An audio interview with Tony Blankley about his recent book The West's Last Chance,Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? can be heard at this link. The interview lasts about one hour and is available in a variety of audio formats. Click on the format of your choice just above the picture of the book.
Most Valuable Politician of the year? How about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who has surged ahead for the 2005 MVP award in the few months he has been in office? He reminds a distracted world at crucial moments of the true nature of Iran's regime, of the abiding source of conflict in the Middle East and of the deeper meaning of global terrorism.
Racial and religious hatreds are at the core of these phenomena -- and at the heart of Ahmadinejad's pledges to see Israel "wiped off the map" and to ensure that Arabs who recognize the Jewish state "burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." His statements were reported in laudatory terms by Iranian state-run television Wednesday.
Even though the Persian chauvinists who took power in Tehran in 1979 have been more discreet in public in recent years, it is not news that they hate both Jews and Arabs -- or that the sentiment is returned. If novelty there was, it lay in statements of condemnation that European governments issued as the inflammatory remarks spread around the globe.
Britain, France and Germany raced to distance themselves from Ahmadinejad's double-barreled anti-Semitic blast. They have been negotiating with his regime in hopes of rehabilitating it. A spiteful and belligerent speech the Iranian leader gave at the United Nations in mid-September had already signaled the enormousness of their task. But they persisted.
Now even Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, perhaps the coldest and most uncaring fish in international diplomacy, feels compelled to mutter that the Iranian firebrand's statements were "unacceptable."
This is not, however, a discussion of diplomatic strategies to deal with a government that does not believe in them, nor an account of recent, modest shifts that have made Washington's policy toward Iran more coherent and effective. Those items remain for another day.
We are taken into the territory of the heart rather than the head by Ahmadinejad's unguarded words and by the statements of outrage they elicited -- some from nations that had enshrined racial hatred as official policy and practice six decades ago or less. The Iranian's words suggest the huge challenge that the Middle East presents; the European reaction promises that people can change -- that they can learn not only to tolerate their neighbors but also to demand that others have the decency to do the same.
The fates of Nazi Germany and Vichy France are not the only lessons available to Iranians -- or for that matter to Israelis or Americans -- of the bitter fruits of preaching and practicing racial hatred. In neighboring Iraq, a regime that committed genocide against the Kurdish tribesmen of the north and persecuted Shiite Arabs in the south lies in ruins and seems incapable of rising again.
Because Saddam Hussein would not leave them in the peace and isolation of their mountain redoubt, Iraq's Kurds went to war against Baghdad three decades ago. They deliberately set in motion the chain of events that were to bring an American invasion force to Baghdad to overthrow the dictator in 2003. While he could not foresee exactly how it would happen, the late Kurdish leader Mullah Mustafa Barzani told me in 1972 that it would. I was skeptical; he was right.
No political outcome can balance the scales of personal grief and loss brought by the loss of 2,000 and more American service personnel in Iraq since the invasion began. Human lives cannot be measured and counted as instruments or integers of policy or politics.
So the fact that Kurds live in freedom today from racial pogroms directed at them from Baghdad -- in large part because of U.S. protection and sacrifice -- can assuage no mother's grief or friend's anger over U.S. casualties. But neither can the positive change that American actions have brought simply be dismissed or ignored.
Barzani's son, Massoud, visited the White House last week to thank the American nation, through President Bush, for those sacrifices and to reiterate the Kurds' commitment to staying in a "federal" Iraq that institutionalizes their autonomy -- and survival. Federalism for the Kurds is not some legalistic ploy to maximize their share of oil reserves, or a thumb to stick in Arab eyes in revenge. It is a chance to live and to let live.
Iran's Ahmadinejad shows no inclination to adopt that approach. He seems to have been shepherded into office by the ruling ayatollahs to pursue the politics of hatred and confrontation after a period of conflicting signals on their intentions. Thanks for the reminder, guys.
This is an act of war, doesnât matter that itâs not been officially declared as one. It calls for a scale and intensity of response comparable to Londonâs, where the number of deaths was actually fewer than Delhiâs and far, far fewer than Mumbaiâs in 1993. This paper has consistently waged a war for peace, and we remain committed to that path. But itâs equally clear that peace cannot be a one-way road. There are indications that the perpetrators of the serial blasts may have been schooled in jihadi hatred on Pakistani soil. The burden of evidence points to the Lashkar-e-Toiba; one of its offshoots has already claimed responsibility for the crime. LeT had tried to mar August 15 and were waiting for the next big celebration to hit India. The group has sleeper cells across the country and doesnât necessarily depend on Kashmir to ferry in terrorists. It can call in operatives based in Nepal and Bangladesh. That it continues to enjoy Islamabadâs patronage is no secret.
Posted by: john ||
10/30/2005 16:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Unusually harsh editorial for the Times of India
Posted by: john ||
10/30/2005 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
call for reality and response. See any Indian troops infiltrating the LOC to set up a Hindooo (FOAD Beanie) state?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/30/2005 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Pakistan is a gnat." That is a telling quote from an Indian veteran about India's opinion of their neighbor.
That being said, Richard Armitage has warned both nations of the horrific repercussions if they ever use a nuclear weapon. This means that any and all conflicts have to be limited to punitive expeditions, not threatening the enemy government.
Since their conflict is almost exclusively over Kashmir, ideally, this will amount to an Indian incursion, done with the tacit approval of the Pakistan dictator, that rapidly crosses the border, slaughters terrorists, then leaves. It would have to be done almost in conjuction with the supression of the Pakistani radical political party. Your basic putsch and purge.
#4
This means that any and all conflicts have to be limited to punitive expeditions, not threatening the enemy government.
That's a non-sequitur. What happens if one threatens the other's government with conventional weapons? This editorial seems like a signal that the Indians are getting ready to find out.
The Thais should be getting pretty fed up with the ROP, too.
#5
Paks' inventory of workable nukes would seem like little than incitement against the huge hindu populace should mobilization ever occur. Hopefully India's been infiltrating decapitation forces
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/30/2005 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The massive assumption here is that Pakistan has an effective nuclear force. While they have detonated a device of debatable magnitude, do they also have sufficient delivery systems reliably maintained and at a sufficient level of alert to react appropriately when commanded? If so, why is this the only competent part of the Pak military-industrial simplex? If I were the Indians, and I were p. o. ed, I'm not sure how deterred I would be by PakNukes, especially if I had reasonable plans to deal with them before a first strike could be pulled off.
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.
Most Valuable Politician of the year? How about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who has surged ahead for the 2005 MVP award in the few months he has been in office? He reminds a distracted world at crucial moments of the true nature of Iran's regime, of the abiding source of conflict in the Middle East and of the deeper meaning of global terrorism.
This is not, however, a discussion of diplomatic strategies to deal with a government that does not believe in them, nor an account of recent, modest shifts that have made Washington's policy toward Iran more coherent and effective. Those items remain for another day.
Because Saddam Hussein would not leave them in the peace and isolation of their mountain redoubt, Iraq's Kurds went to war against Baghdad three decades ago. They deliberately set in motion the chain of events that were to bring an American invasion force to Baghdad to overthrow the dictator in 2003. While he could not foresee exactly how it would happen, the late Kurdish leader Mullah Mustafa Barzani told me in 1972 that it would. I was skeptical; he was right.
So the fact that Kurds live in freedom today from racial pogroms directed at them from Baghdad -- in large part because of U.S. protection and sacrifice -- can assuage no mother's grief or friend's anger over U.S. casualties. But neither can the positive change that American actions have brought simply be dismissed or ignored.
