Vladimir Putin -- Russia's president, although the more accurate title would be godfather -- made headlines last week with a speech in Munich that set a new standard in anti-Americanism. He not only charged the U.S. with the "hyper-use of force,'' "disdain for the basic principles of international law'' and having "overstepped its national borders in ... the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations.'' He even blamed the spread of weapons of mass destruction, which the U.S. has been combating with few allies and against constant Russian resistance, on American "dominance'' that "inevitably encourages'' other countries to defensively acquire them.
There is something amusing about criticism of the use of force by the man who turned Chechnya into a smoldering ruin; about the invocation of international law by the man who will not allow Scotland Yard to interrogate the polonium-soaked thugs it suspects of murdering Alexander Litvinenko, yet another Putin opponent to meet an untimely and unprosecuted death; about the bullying of other countries decried by a man who cuts off energy supplies to Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus in brazen acts of political and economic extortion.
Continued on Page 49
#1
I had a Russian "Russian History" professor in the mid-seventies at Cal. State University in Sacramento. He had actually interviewed Prince Ussopov, one of those who killed Rasputin, shortly befor the Prince's death. The Professor often commented on the inevitability of a "thermodorean reaction" to the Russian Revolution like the ascendence to power of Napolean Bonoparte after the French Revolution. He said it would one day come to pass. Vlad may be the man.
James Taranto, "Best of the Web," The Wall Street Journal
"Venezuela's defense minister said Thursday that the nation would reinforce security measures after a branch of al Qaeda called for attacks on suppliers of oil to the United States," Reuters reports from Caracas. But one Venezuelan official isn't worried:
Luis Cabrera, a military adviser to the president, earlier had questioned the authenticity of the threat in comments published by local media.
He said it was illogical that "al Qaeda, which is against North American imperialism, would go against a state that is fighting, though in a different way, against that hegemony."
Cabrera may be right that al Qaeda views Hugo Chavez's Venezuela as a de facto ally and thus fairly low on its hit list. But what's interesting about his comment is how he ascribes his own ideology to the terror group. As we noted in September, Chavez himself, speaking before the U.N. General Assembly, slyly claimed the 9/11 attacks as an example of "rising up against American imperialism."
In truth, al Qaeda's leaders do not see themselves fundamentally as fighting against "American imperialism," much less for Third World socialism. Theirs is a movement based in religion; their grievance against America is infidelity, not imperialism.
There is a certain ideological parochialism among many on the hard left (and some on the right, if the reviews of Dinesh D'Souza's new book are accurate). For them, al Qaeda is essentially an inkblot. Recall Michael Moore's immediate reaction to 9/11: He was flummoxed that al Qaeda would attack a part of the country that had not supported George W. Bush--as if the only motive for the attack that he could understand was American domestic politics. Or remember George McGovern's analysis of a few years ago:
President Bush has said repeatedly that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. I don't believe that. The world's people have always admired our freedom. What they don't like is the arrogance and indifference to world opinion inherent in so much of our international policy. Plenty of my fellow citizens don't like that either. I'm not alone . . .
Note how McGovern equates "terrorists" with "the world's people," then moves on quickly to "plenty of my fellow citizens" and finally to himself. It seems he is simply unable to imagine someone seeing the world through anything but a McGovernite prism.
After 9/11, we kept hearing: Why do they hate America? It's an important question, but the inquiry is pointless if the only answer it yields is: For the same reasons I do. Obviously!
Posted by: Mike ||
02/16/2007 15:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I got away from reading Taranto during one of his vacation breaks. My loss. Thanks for reminding me :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/16/2007 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
The U.S. armed forces need to continue to find ways to hold down civilian deaths in military operations and provide more timely and accurate information about such deaths to show people around the world that America works hard to avoid civilian casualties, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.
The study by RAND Project AIR FORCE examined public and news media reaction to civilian casualties in four wars and military operations waged by the U.S. armed forces. It found that American efforts to minimize casualties frequently were met by enemy efforts to place innocents at risk and to exploit civilian casualties for propaganda purposes in order to erode support for military campaigns and coalitions.
Attention to and concern about civilian casualties appear to have increased in recent years, both at home and abroad, according to the report by the nonprofit research organization. This is likely to be a recurring and increasingly serious concern for future military operations, the study found.
To preserve the trust of the public and Congress that the military is doing everything it can to minimize civilian deaths, the Air Force and Department of Defense should continue their efforts to improve capabilities to reduce the risk of these events, said Eric Larson, a RAND researcher and lead author of the study conducted for the U.S. Air Force.
The report suggests improving U.S. capabilities to screen mobile targets as a method for preventing civilian casualties, because enemies often use civilians as human shields to deter American attacks on legitimate military targets.
Additionally, faster and more accurate combat assessments could improve U.S. commanders; ability to quickly and reliably reconstruct the events surrounding civilian deaths, diagnose whether these incidents might be accountable to American errors, and thereby prevent their reoccurrence, researchers said. This would have the additional benefit of enabling military commanders and U.S. officials to give more timely and precise accounts to the media and general public.
While most Americans express concern about the possibility of civilian deaths resulting from U.S. operations overseas, the RAND study found that Americans also have a high degree of confidence that the U.S. military is doing all it can to avoid civilian casualties.
However, foreign audiences are far less inclined to believe that the U.S. is exercising sufficient caution in avoiding civilian deaths and appear to be much more sensitive to civilian deaths that occur in U.S. military operations, the RAND study found.
Foreign audiences appear to be much more likely to believe that civilian deaths from U.S. operations are the result of carelessness or even the callous disregard for human life, said Bogdan Savych, a RAND researcher who is co-author of the report.
The report notes that foreign adversaries try to use this sentiment to erode the support of domestic and global audiences, drive wedges between coalitions, and to influence military strategy, tactics, and rules of engagement. This was especially apparent in two of the cases studied Iraq in 1991 and Kosovo in 1999 in which enemy forces used human shields, took members of the media to the sites of alleged civilian deaths, and generally tried to play up the events to the media.
Civilian casualties are highly mediagenic; events and get a lot of attention by the press, Larson said.
To discern public and media reactions to incidents of civilian casualties, the RAND researchers examined polling and media coverage in high-profile cases involving civilian casualties that were reportedly caused by U.S. attacks in four wars and military operations:
The February 1991 Gulf War bombing of the Al Firdos bunker, which appears to have been used as a shelter by both enemy combatants and non-combatants.
The April 1999 Kosovo War attack on a convoy near Djakovica, which was later found to include both military and civilian vehicles, and the May 1999 attack on the Chinese embassy in Kosovo.
The late June 2002 attack in Afghanistan on what was believed to be a source of hostile fire against coalition aircraft. The hostile fire was later described in the media as the celebratory gunshots of an Afghan wedding party.
The March 2003 explosion in a crowded Baghdad marketplace that was attributed by the Iraqis to a U.S. bombing, but was described by the U.S. Department of Defense to be Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery or surface-to-air missile falling back to earth.
This study shows that although Americans and the media are concerned about civilian casualties, and pay very close attention to the issue, they rarely have very reliable estimates of these casualties, Larson said. Without timely and accurate combat assessment capabilities, our military leaders have limited ability to counter adversaries; often exaggerated claims of civilian deaths. Moreover, providing inaccurate information that later has to be amended can really erode the credibility of the United States and its coalition partners.
The study was part of a larger research effort into ways to reduce collateral damage in military operations.
RAND Project AIR FORCE is a federally funded research and development center for studies and analysis aimed at providing independent policy alternatives for the U.S. Air Force.
Misfortunes of War: Press and Public Reaction to Civilian Deaths in Wartime can be found on the RAND Web site at www.rand.org.
#1
Oh grow up. The whiners will complain regardless of the efforts to reduce civilian casualties on our part. Notice how much seething and outrage there is when the enemy intentionally butchers dozens, hundreds at a time? None. It's not about the dead. It's not about 'fair play'. It's just about power. The whole process only extends the pain. Go mongol from the first and the clean up phase is a heck of alot easier with less to complain about. Sad, but true.
#3
The enemy routinely seeks to increase civilian casualties -- the Al Firdos bunker is a prime example -- so why the hell should we put more effort into preventing them?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/16/2007 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
human shields addressed? Cowardice of Islamic Jihadi pussies? Sounds like a critique of only ONE side. Go figure
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/16/2007 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Whatever happend to "our's [civilians] come first"?
The arithmetic of dealing with a nuclear Iran is much more complex than simply computing the costs of having an airborne and submarine strike force permanently on alert, astronomical as those costs are.
The strategic weapons, long-range F-15I and F-16I bombers and Dolphin submarines originally were purchased to counter that very threat. The much heavier costs involved would be caused by the necessity to rewrite significant chapters of Israel's security doctrine and the higher state of alertness, not only in the IAF and Navy, but also the other branches of the IDF and security forces.
There is a minority view in the defense establishment that the country has to be at least prepared for the possible reality of Iran with the bomb. This view is represented by the head of the National Security Council, Ilan Mizrahi. But most defense chiefs are opposed, saying Iran must not be allowed to achieve a nuclear capability.
This is not only because a mortal enemy will have the tools to fulfill its dream of wiping Israel off the map. After all, both the Arrow antimissile system and Israel's strategic capabilities serve as a significant deterrence.
#2
The West would be extremely foolish not to believe what this little runt says.
Ahmadinejad has said: The Holocaust never occurred, the U.S. will be attacked all over the world, Israel has no right to be in Palestine and will be destroyed.
No one paid attention to what Hitler said and look what happened.
#5
The analysis should be required reading for Mr Chirac, whose Freudian slip the other day reveals that he has already accepted a nuclear Iran. Give him Cliff Notes with the article to make sure that he understands: the financial repercussions of changes to the security doctrine will travel down the line, from Israel to the US to France...spell it out for him.
Heavens, it's getting crowded in the pews these days--at least with Democratic presidential candidates. Here is Sen. Barack Obama in California's Saddleback pulpit at the invitation of mega-selling pastor Rick Warren. There is Sen. Hillary Clinton with downcast eyes in Newsweek, praying before the cameras in New York's Riverside Church. And there preaches John Edwards, also in Riverside Church, weaving his personal faith into everything from AIDS to the minimum wage. Clearly the push is on to show that, for now anyway, the Democratic hopefuls are just plain folks in the religion department.
All the more reason to plumb the curious episode of Amanda Marcotte, that blogger for the Edwards campaign who resigned on Monday and was followed out the door Tuesday by another technical consultant, Melissa McEwan. Both quit thanks to circulation by conservatives of some of these former staffers' Internet musings. That is to say, in Ms. Marcotte's case especially: scatological Catholic-baiting rants about "theocracy" marked by leering references to the pope and liberal use of the F-word.
So far, so unremarkable. Just being a bilious feminist with a potty mouth doesn't much distinguish one in the blogosphere these days. What does matter is something else: We have here a Rosencrantz and Guildenstern moment, in which the fate of bit players becomes emblematic of a larger drama.
For what the blogger tempest really illuminates is a fact that could come to haunt the Democrats as they vie for national office: namely, that their past few wilderness years have also been boom years for the church-loathing liberal/left punditry. As a result, anti-Christian invective now graces (or disgraces) many of the books, magazines, Web sites and blogs to which liberals, including the Democratic elite, habitually look for ideas. One motto of this cottage industry is that the most serious threat to the American republic can be found in, no, not those religious fundamentalists, the ones that first leap to mind after 9/11; but, incredibly, certain other believers--our nation's Christians.
The cover of Damon Linker's 2006 "Theocons: Secular America Under Siege," for example, declares: "For the past three decades, a few determined men have worked to inject their radical religious ideas into the nation's politics. This is the story of how they succeeded." Again, he is not talking about al Qaeda. Other books in a similar vein include Michelle Goldberg's "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism," praised on its cover by Katha Pollitt for exposing "the ongoing takeover of our country by right-wing Christians." There is Kevin Phillips's "American Theocracy," which identifies in its subtitle "radical religion" as a "peril" facing the nation. Enter also Randall Balmer's "Thy Kingdom Come: An Evangelical's Lament," which opens with the unfortunate metaphorical notion that evangelical faith has been "hijacked by radical zealots" and closes with a vow about "taking America back."
To repeat, this apocalyptic rhetoric is not being heaped on, say, bomb-toting Islamists but on your churchgoing neighbors next door. Some authors even argue that those neighbors and Islamic "fundamentalists" are joined at the hip. Mel White's "Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right" is one; he warns that Christians want to "forcibly" take back the country.
Not to be outdone is the recent tome "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America," by New York Times reporter Chris Hedges. It delivers more of the same, studded with that tonier F-word, "fascism." Yet despite the book's conflation of prayer groups and jackboots, Publisher's Weekly awarded "American Fascists" a starred review and praised its attentiveness to a supposedly "serious and growing threat to the very concept and practice of an open society."
Of course, whatever has been hurled against Christians in books and magazines has been positively restrained by the standards of the blogosphere. Like Ms. Marcotte's more embellished arias, a lot of blog commentary cannot be printed in a family newspaper.
Sophisticates and secularists have always titillated themselves by despising the Bible Belt. But professional Christian-bashers have never been as "embedded" in the liberal mainstream as they are today. And therein lies a problem for Democrats. More Amanda Marcottes are not what the party needs as it scrambles to re-establish its religious bona fides with wary red-staters. No wonder so many Democratic candidates are in church. Now they really have something to pray about.
Ms. Eberstadt is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and editor of the newly released "Why I Turned Right: Leading Baby Boom Conservatives Chronicle Their Political Journeys"
#2
I don't consider myself religious at all, haven't set foot in a church in 35 years, and I want to take back the country from the Godless Left.
My feelings towards the Jews/Christians is positive, even if I am not all that spiritual, but where the left is concerned, they'd be packed off to "camps" if it was up to me. Starting with the crowd in DC, Murtha in particular.
#3
The Judeo-Christian side of the culture at least displays spasms of conscience. It means they believe they have a soul. Thats what the lefties use to leverage their power upon. For the lefties have no conscience. Being a lefty means never having to say your sorry for your philosophy and actions no matter how many hundreds of millions were hurt. Sorry is only used to explain why they didnt succeed in maintaining power at any price.
#4
At some point, the Dems are going to have to make a decision. Are they accepting of faith, even if they may not share it, or not? Is Amanda Marcotte the true face of the party, or not? You can't truly respect the faith of people you consider ignorant fascistic sheep.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/16/2007 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Two abortion doctors killed about a decade ago and some half witted protests against textbooks are about the only damage that Christian extremists have done (some people would add the OK City bombing but the perps weren't working on a Christian agenda).
Weigh that against the 9-11 atrocities, the wife beatings in moslem homes, the forced marriage of cousins in moslem clans, the multiple incidents of sudden jihad syndrome, the fund raising for terrorist groups, etc.
Yet most of the lefties are way more upset by the former than by the latter.
#6
The problem with the democrats is that their party has always appealed to the disgruntled, disenfranchised and the fools - at least as long as I can remember.
Half of Americans are below average intelligence. The name of God has always been called upon to fleece well meaning people from their hard earned money or support. They think their money will go to feed the hungry, the homeless, or will buy them an appointment with God to hear their pleas. Suckers. At least, that is how those who trick them see them.
Hillary and Obama are little different from those Sunday morning con-artist preachers who sucker millions of people not smart enough to recognize a scam. They promise if you just send them a check, heaven the government will take care of them. And millions of desperate or dissatisfied are willing to fall for their false hope and empty promises.
Democrats have proven themselves to be disgraceful haters, con-artists and loons. Let's hope the other half of America can expose their callous and shallow attempts to exploit their own power at the expense of the common man.
People who have faith in a soul are not as crazy as we were taught by our esteemed media and educational system to believe. It's easy to exploit the poor and disenfranchised. I think exploiting the millions of Americans, of all faiths, will be a much tougher sell.
Last week, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini threatened to hit back at U.S. interests "worldwide" if attacked. That same day, Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) -- the force that would likely be responsible for carrying out such attacks -- kicked off naval and air exercises in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman, which flank the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 20 percent of world oil transits daily.
The question of the day is how to avoid military confrontation with Iran while confronting the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program, its support for terrorist groups and its involvement in improvised explosive device (IED) networks in Iraq. U.S. officials are pressing their European counterparts to discourage investment and financial transactions with Iran, to stop export credit guarantee programs for companies doing business in Iran and to work with the private sector to deny Iran access to outside financial services.
Continued on Page 49
#3
The question of the day is how to avoid military confrontation with Iran
No, the question is why the free world did not force the government of Iran and its supporters to terms through a crushing military defeat in, say, 1979 or in any year since then.
Once again, Jimmy Carter has shrunk from debate. Despite having written a book whose purpose he claims was to promote dialogue and discussion, he has consistently dodged appearing with anyone who could challenge him on the numerous factual errors that fill the pages of his slim book.
First it was at Brandeis University, where he was invited to appear with professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School.....
When it became known that Carter was anxious to speak at Emory, the administration consulted a group of faculty and was advised that the most fair and academically valuable format would be to have Carter appear with someone who could engage in a productive interchange and discussion on the topic. This clearly would be the only way for the event to meet the educational standard of a leading university.
Everyone agreed that the best person for this interchange was Ambassador Dennis Ross, who was the main negotiator on the Arab-Israeli situation in both the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration. He was responsible for organizing Camp David II, Clinton's last-ditch effort to find a resolution to the situation. Ross agreed to appear, but Carter pointedly refused to appear with him or with any other expert. No explanation was given....
Former New York mayor Ed Koch, in his 1984 bestseller Mayor, recounted a conversation he had shortly before the 1980 election with Cyrus Vance, whod recently resigned as Carters secretary of state. Koch told Vance that many Jews would not be voting for Carter because they feared that if he is reelected he will sell them out.
Vance, recalled Koch, nodded and said, He will.
In Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn revealed that during a March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, Carter, discussing his fading reelection prospects and his sinking approval rating in the Jewish community, snapped, If I get back in, Im going to [expletive] the Jews.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/16/2007 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
#3: "If I get back in, Im going to [expletive] the Jews."
Looks like he's spent the rest of his sorry loser life doing that anyway.
If I were Christian, I'd be entertaining myself imagining the scene when PeanutBoy croaks off and shows up for his judgement in front of the Jew named Jesus.
Dhimmi Cahtah will always decline to debate - that's what loser cowards do.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/16/2007 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Right you are, Barb. Those Jewish carpenters can be pretty demanding, you know.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/16/2007 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
In Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn revealed that during a March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, Carter, discussing his fading reelection prospects and his sinking approval rating in the Jewish community, snapped, If I get back in, Im going to [expletive] the Jews.
As much as I hate to say this, in fairness Alex Cockburn has been known to be a bit fast and loose with the facts. OTOH, given what we know now...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/16/2007 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Ah, yes I remember the gentle life of poverty in the military during Peanut Farmer's time in office. Ghettos for housing and substandard training and pay. Desert One showed how deep the military had been permitted to deteriorate under his stewardship.
That also played heavily in his defeat in the election. Jimmy had already [expletive]America's shield and sword.
There are two misconceptions held by many Americans. The first is that communism ceased to be a threat when the Soviet Union imploded. The second is that the New Left of the Sixties collapsed and disappeared as well. "The Sixties are dead," wrote columnist George Will ("Slamming the Doors," Newsweek, Mar. 25, 1991)
Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.
#1
They also favor screwing the military. Getting out of Iraq, anything with words global warming, and various combinations of the words describing the New Left such as "safe sex in schools," etc. Oh, don't forget gun control.
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.
