Pakistan.
Musharraf needs U.S. support to stay in power, but if Washington pushes him too hard, Islamist radicals may well rise up and topple him. To compound the growing instability of the region, the Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former premier once backed by the United States, has formally pledged his fealty to al-Qaida. The Bush administration must devote more time and care to defusing the volatile brew that could explode in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Global Islamic terrorism is the product of scattered groups. It has much less support in the Muslim world than people think.
Imagine if a few months after September 11 someone had said to you, "Five years from now, in the space of a single week, Osama bin Laden will issue a new call for worldwide jihad, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq will threaten a brutal, endless war, and there will be two terror attacks in Egypt." Chances are you would have been quite unnerved. Yet the most striking aspect of last week's news was the reaction to itvery little.
Radical Islamic terror made big, violent and scary moves and whether you judge it by media coverage, stock-market movements or international responses the world yawned.
Al Qaeda Central, by which I mean the dwindling band of brothers on the Afghan-Pakistani border, appears to have turned into a communications company. It's capable of producing the occasional jihadist cassette, but not actual jihad. I know it's risky to say this, as Qaeda leaders may be quietly planning some brilliant, large-scale attack. But the fact that they have not been able to do one of their trademark blasts for five years is significant in itself.
Moreover, bin Laden's latest appeals have a very changed character. His messages used to be lyrical, sharp and highly intelligent. They operated at a high plane, rarely revealing anything about Al Qaeda's operations. In fact, intelligence agencies looked for small signsan offhand reference, an item of apparelto reveal where Al Qaeda would strike next. Bin Laden's most recent appeal is a mishmash of argument and detail, and seems slightly crazed. He has broadened his verbal attacks against the "Zionist-Crusaders" to include the United Nations and China. The latter he condemns because it "represents the Buddhists and Pagans of the world."
Like Hitler crazily declaring war on the United States after Pearl Harbor, bin Laden is adding to his slew of formidable enemies: China was the only major world power that was unconcerned about him. (And his reference to the United Nations as a "Zionist-Crusader tool" would surely surprise most Israelis.) Bin Laden also makes some plaintive appeals to Muslims to rise up and attack the "crusaders" in the west of Sudan. This shows desperation because there are no "crusaders" in Sudan. The troops there are African Union peacekeepers. But more interestingly, the victims in Darfur are Muslim. Bin Laden's real objective appears to be to support the government in Sudanwhich once housed himas it brutally exterminates tribes that oppose it. What does this have to do with Islam? Most revealingly, bin Laden makes a parochial appeal for foreign aid, to help those Qaeda supporters in Waziristan who have been rendered homeless by Pakistani Army attacks. That suggests he and his friends are having a rough time. Strip away the usual hot air, and bin Laden's audiotape is the sign of a seriously weakened man.
It is now widely accepted that Al Qaeda Central no longer has much to do with the specific terrorist attackseven the most bloody ones, in Madrid, Sinai and Londonthat have taken place in the past three years. These appear to be the work of smaller, local groups, often inspired by Al Qaeda but not directed by it. The result of this decentralization, however, is that the attacks lack coherence and strategic sense. Al Qaeda Central would attack large symbolic targets (the World Trade Center) or government facilities (embassies, ships), but smaller groups do what they can, going after cafés, hotels and train stations. The resultlocal civilians die, which enrages the public. After a while the attacks also begin to feel less cataclysmic. People realize that life goes on. In Egypt, the stock market shrugged off last week's terror attacks; hotels in Sinai (where the bombs exploded) reported a small number of cancellations, and the public seemed increasingly angry at the terror groups.
Next in the communications department is Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi's appearance, and for the first time we got to see his face. Zarqawi's motive in doing this is debated, but almost certainly it was an effort to show that he is still relevant. Conditions in Iraq are bloody and dangerous, but they also might be moving out of his control. Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are struggling, both on the ground and across the table, to see if they can live together. Whatever they decide about this power-sharing arrangement, Zarqawi's appeals for jihad seem beside the point and appeal to a dwindling number of Iraqis.
The danger from global Islamic terrorism is real. But it is the product of small and scattered groups, spewing hate. It has much less support in the Muslim world than people think. There is much to be distressed about in that worldoppressive regimes, reactionary social views, illiberal political parties, mindless and virulent anti-Americanism. But these trends are not the same as support for jihad or for a Taliban-like Islamic state. And it is the latterterror and theocracythat are Al Qaeda's basic goals. The evidence suggests that they are not gaining adherents.
The West, and the United States in particular, has a long history of seeing the enemy as 10 feet tallthink of Soviet Russia and Saddam Hussein. But as we paint Al Qaeda in those lofty terms, let's please remember last week, when Osama bin Laden appealed on a crackling audiotape for a little money to build a few huts in Waziristan.
#4
He has broadened his verbal attacks against the "Zionist-Crusaders" to include the United Nations and China. The latter he condemns because it "represents the Buddhists and Pagans of the world."
He didn't attack China.
He attacked the composition of the UN Security Council which had no permanent seat for the Ummah but had one for the Buddhist Pagans.
Posted by: john ||
05/07/2006 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The author has a very valid point. The bad guyz are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find more of the tiny number who are both fanatical enough, and willing and able to leave their 'hood to make trouble elsewhere.
Between Afghanistan and Iraq, dozens of nations have already been purged of an entire generation of their most serious export-class trouble-makers. All they have left are those mostly already known to the authorities. The 'B' team, who just cannot work up the steam to make trouble in another country.
And by the time the sense of utter futility wears off, so much democratic change may have come to the world that jihad becomes a moot point.
#6
The Primitives and their can't have or take over their own former Infidel-owned skyscraper condos, etal. iff the world is blown to hell now can they. We infidels need to be destroyed andor controlled via "managed/controlled/pre-determined de-evolution", AL GORE and the future the OWG-planned "balance" that neeeds to be achieved between terra firma verus Gore's alleged
"crushing impact" upon the earth's enviro and resources from the world's ever-growing human population, I.E. WE HUMANS NEED TO BE REDUCED BY ANY AND ALL MEANS NECESSARY.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
