Iraq may be the jihad Superbowl, but Saudi Arabia is still al Qaedaâs top prize. Watch closely, because the quiet in the kingdom today may be the calm before the storm.
With all eyes on Iraqâs bloody insurgency and last weekâs hotel bombings in Amman, Jordan, itâs easy to forget that al Qaedaâs ultimate goal is to snatch the reins of power from the House of Saud. Osama bin Ladenâs top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has argued that the militant Islamic movement cannot win without a base at the heart of the Arab Middle East. And though Iraq or Egypt might fit the bill, neither can claim to be the worldâs top oil producer or the site of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
Al Qaeda went underground after bombing a Saudi National Guard compound in 1995, killing five Americans. But in May 2003, it reopened the Saudi front by bombing foreign housing compounds in Riyadh, killing 35. Emboldened by that attack, the insurgents launched audacious assaults on petrochemical sites and even the Riyadh headquarters of the Saudi security forces. In the last two years, approximately 140 people have died in battles between security forces and insurgents.
Riyadh spends billions on defense and internal security forces every year, but it may not have what it takes to defeat a determined insurgency. Al Qaedaâs kinship with the Wahhabi religious establishment makes it popular within the kingdom and provides fertile ground for recruitment and operations. The Wahhabis also have a longstanding relationship with the royal family, through which they accept oil largesse in exchange for providing political and religious legitimacy to the regime.
The Saudi government would like to see the lull in insurgent activity in 2005 as evidence that they have a firm handle on matters. Unfortunately, the recent quiet may be the calm before the storm. When bin Laden called in December 2004 for a new phase in his campaign to oust the regime in Saudi Arabia, he urged his followers to mount a revolution in the kingdom. But he also told them not to miss a âgolden and unique opportunityâ to kill Americans in Iraq. Today, many young Saudi men are too busy with endeavors in Iraq to make trouble back home. But those who survive will eventually come home trained and battle-hardened.
While the al Qaeda insurgency in Saudi Arabia is likely to grow, the reliability of Saudi internal security is in doubt. Anecdotal evidence suggests that al Qaeda already has a strong presence within the Saudi security forces. An al Qaeda computer recovered during the 2001 U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan contained classified Saudi government documents apparently stolen by al Qaeda sympathizers within the government, according to Michael Scheuer, a former chief of the CIAâs bin Laden unit. The May 2003 bombings of residential compounds in Riyadh required insider knowledge that was almost certainly provided by the Saudi security detail at the compound, according to Saudi Arabia expert John Bradley. In a November 2003 attack on another Riyadh housing compound, the terrorists were dressed in police uniforms. In June 2004, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula announced that elements in the Saudi police provided official uniforms and police vehicles to the group that carried out the execution of the American worker Paul Johnson, and set up false roadblocks as well. There is also precedent for mutiny in the ranks. In 1979, troops from the Saudi National Guard took part in an extremist uprising. Unfortunately for Riyadh, vetting the security forces is extremely difficult because militant ideology has deep roots in Saudi society, especially in the lower socioeconomic rungs of society that provide most personnel for the kingdomâs fighting forces.
Coming Home to Roost
The problem will only get worse as Saudi insurgents begin returning from Iraq, ready to employ their on-the-job training. Saudi nationals comprise a large percentage of the foreign insurgents in Iraq, and are heavily represented in lists of suicide bombers posted on extremist Web sites. It doesnât help that much of the Saudi religious establishment advocates jihad in Iraq. Last year, 26 Saudi imams signed a statement urging Muslims to join the insurgency against U.S. forces in Iraq. In the 1980s, the Saudi government generally knew which Saudis were fighting in Afghanistan and who the trouble makers might be. This time, it doesnât.
Tackling this entrenched problem will require political skill, grit, and determination. So far, itâs not clear that the aging and conservative Saudi leadership is up to the task. King Abdullah, touted by many as a reformer, is 82 years old and unlikely to implement significant political reforms or challenge the Saudi religious establishment any more than his predecessor, King Fahd, did. Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef declared in 2002 that there were no al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia and repeated the allegation that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. Coming from the head of Saudi internal security, these comments suggest that the keen analysis necessary to an effective counterinsurgency campaign may be lacking. Some Saudi watchers suspect that Riyadh may have even paid al Qaeda to keep the insurgency outside of the kingdom.
There is hope that younger princes more clearly see the dangers posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamist ideology. In the summer of 2004, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, wrote an unusual article in the Saudi government newspaper Al Watan, in which he called for Saudi public support for a jihad against al Qaeda in the kingdom and warned against hesitation. Hoping that terrorists will âcome to their senses,â he wrote, is a recipe for defeat. Riyadh needs to dedicate more resources to collecting and analyzing intelligence to target al Qaeda cells inside the kingdom. They also have to skillfully delegitimize the militant Islamist ideology in Saudi society and reign in the religious establishment that stokes it. The danger for the Saudi regime is that bold efforts on these fronts could spark a popular backlash by the many Saudi citizens who feel alienated by the regimeâs reputation for corruption and isolation.
It is uncertain how many younger princes share Bandarâs assessment or even how much influence they could have in shaping the regimeâs counterinsurgency campaign. Itâs not even certain that Bandar himself will have much influence in his role as secretary-general of the newly created National Security Council. Many apparently grand political moves in Saudi Arabiaâsuch as counterterrorism conferences and municipal electionsâhave been more show than substance. Given a choice, the aging Saudi leadership is more likely to opt for a conciliatory approach to al Qaeda and the path of hesitation that Bandar fears.
In Iraq, U.S. commanders are rightly doing everything in their power to defeat the insurgents. If they succeed, and an Iraqi government can handle security on its own, Washingtonâs list of headaches wonât necessarily be any smaller. The insurgency may simply move south.
Richard L. Russell teaches at the National Defense Universityâs Near East and South Asia Center for Strategic Studies and is the author of Weapons Proliferation and War in the Greater Middle East: Strategic Contest (New York: Frank Cass, 2005).
Posted by: Steve ||
11/15/2005 12:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hopefully, some of the saner princes will spend the resources to compile a thorough list of the troublemakers, and create a small army of very loyal personnel. Then, if they try something, to have a grand "night of the long knives", in which a few thousand of the troublemakers meet an untimely end.
If President Bush wants to know what went wrong on his trip south, I recommend a book by three Latin American journalists. Their ''Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot,'' a best seller when it was published nine years ago, remains indispensable for understanding phenomena like Diego Maradona.
Maradona, born in a shantytown near Buenos Aires, became the world's most famous soccer player in the 1980's after he left Argentina to play for teams in Spain and Italy. Besides collecting his $5 million salary in Europe, he played exhibition games in Arab countries at $325,000 per appearance and made $10 million annually in endorsement contracts with corporations based in at least four continents, companies like Puma, Fuji-Xerox and Coca-Cola.
And what did he learn from this international rags-to-riches tale? During Bush's visit to Argentina, Maradona took time out from his busy schedule (he now has a television show) to help rally tens of thousands of people against that horrible modern scourge: free trade.
He was one of the headliners at the rally along with Hugo Chavez, the socialist president of Venezuela, who is determined to prevent a free trade agreement among Latin American countries and the United States.
''We are going to stand against the human trash known as Bush,'' Maradona told the crowd, between puffs on a cigar given to him by one of his heroes, Fidel Castro.
To be fair, this sort of thinker exists on other continents, too. But what distinguishes the Perfect Latin American Idiot is his persistence. No matter how far the continent falls behind the rest of the world, its populists cling to the same beliefs in socialism and big government, the same distrust of capitalism and free trade, the same conviction that Latin American poverty is the fault of the United States.
''Maradona embodies the wonderful possibilities of globalization, yet he does everything in his power to deny people poorer than himself to participate in that world,'' said one of the ''Perfect Idiot'' authors, Alvaro Vargas Llosa, the Peruvian journalist (and son of the novelist Mario Vargas Llosa). ''Everything Maradona and Chavez stand for has been tried before. These populists are repeating the mistakes of the Mexican Revolution, of Brazil in the 30's, of Argentina in the 50's, of Peru in the 80's.''
The new wave of populists is led by Chavez, who's been using the recent windfall in oil revenues to expand government and solidify his hold on power. But even while $100 million in oil money pours into Venezuela every day ($60 million of that from those terrible gringos north of the Rio Grande), the poverty rate has risen above 50 percent.
Meanwhile, the poverty rate has declined sharply in Chile, to about 20 percent (compared with about 50 percent in the rest of the continent). Chile has become South America's economic success story by embracing capitalism and making its own free trade agreements with the United States and other countries, most recently China.
Bush went to the Latin America summit meeting hoping to persuade the rest of the continent to follow Chile's example -- the right message but the wrong messenger and the wrong place. Any American president, especially one as unpopular as Bush, makes too easy a target for the populists and rioters who turned the meeting into their own photo opportunity.
''Nothing has ever emerged from a Latin summit,'' said Jose Pinera, the Chilean reformer who started the first private-account social-security system, and then helped introduce similar systems in two dozen other countries. ''Real change blossoms from good internal public policies. President Bush should not attend and dignify these weapons of mass distraction.''
The best American strategy, as Alvaro Vargas Llosa says, would be to do less in Latin America. Instead of publicly pressuring the whole continent to sign a free trade agreement, quietly make deals with the countries that want one. Instead of denouncing and plotting against Chavez, ignore him.
And instead of fighting a drug war in South America, surrender. The war has been utterly ineffectual at stopping the flow of cocaine, which has actually gotten cheaper on American streets. But by infuriating communities in the Andes, the war has created a political base for populists running on anti-American platforms. They may be economic dunces, but in this case the perfect idiots are the drug warriors in Washington helping to elect them.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2005 00:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And instead of fighting a drug war in South America, surrender. The war has been utterly ineffectual at stopping the flow of cocaine, which has actually gotten cheaper on American streets.
Problem is simple. Every time a coca field is intercepted, a drug cargo is intercepted, a drug dealer arrested it makes prices rise and attracts new people to the drug business.
Solution: reduce the demand by reducing the number of drug users. This would put the drug vendors out of business.
#2
Offer the dopers free wirehead services. A simple implant, a few pennies to Reddy Kilowatt per day, cheap cafeteria-style food - on the off chance they actually feel like eating, a Potter's Field plot, and let them think they control the the stimulus level themselves (heh) with a fake knob. Ramp it up 5-10% per day.
Then take the DEA budget and put it on the borders. Cities can retune their Police Dept budgets to shore up under-funded areas. I'd recommend a national shoot-to-kill policy for both dopers and dealers, too, as an incentive - but that's just me. I believe Moonbattery is a drug, too, by the way. ;-)
#3
The perfect solution that is imfeasible. Better to just make drugs legal. Make posession a recordable felony for those 15 and above. Make dealing to anyone under 21 a capital crime. The problem is here, not in Latin America. But to do that we would have to assume self responsibility. And the new deal progessivism/liberalismis now so deeply ingrained in this country's psyche that even conservatives are unwilling to look in the mirror.
#4
Seen too many crimes committed by dopers taking a toll on the productive members of society. Legalize it? And just were are the dopers going to get the funds to buy the legal stuff? The same robbery, murder and the like. Or in your own rationalization which hates socialism, you're going to support subsidizing the habit? Free drugs for the dopers but pennies for the elderly. Oh yeah, that's a sell. MSM skirts the point that these destructive crimes are done by dopers, just like they avoid the word Muslim when dealing with terrorist. Start popping the dopers and betcha the crime rate drops significantly. The damage is already done to the victims which no amount of time in the slammer is ever going to replace. Just stop repeat behaviors. Sympathy can be found in the dictionary, somewhere between sh!t and syphillis.
#5
I saw a program once (canât remember the channel) that one military guy said he could stop the cocaine, marijuana, and heroin trade in just two weeks. On a sand table he had outlined all the known farms that were growing the product and he claimed that if we (the U.S) could destroy all of the fields in a matter of days. He said the thrusts of our efforts have been interception and that was the most dangerous way to fight the drug war. We could use high altitude bombardment and unmanned cruise missiles to emaciate the drug lordsâ crops and render the fields useless for a while. Simple math from that point on: No crop + No $$$$ = No business. Yes there would be some small fields and growers that would escape but how long would it take to track them down once you eliminate the many and are left with a few. Draconian? Yes but like the WOT you have to have a winning strategery.
#7
The US should promote buy American products all around. Say no to Coke, yes to Pot! Say no to Opium, yes to Meth!
Just kidding, sort of.
The drug thinking is all upside down. The Government should not be trying to protect people from themselves. Yeah if a product is really dangerous it should be banned, or have a warning, but otherwise let people take the risks.
I can't wait to see what would happen when the anti-Tobacco lawyers turned their greedy eyes upon the cocaine industry.
#8
To be fair, this sort of thinker exists on other continents, too. But what distinguishes the Perfect Latin American Idiot is his persistence. No matter how far the continent falls behind the rest of the world, its populists cling to the same beliefs in socialism and big government, the same distrust of capitalism and free trade, the same conviction that Latin American poverty is the fault of the United States.
Substitute "Europe" for "Latin America" and the paragraph still works just fine.
#9
Hupegum Snins5616, The crime happens because prices are kept extraordinarily high because of the risks associated with distribution. Let Walgreens sell them with the same level of control we have over Sudafed and watch the price crater. Then the crime stops as do the distribution turf wars. It's just like Prohibition. This war is the dumbest one we've ever fought because we lost it the last time and learned nothing from it.
#10
"And just were are the dopers going to get the funds to buy the legal stuff? The same robbery, murder and the like."
Cocaine is no more inherently expensive than caffeine. Pot is no more expensive than corn to produce. It is the artificial shortage and cost of transport due to law enforcement activities that make it expensive.
If pot costs 5 dollars for the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes, who would steal rather than simply pan-handle for the money? If the next line of coke cost 2 bucks, even a bum could afford it.
One of the only drugs that "causes" crime (IMHO) is meth. Remember the old hippy slogan: "Speed Kills"? They werent talking about the taker... they were talking about the people around the taker--extreme paranoia.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
11/15/2005 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The congress prohibited the DEA from releasing a geneticly modified virus that would kill all the cocaine plants in the world.
Said we should not be releasing something that would put a speices on the endangered list.
So... how many congress critters were using that coke?
#12
The Government should not be trying to protect people from themselves
Do you remember the story about the British Viceroy in India and the sati? That one where he told to the Indian leaders: "It is my intention to respect your traditions but it is also my intention to respect MY traditions and one of them is kill muderers". Well, if one of my underage daughters is ever proposed drugs, assaulted by some junkie trying to get money, or overrun by a car driven by a pot smoker it is my intention to kill the {dealer,junkie} alongside with a few partisans of drug legalization. I am also voting for any politicain proposing that drug-induced health costs (plus indirect costs like accidents and bad work caused by drug-addicts) being funded by a tax paid only by drug users and by partisans of legalization
Use of drugs is not about the user only, it has collateral effects on the whole society that is why the state interferes.
#13
Make drugs legal and and regulated. Crime would plummet in the US. Drug lords would be out of business over night and terror organizations would be cut off from a very important revenue stream.
#14
JFM, the cost of combatting drugs is higher than the cost that legal drugs would have on our society (health issues etc.).
Should fat people pay a special tax to pay for weight related illnesses? You must make a very careful balance between letting people suffer for poor life decisions and creating a safety net that encourages people to make bad decisions with no consequences.
Most people don't want to be druggies and it's not the war on drugs that's stopping them. It's common sense, their peers and their family.
#15
Perhaps if I clarify: we don't need no steenkin' drugs. We don't need another damned bureaucracy or the black market that would then flourish under the table. Every society has a percentage of drones. Drugs are incredibly inefficient - even if injected. Go straight to the brain. Wire it up. Zap 'em - or let them zap themselves - at first. Do it until they're dead - wearing the sweet smile of RFSP. Plant 'em. Cheep. Next!
#16
To continue the discussion (I don't think I really believe this, but the logic is attractive...)
JFM....quick question.... Do you drink? Or better put; Do you want to abolish alcohol? Because the same logic applies. I vast number of crimes are fueled and enabled by alcohol; should we ban it?
You see where I'm going with this....this is kind of like getting rid of cars because accidents happen.
"We don't need another damned bureaucracy or the black market that would then flourish under the table."
.com-- another question. When was the last person killed by gangsters trying to control the distribution of alcohol in the US? Answer-The day before prohibition ended. The day drugs are legalized, there will be no more black market, any more than there is currently a huge and thriving black market for underground and illegal cigarettes or liquor (barring the occasional theft of quantities of cigarettes. This is lucrative mainly because of high taxes, another form of prohibition.)
Posted by: Mark E. ||
11/15/2005 15:44 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Heh, I don't drink, but I smoke. I can buy illegal cigarettes at half the price - and that's some serious change these days. You don't think there's much of a black market? Lol. You live in, and stay in, the right part of town, methinks.
If you zap 'em with a few microvolts of electricity in the pleasure center they're toast, you don't need ANY of that shit. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. What's so hard to follow? Didn't you read Neuromancer, lol?
Okay, I've ranted. You guys wanna play games with drugs, fine. Dumb, lol, but fine. Suit (you're a lawyer, right? LOL) yourselves.
#18
Hey...I get paid to say stuff I don't necessarily "agree with" all the time!!! ;-)
Posted by: Mark E. ||
11/15/2005 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I'm just funning with ya - your comments make sense within the envelope folks are willing to consider these days. Legalize it and tax it enough to pay for at least what it costs to administer.
But I still like the idea of wirin' 'em up and burnin' 'em out, lol. *buzzzzzzz*
Or better put; Do you want to abolish alcohol? Because the same logic applies. I vast number of crimes are fueled and enabled by alcohol; should we ban it?
Alcohol causes a small number of crimes when it abolishes conscience. Much less than drugs. But unlike what happens with drugs I still have to see people ready to kill for getting alcohol. And unlike with drugs, few drinkers end with delirium tremens while it is the usual condition of a crack or heroin user. Now if you abolish drug prohibition prices would go down, but probably just a bit, because people hooked will pay any price (unlike with alcohol). But quantities will go up (just market effect) meaning more murders to get drug (in case prices didn't drop much) and in case they did significanty we would not have crime but quantiteis would be quite larger so much more accidents, more loss of productivity due to operator being high and much more brain damaged people. See what happenned to the flower generation after using drug. They ended voting for Jimmy Carter. Do you want to end like them?
#21
.com I'm reminded of a guy we had on a construction crew way back in the late 70's, early '80s. He would come to work just find but soon get really fucked up on qualudes. we rescued from dying a few times but got tired of him being paid to get shitfaced. We locked him in a port-o-john one time. He was a danger to the rest of us. We quit baby-sitting him and it didn't take long til he fell down some stairs and messed himself up real good. Tried to sue the construction company but the bloodwork results told the story. I like your solution.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/15/2005 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#22
JFM - Lol - you did the right thing under the circumstances. I saw a similar thing when I was driving trucks - about 25% of the guys working for the same outfit were wired on speed regularly. When I was asked to double-up with another driver for non-stop routes, I always declined - and told 'em why. The company started to clean 'em out - when they jacked or blew through a corner - the company would insist on a blood test, not just a DUI check. They cost us all, the drivers, the company, the society, everyone, more than they were worth.
#24
21 & 22 Are arguments for legalization. The junkies get the drugs any way even when it's illegal. But everybody is afraid to do anything about it because it's illegal. But if it were legal you could establish a policy, random blood tests, whaever, and enforce it.
JFM, My starting assumption is that no one who wants drugs in the US doesn't get them. The fact that our prisons are full of drugs demonstrates that they can't be kept out. You have little evidence that I can see to support your contention that legalization would result in continued high prices and increased usage. In fact, I suspect the oppositepossibly excepting marijuana.
As to how or when junkies die, I could care less, though the sooner the better in most cases. My only concern is that they don't take anyone else with them. 25,000 Americans are murdered every year by drunk drivers. How may are murdered by junkies? I'll bet more in the course of robberies and muggings to get money than as a result of their altered state.
#25
The other aspect of this that has not been mentioned is going to raise howls from some, but it exists and that is race. The number of blacks in jail for drug related crimes is astronomical and dispropotionate. We are creating a real problem for ourselves that we could easily avoid.
#26
FS 2083, I don't think my comment is an argument for legalization. If these drugs are legalized, then what's to stop people from comming to work high? I realize alcohol is legal and being drunk on the job can get you fired so I would guess the same would apply to these other drugs but it's a lot harder to conceal alcohol than it is meth or qualudes. I'm in favor of .com's solution. Let these people remove themselves from the gene pool.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/15/2005 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
October 10th marked the 60th anniversary of the Korean Workers' Party, an event celebrated by the massive military parades and the synchronized demonstrations so often associated with the Stalinist state of North Korea. The event drew additional outside interest due to the North Korean leadership's habit of announcing major new policy initiatives during the state-sponsored revelry. Perhaps, reasoned observers, Kim Jong-Il would choose the momentous occasion to finally announce a successor, much as his father had done during the birthday events of 1980. Others pointed out that Kim -- now 64 years old -- is around the same age as Kim Il-Sung was when he made the vital, if predictable, announcement. A flurry of news reports and rumors quickly bolstered expectations. Contrary to such hopes, however, the anniversary passed without an announcement, leaving the mystery of North Korea's next leader temporarily unresolved.
Predicting the identity of North Korea's new leader is extremely problematical, even for the most experienced Pyongyang watchers. The leadership structure, already Byzantine, is made even more intractable because so many of its members are simply unknown or unheard of due to the closed nature of North Korean society. Further complicating prognostication is the fact that the identity of North Korea's next leader is incumbent solely on the whim of Kim himself. Therefore, the observer is resigned to wading through cryptic propaganda and often inconsequential government appointments, hoping to find some pattern that would indicate who the current favorite is.
The issue of succession in Pyongyang is somewhat immediate due to the fact that Kim himself is thought to have suffered serious health problems over the past decade, no doubt worsened by his affinity for hard liquor and a probable past drug habit. Aiding his campaign for longevity is a special medical institute which concentrates solely on extending his life, just as it did for his father. The institute's remedies include, reportedly, the cooked genitalia of dogs and blood transfusions from unusually healthy youth.
Much like his father before him, Kim Jong-Il does seem dedicated to the idea of maintaining the dynastic bloodline that will assume the mantle of leadership upon his death. Indeed, in many ways, Kim the younger was the progenitor of this theory, which wedded Confucian provisions on dynasty with Marxist conjecture. In the mid-1970s, as part of his offensive to solidify his position as successor, Kim engineered an extensive propaganda campaign aimed at elevating his father to the status of deity while simultaneously justifying a blatantly anti-Marxist monarchical form of power transferal. Those who objected to the development as an affront to their Marxist scruples were quickly purged by forces under the direct control of Kim Jong-Il. Considering the leading role he played in constructing the ruling dynasty, there is little reason to doubt he will seek its continuation.
THE KIM BLOODLINE IS A HEALTHY and vibrant one, owing to the Supreme Leader's voracious appetite for young women. His massive support apparatus, which includes thousands of servants, bodyguards, and chefs, comes replete with a harem -- known as the "satisfaction corps" -- made up of dozens of women who have been specially trained to administer to the needs of Kim. While he has only acknowledged the existence of four children -- 3 boys, 1 girl -- persistent rumors that have reached the outside world indicate that other, undeclared sons of Kim exist. Often, their mothers -- former actresses or harem recruits-- are married off by Kim to other leading members of the North Korean leadership, their families kept within the orbit of the Supreme Leader. Whether these arrangements may later emerge to create friction among various leading factions is unknown. It is far more likely, however, that only the "respectable" progeny of Kim has any hope of assuming power, due to the extensive work required to position a suitable heir.
The eligible offspring includes Kim Jong-nam, Kim's eldest son, who was long thought to have the inside track in this race for power. Now 34 years old, Jong-nam is the result of an adulterous relationship between Kim and Song Hye-rim, the leading lady of North Korean cinema and the woman who was recognized as a favorite among Kim's many paramours. Like the other favored sons of North Korea, Kim Jong-nam has led a luxurious lifestyle, with private schooling in North Korea and Switzerland. After studying computer science, Kim Jong-nam was put in charge of North Korea's non-existent IT industry, while also assuming a leadership position inside the security agencies. Taken in conjunction with his diplomatic trips to China, his appointment as successor seemed assured.
Kim Jong-nam's path to power was derailed in May 2001, when he was arrested at Narita International Airport in Tokyo for traveling on a forged Dominican passport. The decidedly un-Dominican Kim Jong-nam explained his travels by stating his intention to visit Tokyo Disneyland. This erratic behavior apparently bolstered the positions of anti-Kim Jong-nam forces inside North Korea, especially in the military leadership, who managed to engineer his effective exile to China, where he reportedly still lives.
Kim Jong-nam's fall from favor leaves his younger half-brother, Kim Jong-Chul, as the front-runner. He is 24 years old and has the standard background of a member of the North Korean elite: private school in Switzerland and France, cushy party positions, and unimaginable luxury. His tastes in entertainment lean towards basketball, as he is purported to be a fan of the NBA and has overseen the construction of courts throughout the country. Due to the self-destruction of Kim Jong-nam, his ascension would appear to be a virtual uncertainty. However, there have been reports, notably from Kim Jong-Il's former cook, that Kim feels his son is too weak, often calling him "a little girl."
The only other option for Kim Jong-Il would be his youngest, Kim Jong-Un. Currently 18 years old, his existence was only revealed to the rest of the world in 2001. Consequently, little is known about him, other than he is known by Kim as the "Morning Star King," and is apparently his father's favorite. His young age would complicate his rise to power immensely, due to the years of preparatory work needed to construct a powerful support system for the leadership candidate, such as the one that smoothed Kim Jong-Il's transition in 1994.
The prospects for the two younger sons of Kim were considerably strengthened by the lofty status of their mother. Koh Yong Hee, a former dancer, was considered Kim's closest confidant. Her elevation to the status of "respected mother" was seen by many as the first step in the transfer of power to her sons. However, Koh's death by cancer in 2004 may have altered this dynamic, possibly allowing the disgraced Kim Jong-nam to reestablish his primacy in the chain of candidates.
Mysteriously, little has been done that would indicate that Kim has singled out any one of his sons for the position of Supreme Leader. In the mid-1970s, the favorable trend towards Kim Jong-Il was explicit and unavoidable: rushed biographies celebrating his "natural brilliance" were published while his visage became a fixture in many public squares. He was rapidly promoted, assuming the critically important positions within the defense and security hierarchy, while his father repaid his son's lavish attention with frequent public mentions of Kim Jong-Il's prowess.
Although there is nothing to indicate that Kim has settled on a successor, there are some signs that the regime may be laying the groundwork for the ascension of a Kim family member. In January of this year, an "astonishing" new historical discovery was announced by North Korean government television. Drawing on recently "discovered" evidence, researchers found a new quote of Kim Il-Sung, in which he states: "If I cannot achieve this sacred task [the revolution] in my lifetime, my son will do it. If my son cannot, my grandson will." Of course, this history -- along with almost all of Kim Il-Sung's official biography -- is purely the invention of North Korean propagandists. However, its promotion does point to the possibility that the regime seeks to strengthen the idea of dynastic transfer of power, while not yet ready to promote an actual successor.
WHILE KIM'S POWER WITHIN North Korea is thought to be absolute, there have been significant challenges in the recent past, further complicating any effort at dynastic transition. While these small uprisings are cloaked in official secrecy, some information concerning their scope and intent can be gleaned from the testimony of defectors. One such disturbance arose in the early 1990s, involving more than a dozen generals who had trained together in the Soviet Union. The group of officers evidently planned to execute the Kims and their allies and institute a national policy of crash modernization. However, the plot was discovered before it could progress, and the offending generals were burned at the stake in front of a large military audience. In 1995, the officers of the 6th Army Corps -- the unit in charge of the worst famine areas -- hatched a plan to storm Pyongyang in conjunction with the neighboring 7th Corps. The plot was sabotaged by informers, who were then promoted to top positions within the units. Apparently, the difficulty of organizing an effective plot against Kim Jong-Il has led many North Korea generals -- possibly as many as 130 -- to abandon their nation and seek refuge in China.
The willingness of some army officers to challenge Kim Jong-Il can be traced to the central fact that most North Koreans -- including, apparently, some in the armed forces -- have little respect for him. Kim Il-Sung's manufactured history of anti-colonialist resistance stirs admiration among nationalistic Koreans on both sides of the DMZ, many of whom still espouse an incomprehensible level of devotion to the deceased mass murderer. No such reverence is ever displayed on behalf of Kim, especially following the famine of the mid-1990s, which was blamed erroneously by many North Koreans solely on his leadership, rather than the unworkable economic infrastructure foisted upon the North by the "great leader," Kim Il-Sung. His portentous life of comfort and lack of military experience serve as a catalyst for additional, if subtle, derision. While the reputation of Kim Il-Sung remains above reproach, his pampered heir is afforded no such deference by the martial fanatics in the KPA. This purported schism has led some to believe that Kim must take into consideration the opinion of the army to some extent before choosing the KPA's next commander in chief.
To limit the power of the armed forces, Kim has worked assiduously to co-opt the military leadership, empowering family acolytes while punishing those who exhibit latent signs of disobedience. As Chairman of the National Defense Commission and the Korean People's Army, Kim has overseen a system-wide reorganization of the military leadership over the past five years, an effort that has left him in unmodifiable control of the armed forces. Critical appointments include the installment of Vice Marshal Jang Song-u, a Kim relative by marriage, to command of all forces around the capital of Pyongyang. Other Kim family members control the capital's defense system and the assorted front-line units stationed near the DMZ.
This effort at consolidation has extended into North Korea's extensive internal security services as well. Maintaining their loyalty has always been of the utmost concern to Kim and his father, both of whom were reported to have been traumatized by the 1989 execution of Romanian dictator Ceausescu by trusted officers. In reaction, Kim Jong-Il has only allowed his closest family members to control the massive internal security structure inside North Korea, going so far as to execute and purge his father's loyalists for insufficient personal allegiance.
There is almost no chance that, barring some sort of unexpected rebellion, a member of the Kim family will not be chosen as the next leader of North Korea. The system of absolutist tyranny cannot afford the uncertainty of a genuine search for an effective leader, nor can it withstand the inter-regime fissures sure to result from such a process. The Kims are well aware of the hatred their rule imbues among the populace, cementing their closely held belief that any deviation from the path of consistent and harsh leadership spells the end for them and their closely guarded privilege. They are true adherents to Benjamin Franklin's truism "we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." The next leader of North Korea, whatever Kim it may be, will assuredly follow this policy of perpetual brutality, leading to nothing but disaster for the over 20 million serfs that currently serve at the pleasure of the House of Kim.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/15/2005 15:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Excellent article, .com. Time to read the tea leaves:
China is an authoritarian regime and a nonmarket command economy still controlled by the Communist Party. The central goal of its leadership is maintaining its own power, at all costs."
When we wake up and realize this everything is going to get a lot better. Should this world allow China to become an economically functional entity without having forced upon them any democratic and free-market reform, it will rank as one of the greatest strategic blunders in all history. Anyone who attempts to call China's current system capitalistic in any way, shape or form is out to lunch. The PRC's economy is a sewer for foreign capital investment that flushes funnels directly into China's military.
The persistent assertion by the Chinese leadership to their political cadre and military officers that America is the "main enemy" and that war with the United States is "inevitable."
Everybody clear on that? We've already seen the damage done when Japan lost the military war and went to economic war with us. Do we really need a repeat lesson from a much larger foe bent on duplicating the exact same plan?
The PRC's predatory trade practices and intellectual property theft that continue in violation of past commitments and World Trade Organization obligations. In part, the result is a bilateral trade deficit that has increased "over 140 percent in only four years." The wealth thus garnered by China is used -- among other things -- to fuel the plundering of America's remaining high-technology industrial base and the utter liquidation of our manufacturing sector. Wealth transfers from the United States are underwriting Beijing's ominous build-up of its armed forces, as well.
People need to realize that patronizing big players in China, like Wal-Mart, may not have very saluatory effects for America. Our politicians need to understand that allowing campaign finance originating with corporations whose interests depend upon Chinese manufacturing capacity may not be operating in this nation's best interests either. Neither side of the aisle in Washington D.C. has a single clue regarding this as they continue to chase political contributions without regard for their actual sources.
#2
"Official Chinese efforts to secure energy resources from all over the world to meet its yawning needs..."
Frank...you mean like this?
IRAN
$20-billion gas deal signed with China
Iran has agreed in principle to sell $20 billion of liquefied natural gas to China over the next 25 years. Ignoring US energy sanctions on Teheran, the two countries have signed a memorandum of understanding that begins shipping the LNG supplies in 2008, UPI reported. The Beijing-based Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp., a spinoff of China`s defense and missile contractor, China North Industries Corp. -- the target of US sanctions amid missile sales to Iran -- would get an annual 2.5 million metric tons of Iranian LNG. China is already a major oil customer of Iran.
#4
This is ALRIGHT, guys, but the article would have done better to talk about the social unrest (Google "Taishi") further in-land than the coastal boomtowns...
Oh, and I heard an interesting theory in one Rantburg comment -- the possibility that dicking us would be as economically disastrous, ironically due to the trade imbalance. Anyone who can elaborate on that?
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
11/15/2005 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
China's future is a nightmare of 100 doors, each of which leads to something even more horrible than the last.
However, their worst problem is straightforward. They have perhaps half a billion too many people.
It is important to look at this as an axiom, because most of their other problems radiate outward from this one. Instead of using the typical standards, of democracy, liberty and freedom, China needs to be examined at the ecological or biological level.
No one could manage this many people, and certainly not a population with this many excess people. Socially, economically, structurally, China is collapsing. It consumes itself like a cancer.
Somehow, someway, there will be an intercession resulting in the greatest cull of humanity ever. In more comprehensible terms, if ONE MILLION Chinese died each and every day, it would take between a year and a year-and-a-half to accomplish this harvest.
#6
That post may have generated more visuals in thirty seconds than any other I've ever read, Moose. Wow - and you're right. Implosion must come at some point - no one is going to invite them to dinner. I won't knowingly buy their shit, any of it, ever again. I hope there are more than a few like me, too.
#7
Edward, They've got nothing but IOUs from us. I suspect that if we get close to war, they could become unmarketable and lose a lot of value. If we go to war, they could lose all value. At least we got a lot of DVD players.
China's future is a lot of poor old people. China will get old before it gets rich. Possibly the only country with a worse demographic situation is Russia. Here
#8
Drudge has a report that China intends to vaccinate 14 Billion (with a B) birds for the avian flu. A real clusterfuck - how many will hide their birds, fearing they'll be killed? Why not focus on a rational plan for their people's safety? I sincerely hope their dumb plans bite them in the ass - they are our enemy.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2005 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Somehow, someway, there will be an intercession resulting in the greatest cull of humanity ever. In more comprehensible terms, if ONE MILLION Chinese died each and every day, it would take between a year and a year-and-a-half to accomplish this harvest.
The Henan Province AIDS outbreak is the largest medically caused AIDS epidemic in the world's history. It makes the Romanian orphanage disaster look like a picnic. Due to Chinese government inaction, many of the infected and undiagnosed peasants were allowed to migrate into the city centers.
Combine the huge deficit of marriageable women (due to "1 family - 1 child" policy), the predictably massive uptick of homosexuality amongst all the surplus bachelors along with this latent AIDS epidemic and you have a massive portion of the cull right there.
Some more SARS and avian flu outbreaks, a couple of famines and crop failures and the balance could shift. China's corrupt system is breeding up all of these. Just not fast enough.
The damage they are doing to the remaining world while all of these internal rots beset them is just too vast and irreversible to be ignored. Containment is still required to ensure they do not take down the rest of the world in the massive toilet that they continue to claim is really an olympic size swimming pool.
#10
What you mention is called the "warlords" theory. That is, China descending into anarchy, when various military and civilian leaders essentially chop up the country into warlord domains - with nuclear weapons.
This is one of the "extremely bad" scenarios, as any semblance of failsafe or nuclear surety is shot to hell.
As far as their AIDS epidemic, on the down side, they have a regular, annual, migrant population of over 350 Million, that travel through central China. (Boggles the mind.) Along their route was where the tainted blood services happened, infecting entire villages in a single day.
However, even AIDS is not fast enough and lethal enough. As a disease, it follows the typical weakening curve too quickly. The American strain, for example, is far less virulent every few years. It might kill 35 or 50 Million in China. Not hardly enough.
Whatever kills Chinese like there is no tomorrow will most likely be a pulmonary illness, that is, an easily transmitted lung disease.
The last such disease that swept part of China was the hemorrhagic smallpox that devastated their army during the Korean War. It, not our guns, stopped their advance and broke their lines.
I have in past suggested that China and India share this demographic nightmare, and that sheer demographic imbalance may put them at war with each other -- a bizarre scenario. A war of attrition like World War I, but with literally hundreds of millions of soldiers slaughtering each other with sticks and rocks, while their regular armies stay in the rear and pour endless amounts of high explosives at the unarmed enemy infantry.
From our point of view, the most horrific war of all could result in an almost unthinkable scenario: a single US officer might be required to exterminate a million enemy by his actions.
Three years ago -December 2002 - I was asked to take part in a symposium on Europe and began with the observation: "I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark."
At the time, this was taken as confirmation of my descent into insanity. I can't see why. Compare, for example, the Iraqi and the European constitutions: which would you say reflected a shrewder grasp of the realities on the ground?
Or take last week's attacks in Jordan by a quartet of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's finest suicide bombers. The day after the carnage, Jordanians took to the streets in their thousands to shout "Death to Zarqawi!" and "Burn in hell, Zarqawi!" King Abdullah denounced terrorism as "sick" and called for a "global fight" against it. "These people are insane," he said of the husband-and-wife couple dispatched to blow up a wedding reception.
For purposes of comparison, consider the Madrid bombing from March last year. The day after that, Spaniards also took to the streets, for their feebly tasteful vigil. Instead of righteous anger, they were "united in sorrow" - i.e. enervated in passivity. Instead of wishing death on the perpetrators, the preferred slogan was "Basta!" - "Enough!" - which was directed less at the killers than at Aznar and Bush. Instead of a leader who calls for a "global fight", they elected a government pledged to withdraw from any meaningful role in the global fight.
My point in that symposium was a simple one: whatever their problems, most Islamic countries have the advantage of beginning any evolution into free states from the starting point of relative societal cohesion. By contrast, most European nations face the trickier task of trying to hold on to their freedom at a time of increasing societal incoherence.
True, America and Australia grew the institutions of their democracy with relatively homogeneous populations, and then evolved into successful "multicultural" societies. But that's not what's happening in Europe right now. If you want to know what a multicultural society looks like, read the names of America's dead on September 11: Arestegui, Bolourchi, Carstanjen, Droz, Elseth, Foti, Gronlund, Hannafin, Iskyan, Kuge, Laychak, Mojica, Nguyen, Ong, Pappalardo, Quigley, Retic, Shuyin, Tarrou, Vamsikrishna, Warchola, Yuguang, Zarba. Black, white, Hispanic, Arab, Indian, Chinese - in a word, American.
Whether or not one believes in "celebrating diversity", that's a lot of diversity to celebrate. But the Continent isn't multicultural so much as bicultural. There are ageing native populations, and young Muslim populations, and that's it: "two solitudes", as they say in my beloved Quebec. If there's three, four or more cultures, you can all hold hands and sing We are the World. But if there's just two - you and the other - that's generally more fractious. Bicultural societies are among the least stable in the world, especially once it's no longer quite clear who is the majority and who is the minority - a situation that much of Europe is fast approaching, as you can see by visiting any French, Austrian, Belgian or Dutch maternity ward.
Take Fiji - not a comparison France would be flattered by, though until 1987 the Fijians enjoyed a century of peaceful stable constitutional evolution the French were never able to muster. At any rate, Fiji comprises native Fijians and ethnic Indians brought in as indentured workers by the British. If memory serves, 46.2 per cent are Fijians and 48.6 per cent are Indo-Fijians; 50-50, give or take, with no intermarrying. In 1987, the first Indian-majority government came to power. A month later, Col Sitiveni Rabuka staged the first of his two coups, resulting in the Queen's removal as head of state and Fiji being expelled from the Commonwealth.
Is it that difficult to sketch a similar situation for France? Even in relatively peaceful bicultural societies, politics becomes tribal: loyalists vs nationalists in Northern Ireland, separatists vs federalists in Quebec. Picture a French election circa 2020, 2025: the Islamic Republican Coalition wins the most seats in the National Assembly. The Chiraquiste crowd give a fatalistic shrug and Mr de Villepin starts including crowd-pleasing suras from the Koran at his poetry recitals. But would Mr Le Pen or (by then) his daughter take it so well? Or would the temptation to be France's Col Rabuka prove too much?
And the Fijian scenario - a succession of bloodless coups - is the optimistic one. After all, the differences between Fijian natives and Indians are as nothing compared with those between the French and les beurs. I love the way those naysayers predicting doom and gloom in Baghdad scoff that Iraq's a totally artificial entity and that, without some Saddamite strongman, Kurds, Sunnis and Shias can't co-exist in the same state. Oh, really? If Iraq's an entirely artificial entity, what do you call a state split between gay drugged-up red-light whatever's-your-bag Dutchmen and anti-gay anti-whoring anti-everything-you-dig Muslims? If Kurdistan doesn't belong in Iraq, does Pornostan belong in the Islamic Republic of Holland?
In a democratic age, you can't buck demography - except through civil war. The Yugoslavs figured that out. In the 30 years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 per cent to 31 per cent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 per cent to 44 per cent.
So Europe's present biculturalism makes disaster a certainty. One way to avoid it would be to go genuinely multicultural, to broaden the Continent's sources of immigration beyond the Muslim world. But a talented ambitious Chinese or Indian or Chilean has zero reason to emigrate to France, unless he is consumed by a perverse fantasy of living in a segregated society that artificially constrains his economic opportunities yet imposes confiscatory taxation on him in order to support an ancien regime of indolent geriatrics.
France faces tough choices and, unlike Baghdad, in Paris you can't even talk about them honestly. As Jean-Claude Dassier, director-general of the French news station LCI, told a broadcasters' conference in Amsterdam, he has been playing down the riots on the following grounds: "Politics in France is heading to the Right and I don't want Right-wing politicians back in second or even first place because we showed burning cars on television."
Oh, well. You can understand why the Quai d'Orsay is relaxed about Iran becoming the second Muslim nuclear power. As things stand, France is on course to be the third. You heard it here first. You probably won't hear it on Mr Dassier's station at all.
#1
Bringing an unassimiliable people with both an intractible supremacist bent, and a propensity to breed at at least double the national rate, is a recipe for demographic catastrophe. More Muslims, Less French/Belgians/Germans/Brits, etc. Majority Muslims, no French/Belgians/Germans/Brits, etc.
and get 3,330,00 hits of Clinton and other leading dems explaining why Saddam and his WMDs are such a threat. Amuse your friends, annoy a liberal. Hattip to Michelle Malkin.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/15/2005 10:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Heh, now the first N hits coming back are the search, itself, lol. Everyone should do this search once or twice - and email it to their friends, as well. I love Google-bombing the asstards back, lol. Thx, Steve.
Is Hillary a centrist? Let's look at her votes
President Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what a "New Democrat" is. Specifically, was the phrase anything more than a cynical Clintonian effort to make liberal Democrats appear more moderate?
Looking ahead, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who must be considered the early Democratic front-runner for the White House in 2008, seems to be adopting a similar strategy. Over the past year, much has been made in various media accounts of Clinton's leaving her liberalism behind in favor of the center.
So my bewilderment over the New Democrat label is not just an academic inquiry. Ironically, I sought clarification at an academic conference at Hofstra University late last week. After all, it was titled "William Jefferson Clinton: The 'New Democrat' from Hope."
Various speakers tackled what a New Democrat was. Perhaps the most exhaustive account was presented by Al From, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council and referred to as the intellectual godfather of the New Democrats. He emphasized opportunity, responsibility and community, and served up phrases like "modernization of liberalism," "forging a third way," and my personal favorite, "empowering government over bureaucracy" - whatever that means. Paul Begala, a political consultant for the 1992 campaign, added that Clinton offered "modified populism."
All of this hardly clarified things. The former president only muddied the waters further with a mind-numbing speech Thursday that defended his administration. It was a laundry list that included lots of ways he spent taxpayers' money.
In the context of the conference speeches and Clinton's record, including his big tax hike, harsh class warfare attacks and failed attempt at socialized medicine, the New Democrat label seemed substantive only on the international front. To his credit, Clinton was much more a free trader than most of his fellow Democrats.
In the end, much of the New Democrat philosophy was the old Democrat philosophy spruced up with the rhetoric of moderation. Is that also the case with Sen. Clinton's so-called move to the center?
Well, it certainly is hard to detect any centrism in her overall Senate voting record. Each year, for example, she has scored 95 percent with the left-wing Americans for Democratic Action.
But let's focus on four key Senate votes that presented opportunities for Democrats to flash their moderate side. In October 2002, 29 Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution. Clinton was one of those 29, and while subsequently critical of how President George W. Bush has handled the war, she has not backed away from her vote. Score one for moderation.
Next came a vote on banning partial-birth abortions in 2003. Clinton made a splash earlier this year by calling abortion a "sad, even tragic choice."
Nonetheless, she could not bring herself to vote to stop the particularly horrific practice known as partial-birth abortion, although 17 of her fellow Democrats in the Senate did. Score one against moderation (and life).
While her husband generally grasps the benefits of free trade - noting in his speech "trade lifts people out of poverty" - Sen. Clinton opposed the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement this past June. Ten Senate Democrats voted for it. Another blow against Hillary's moderation.
Finally, there was the confirmation vote in September for John Roberts as U.S. Supreme Court chief justice. With Roberts' powerful intellect, obvious mastery of the law and sound temperament, only an ideologue could have voted against him. Twenty-two Democrats gave a thumbs-up for Roberts, including some big-name liberals such as Christopher Dodd (Conn.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.). Hillary Clinton voted against Roberts.
One key vote and some occasional centrist talk do not make a moderate. Just as Bill Clinton the New Democrat was more about political posturing than policy reality, Hillary Clinton's move to the center lacks credibility. It is simply Clintonian.
I hear through the Washington grapevine that she is talking to corporate America about bringing back her plan to take over the health care industry. The deal is, corporations support her plan (and her run for Prez), in return they get to off-load their corporate health insurance plans, which have become a big headache for them. So far this deal seems to be under the radar of the MSM and punditry.
Posted by: jolly roger ||
11/15/2005 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Jolly - interesting. That should be real appealling to GM. Great deal for most large employers, power for Hillary; heck two out of three ain't bad. :-)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy keenly relishes acting as an ethical or moral beacon. He boasts that the high court's policy encyclicals endow the justices with greater power than elected lawmakers, with the possible exception of foreign affairs. Justice Kennedy's playing Platonic Guardian under the umbrella of the Constitution might be redeemed were he blessed with uncommon wisdom and dazzling insights. But his observations about the human condition are a best jejune and at worst sophomoric. Justice Kennedy illustrates why President George W. Bush should stick to Supreme Court nominees in the mold of Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In a June 3, 2005, interview with the Academy of Achievement, the justice elaborated his interpretation of the Constitution: "You know all of us have an instinctive judgment that we make. ... And judges do the same thing ... [A]fter you make a judgment, you must then formulate a reason for your judgment into a verbal phrase, into a verbal formula. And then you have to see if that makes sense, if its logical, if it's fair, if it accords with the law, if it accords with the Constitution, if it accords with your own sense of ethics and morality. And if at any point along this process you think you're wrong, you have to go back and do it all over again." In other words, Justice Kennedy's personal sense of "fairness," "ethics," and "morality" enjoy equal standing with the Constitution. Thus, he has enlisted such extraconstitutional and intellectually vacuous concepts as "mysteries of the universe" and "the meaning of human existence" in proclaiming constitutional rights to abortion and homosexual sodomy in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), respectively.
He explained in the interview that the most difficult cases for him implicated "the components of human liberty," an inevitable result of the subjective moral standard of constitutional interpretation he celebrates. Justice Kennedy amplified: "Because if you insist that the individual has a particular right, that means the legislature cannot infringe on that right. And sometimes your own values and your own morals really would disapprove of the conduct that you're ratifying, but you do so because there's an area of morality. But morality really should have an underpinning of rational choice, and each citizen must make that rational choice to determine what is good and what is evil, and those are hard."
But civilization would degenerate into a state of nature where life is poor, brutish, nasty and short if laws could be transgressed with impunity whenever the motivation was personal conception of what is good or evil. Justice Kennedy shied from that precipice in Lawrence by arbitrarily withholding constitutional condemnation of laws against same-sex "marriage," prostitution, polygamy, obscenity or marijuana irrespective of whether the violator acted in accord with moral conscience. Arbitrariness, however, earmarks a government of men, not of laws.
Justice Kennedy preposterously insisted the Founding Fathers intended to make the Supreme Court the nation's vanguard, not the least dangerous branch confined in its interpretations to the original meaning of the Constitution. He asserted a justice must be guided by the knowledge that, "The Framers wanted you to shape the destiny of the country. They did not want to frame it for you." According to Justice Kennedy, the legislative and executive branches play subordinate roles, like extras in a Cecille B. DeMille extravaganza. He thus boasted: "You know, in any given year, we may make more important decisions than the legislative branch does -- precluding foreign affairs perhaps. Important in the sense that it will control the direction of society."
Justice Kennedy's conception of constitutional interpretation is the manipulation of "symbols that have an intrinsic ethical content." He maintains, "If you're going to achieve, you have to achieve by manipulating symbols and working with systems that have an ethical content." It is not enough to honor the modest judicial role intended by the Framers.
Justice Kennedy's claimed power to compel the nation's embrace of ethical or moral goodness would be less alarming if he radiated the profundity of a Nestor or Merlin. But he does not. His starry-eyed identification of his major concerns for the 21st century is exemplary:
"My major concern is that what I thought was the golden age of peace seems farther from our reach than I would have thought 10 years ago. My major concerns are that there is not an understanding and a commitment to the idea that the American constitutional system and the American idea freedom have certain universal components that we have a duty, No. 1, to understand ourselves, and No. 2, to explain to the rest of the world. Not at the point of a bayonet. That's sometimes necessary, but not at the point of a bayonet, but because we have a bond with all mankind. I don't think we are looking far ahead enough in this respect."
If Justice Kennedy would stick to the original meaning of the Constitution in lieu of crusading for a better ethical or moral universe, he would find his task less troublesome and under rather than above the law.
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.
