This is what happens when the Democrats wave white flags and play politics with national security. Our allies and our enemies are CERTAIN of their cowardice.
The way Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf reads the geopolitical tea leaves in the Middle East and South Asia is not to our liking, but hardly surprising. Political science 101 shows a U.S. Congress, controlled by the Democrats, not prepared to see the Iraq conflict through to victory -- i.e., a free democratic country able to sustain and defend itself without the U.S. military.
In fact, Musharraf, like the rest of the world, noted that Democratic frontrunner for the White House Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Iraqi war, is now calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin in 90 days. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls Iraq "the worst foreign policy mistake in American history" as senators prepare legislation that would revoke authorization for the war.
...The corollary is what happens in Afghanistan if the United States does not prevail in Iraq. He began hedging his bets with a controversial deal signed last Sept. 5 with tribal leaders in North Waziristan...who are Muslim fundamentalists and pro-Taliban.
#1
Cajunbelle...and it's exactly why I am becoming even more anti-donk everyday. I have always thought the donks were generally wrong, but at least had a semblence or charade of correct motives.
However, even in the politics of corruption we call the Beltway...the donks are so wrong on the GWOT that they are placing the entire nation in peril.
On Sunday, a cab driver in Nashville named Ibrahim Ahmed picked up two college students, Andrew Nelson and Jeremy Invus, at a city bar and drove them to the campus of Vanderbilt University. Along the way, the three got into an argument, apparently leaving Ahmed enraged: after they paid their fare and left his cab, he tried to run down Nelson and Invus. Invus was seriously injured.
What were they arguing about? Nashvilles WSMV reports that a fight over religion became heated. Associated Press has it that police said he ran over one of his passengers after they got into a religious argument.
Neither WSMV nor Newschannel 5 nor AP give any details about the argument. About who Ibrahim Ahmed is, and what may have led him to try to kill two of his passengers because of an argument, we hear nothing at all. One might suggest to the Nashville news outlets, as well as to AP, that Ibrahim Ahmeds religion, as well as that of Nelson and Invus, would be relevant to a story about a religious argument that turned murderous.
After all, AP has not shied away from reporting on the religion of perpetrators of crimes in another recent case. Around the same time that Ahmed was running down Invus, a man in Chicago apparently bludgeoned three women -- a woman, her stepsister, and their mother. AP doesnt give the suspects name, but does tell us that the family was Assyrian Christian, a minority group in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Did the murderer kill his victims because of some imperative he believed arose from his Christian faith? Unlikely: AP notes that the couple had been having marital problems. The Chicago Tribune adds that the suspect, Daryoush Ebrahami, felt disrespected by the women, who had told him he was not a man.
So why is Ebrahamis Christian faith relevant? Compare APs report on these murders to the initial AP report about the Salt Lake mall shootings: Police: Teen Shot Mall Victims at Random, by Jennifer Dobner. All we learn about Sulejman Talovic beyond his name is that he was a trench coat-clad teenager who lived with his mother.
When people point out that the religion of nominally Christian murderers isnt noted in news stories, and that Talovics religion should not have been either, they assume that in both instances religion played no factor in the killing, and was hence irrelevant. However, while there is no evidence to suggest that Ebrahami killed his victims in the name of Jesus Christ, or would attempt to justify the killings by reference to Christs teachings, it was at very least a possibility that Talovic, like so many others around the world every day, as well as other lone jihadists in the U.S. like Mohammad Reza Taheri-azar, killed in the name of Allah and with justification from the Quran and Sunnah. Thats why Talovics religion at least merited a mention, and some investigation.
The FBI has ruled out Islamic terrorism as a factor in the Talovic killings. One hopes that agents have done so after sufficient consideration of the possibility -- which seems to have been absent from other cases with some similarities to that of Talovic. But in the wake of this, some have rushed to condemn me and others who publicly noted the mainstream medias reluctance to identify Talovic as a Muslim, and to explore the possibility that his killings were jihad-related. This criticism was misplaced, for that reluctance is real, but it does not apply to all religions -- as the Ahmed and Ebrahami cases show. Ibrahim Ahmed is, in all likelihood, a Muslim, and his murderous rage may have been reinforced by Islams belief that those who insult Islam have forfeited their right to live. The refusal of the Associated Press even to consider such possibilities, and its inconsistency in doing so, is readily apparent.
While Sulejman Talovic may not have been a jihadist, and Ibrahim Ahmed may not be one, in APs selective disclosure of the facts they may find themselves covering up for the next jihadist who does strike. And they may already have done so.
Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" and "The Truth About Muhammad"
From the blog of Mickey Kaus, whom the OpinionJournal.com call "the most tough-minded liberal we know." The many embedded links ignored by lazy poster.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Do all those Democratic Senators running for President really want to vote to disapprove the surge even as it seems to be showing some initial, tentative, possibly illusory positive effects? Or, as Instapundit suggests, would a "no surge" vote put them in the position where a military success would be "politically ... dangerous?" I've previously argued that the wording of an anti-surge resolution would leave the Dems some escape routes--but what if the public doesn't pay attention to the wording? What if they just pay attention to the vote? What if it comes up in a debate: "And you opposed the increase in troops which is what finally brought relative peace to Baghdad..." How much better for these Democrats if a)they can placate the left by telling primary voters they support some sort of anti-surge resolution but b) they don't have to actually vote on a resolution because it never gets enough votes for cloture, so there's no actual vote that can be hung around their necks. That's win-win! And gee, that's what actually seems to have happened in the Senate. Funny thing. I smell Kabuki. If there's one thing United States Senators are good at it's engineering a stalemate that lets everyone posture in whatever way they think will help them.
In Wednesdays National Review Online, Evans & Novak reporter David Freddoso hammers former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as a man with a mean streak. Freddosos piece recalls some of Giulianis more colorful moments in office including his once saying, If you tell me off, I tell you off -- thats my personality. Freddoso repeats the often-stated myth that Giuliani was hated by the end of his term, until the September 11 terrorist attack rehabilitated his supposedly tattered reputation and rocketed him to global fame and acclaim. On the contrary, a key survey showed that New Yorkers regarded Giuliani very highly less than a month before al-Qaeda agents demolished the Twin Towers.
An August 5-12, 2001 poll by the New York Times -- perhaps Giulianis most bitter critic during his eight-year administration -- showed that among 1,353 New Yorkers surveyed, Giuliani was very popular and widely credited for having rescued Gotham from the flames in which he found it in 1994. As Adam Nagourney and Marjorie Connelly reported that August 15:
Only 25 percent said they believed that the city would become a worse place to live in the next 10 to 15 years, the lowest percentage since The Times first asked the question 28 years ago. Eight years ago, before Mr. Giuliani was elected, half of city residents were pessimistic about the long-term course of the city. And 4 in 10 said Mr. Giuliani's policies had a lot to do with the improvements. Overall, 55 percent said they approved of the job he was doing, compared with 30 percent who disapproved.
So, the man who the conventional wisdom still says would have vanished into a rain of rotten tomatoes had September 11 not occurred, in fact, enjoyed a 55 percent approval rating one month before al-Qaeda struck. Naturally, The West 43rd Street Gazette entombed news of Giulianis popularity in paragraph 30 of Nagourney and Connelleys story -- the very last paragraph.
Freddoso does concede that, Maybe a hard, mean man was what New York City needed after decades of feel-good, politically correct thinking had made the place unlivable and nearly ungovernable. This is one reason why Giuliani is exactly the presidential candidate around whom conservatives and libertarians immediately should coalesce.
#3
Until you folks get your priorities straight - THE WAR - the Democrats are going to keep winning by default. If I can hold my nose and vote for a socon with the right thinking on the war you should do the same. A jihadi victory means no Supreme Court and no 2nd Amendment. Though if you are prepared to convert to "islam" I guess you will find people who agree with you on abortion and as one of the Umma you will be able to your firearms too.
#4
He's my first choice right now. The article gets it right: Rudy is Reaganite where it counts.
We aren't likely to solve the abortion issue in the next, oh, fifty years, so I'm willing to let that one lie for a while. And the firearms issue is moot: we have a functioning 2nd Amendment, we have courts upholding it, and we have a hundred million-odd armed Americans who'll make sure it's enforced. The 2nd ain't disappearing.
Rudy is a smart, tough guy who gets it on national security.
The biggest problem for him is his messed up personal life. If Rudy gets anywhere close to the nomination you can expect the Clintonistas to find ways of bringing that out.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/21/2007 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Of the top 4 Republican runners right now, McCain, Romney, Gingrinch, and Giuliani, for me it's a tough choice. I'd have to vote Giuliani. And isn't it odd that the only one of the four who hasn't had multiple wives is the Morman, Romney?
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
02/21/2007 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Of the top 4 Republican runners right now, McCain, Romney, Gingrinch, and Giuliani, for me it's a tough choice. I'd have to vote Giuliani.
I think this time around, Repubs better vote for whomever gets the nomination. No matter what.
#9
I'm not voting for any gun-grabber. Period. Giuliani will change on this issue or he won't get my vote. The Repubs already don't get my money since they refuse to take a stand against illegal immigration. The way 2008 is shaping up, it's definitely going to be a choice about picking the lesser of two very bad evils.
Posted by: mac ||
02/21/2007 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
#10
As a strong Giuliani supporter, it's good to hear so many Republicans saying that they will support him if he gets the nomination. Likewise, even though I tend to the moderate side of the Republican party on some social issues, I would probably vote for anyone the Republicans nominate over any conceivable Democratic candidate.
As an Arizonan, I would love to be part of an upset primary victory for Giuliani over McCain here. I think that would give him tremendous momentum and would make a big splash in the press. It would even be better if he were to pick Kyl as his VP candidate. Imagine the smoke pouring out of McCain's ears if that were to happen! It might even make it easier for some social conservatives if and when they have to plug their noses and vote for him.
Assuming Rudy actually wins the presidency, I don't think it would be harmful to the conservative position on the important social issues. If his judicial nominees are philosophically similar to Roberts and Alito, as he has said they would be, the main result of his presidency on social issues would be to continue the rightward momentum of the Bush years. If he is strong on war on Islamic fascism and is able to make some bureaucratic reforms within the federal government (his ability to stand up to tough bureaucratic fights in NYC is legendary) and appoints good judges, conservatives could end up considering him to be as good as Reagan. Well, almost as good maybe. ;-)
Although I admire much that Bush has been able to accomplish, he has not done enough to take control of the federal bureaucracy, from the CIA to the State Department, and keep them from undermining his policies. I think Giuliani could make substatial gains in this area - not a moment too soon - while not losing ground on other issues, including gun control, abortion, marriage. And a Republican president would have to take his party's reaction on these matters seriously, whereas a Democratic president, elected because too many conservatives voted third party or not at all, would not. If Giuliani gets the nomination, I hope social conservatives will show up at the polls and do the right thing. And then I hope they keep making their voices heard after he is in office. That's what I intend to do if one of the others gets the nomination.
#11
Mac - you is entitled to your opinion, of course. What you're saying is that if it's between Rudy and Hillary, you're not gonna vote? That's a vote for Hillary, by default.
I think Steve White is correct - Rudy can't take the guns away if he's elected. If the Dems divide the country again, and get more liberals in office, Hillary just might try to take the guns.....
It's always the lesser of two evils. It's not a privilege to vote, it's a responsiblity!
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/21/2007 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Rudy seems to me to be the clear choice at this point. He has a track record of bringing order and sanity where chaos reigned. He told the Saudis to take their money and stick it where the sun don't shine. He will fight with Congress when neeed be, he will continue to build up the military and will protect this country. My principal worry is about what he will or won't do on immigration/southern border.
I am not concerned about gun control. He won't go there. Abortion is also something that is just not going to be changed in the country any time soon. He would not be the engine for change one way or the other.
I love Newt, but he is not electable. He could be a great Sec State though.
#14
It's Rudy. Newt and Romney aren't in the running. The only other guy in the game is McCain. Steve White's right. Until Republicans realize they should back a winner instead of carping about issues that aren't really on the table, like abortion and guns, we will continue to lose to Democrats who will ruthlessly persue those very issues and more. If we don't, then we deserve to lose. And lose we will.
#15
I think Rudy has the best chance. I sent an email to his exploritory whatever today volunteering my time. Once he announces I will make a donation. Its my sincerest hope that the donks get beat again. The reaction from the donks upon losing is going to be priceless.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
02/21/2007 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
#16
If Rudy can get his ex-wife to stump for him, old personal issues go bye bye.
Hey, crazier things have happened and we are talking about world class politics here.
When then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte published his Annual Threat Assessment last month, he admitted a startling fact. We know where al-Qaida's leaders are hiding.
"Al-Qaeda's core elements are resilient," he wrote. "They continue to plot attacks against our homeland and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, Northern Africa and Europe."
Interestingly, no leader of either party has called for invading Pakistan to shutdown this "secure hideout" for the people who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. Keeping that in mind, consider something Sen. John McCain said Monday about former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement, that's the kindest word I can give you, of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war," said McCain. "I think Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history." But which is more responsible for the tough situation we face in Iraq today: Donald Rumsfeld's management of the military or the assignment of that military to an impractical political mission promoted by John McCain and President Bush?
#1
a nuclear-armed Islamic country run by a pro-American general who originally took power in a coup --
Moose will one day get whacked and his intelligence service, secret police and the radicals will quickly move in. We'll face the kak sandwich of all time when that happens, and it could happen any day. The only thing that will save us at that point will be India and their willingness to smash the Pakiwakis once and for all. The Chinese are the wild card, I don't even want to go there.
#2
True, Besoeker. I've often wondered the *unthinkable* about Paki-Waki. Musharraf, as much as I despise him, is the "lesser of 2 evils" to run that country. Overthrow him/his regime, and *instantly* the jihadis have nukes. I've gotta hope that we have contingency plans (or Mushy does) to take out the nukes if'n he gets seriously threatened.
Posted by: BA ||
02/21/2007 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The only thing that will save us at that point will be India and their willingness to smash the Pakiwakis once and for all.
Testify!
I suspect the only reason the Indians have not dealt with this problem by now is that "pakistan" is upwind of India.
#4
"It was one thing to conclude that the threat posed by Saddam was great enough to run the risks of destabilizing Iraq. It was another to accuse of "cultural bigotry" those who did not discount that risk. So back to the question: Should the failure thus far to establish a stable democracy in Iraq be blamed on the management of U.S. troops, or was the concept of using U.S. troops to create an Iraqi democracy flawed?
The fact that not even John McCain is now calling for sending U.S. forces into Pakistan -- a nuclear-armed Islamic country run by a pro-American general who originally took power in a coup -- to shutdown a sanctuary for the leaders of al-Qaida points to an answer. "
this is about the most stupid thing ive read in a long time. Pakiwaki land is like what, 5 times the population of Iraq. And if we were to invade the vast majority of the population would be against us, while in Iraq in summer of 2003 only the Sunni Arabs were against us - thats like 5 million hostiles vs 60 million.
The fact that no one wants to go into Pakistan YET (and keep in mind, we dont know exactly WHERE in Pakistan OBL is, and it wouldnt be trivial for us to occupy Waziristan sufficiently to find him (remember how long it took to find Saddam), assuming hes even there, and not in Quetta, or Karachi) hardly means establishing democracy in Iraq was impossible. For all the talk about longstanding hatreds among sunnis and shia (which is coming from both the isolationist right and from the left (see Trudeaus latest on Sunday)) in fact the Shia hatred for the Sunnis has been intensified the last 4 years, as the Sunni insurgency has steadly killed innocent Shia. Had we had the force to stop that, the relation between Sunnis and shias in Iraq, would probably be better than it is now.
#5
Direct hit, LH! Actually, I'd say that had we USED the forces we actually had in Iraq to suppress the Sunni terror war against the Shi'a (yes, it's been 99% a "civil war" from the get-go, but that's unimportant in itself, contrary to the current case of national vapors over the "civil war" thinggy), things probably would have gone much better.
But let's be realistic - calm, functioning and democratic would have been an unbelievable and unlikely accomplishment after only a few years. Look more closely at Germany and especially Japan in the early occupation years for a more sensible yardstick. If we'd only kept the Sunni lid on - and proceeded to systematically crush the Sunni chauvinists' will to resist or give them the dirt nap - things woulda been mighty different, I'm fairly sure.
But this peculiar, almost bizarre, obsession with accelerating Coalition departure and using only leverage and politics to contain what was obviously an implacable Sunni extremist core led us to where we are today. I've been puzzling (along with a lot of mid-level officers at MNF-I of my acquaintance during my Palace days) as to just what Casey, Rummy, Chiarelli, et al were thinking, and how those NSC/DOD/Iraq videoconferences went. I can report that mid-to-low level civilians were able to confound and provoke very senior MNF-I brass at reconstruction meetings with the simplest questions/assertions about the need for security and the failure of the odd "strategy". Really something to behold.
Read this and askyourself: How the hell does Jim Webb get from what he wrote here (which I 100% agree with) to his position today? As you read this, substitute 'Iraq' (and I might have left some in here) for 'Vietnam'. It is almost spooky. Is his BDS that bad? What made the change in him?
I have performed some bold edits.
It is difficult to explain to my children that in my teens and early twenties the most frequently heard voices of my peers were trying to destroy the foundations of American society, so that it might be rebuilt according to their own narcissistic notions. In retrospect its hard even for some of us who went through those times to understand how highly educated peoplemost of them spawned from the comforts of the upper-middle classcould have seriously advanced the destructive ideas that were in the air during the late 60s and early 70s. Even Congress was influenced by the virus.
After President Nixon resigned in August of 1974, that falls congressional elections brought 76 new Democrats to the House, and eight to the Senate. A preponderance of these freshmen had run on McGovernesque platforms. Many had been viewed as weak candidates before Nixons resignation, and some were glaringly unqualified, such as then-26-year-old Tom Downey of New York, who had never really held a job in his life and was still living at home with his mother.
This so-called spit! Watergate Congress rode into town with an overriding mission that had become the rallying point of the American Left: to end all American assistance in any form to the besieged government of South Vietnam. Make no mistakethis was not the cry of a few years earlier to stop young Americans from dying. It had been two years since the last American soldiers left South Vietnam, and fully four years since the last serious American casualty calls there.
#1
I very much enjoy his movie Rules of Engagment, however I now realize he'll say anything now that he's a democratic politician and out to grab a vote. I'm definately confused too by his new stance.
#2
The only explanation I can come up with that doesn't involve psychiatry is anti-Semitism. Pat Buchanan, like Webb, sees our defeat in Vietnam as ignoble, yet opposes victory in Iraq. Buchanan, like Webb, sees this war as something the "neocons" (Jews) foisted on us, and has it in for Israel. Read Pitchfork Pat on Iraq, then read No-Class Webb on Iraq, and you'd swear they have the same speechwriter. Since the modern Democratic Party and the modern antiwar movement--but I repeat myself--are congenial to anti-Semitism (and anti-religious impulses of all stripes), that's where these guys gravitate to.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/21/2007 6:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
the rallying point of the American Left: to end all American assistance in any form to the besieged government of South Vietnam. to lift all obstacles in the enslavemenyt of the South-Vietnamese and the genocide of Cambodians.
#4
Intellectual and liberal Cambodians actually welcomed the Khmer Rouge into Phnom Penh. They thought it would be a welcome change from the corrupt Lon Nol government.
Of course, as educated people with foreign contacts, they were first up against the wall when the revolution came.
#6
Intellectual and liberal Cambodians actually welcomed the Khmer Rouge into Phnom Penh. They thought it would be a welcome change from the corrupt Lon Nol government.
Just like intellecrtual and liberal Americans would welcome jihadis into Washington.
Of course, as educated people with foreign contacts, they were first up against the wall when the revolution came.
Unfortuantaley Khmer Rouge weren't satisfied with putting against the wall a bunch of never-do-weels who thought themselves superiors because they had read, spit, Sartre and contemplated their navel, while being unable to solve a first degree equation. Over a million people who were NOT decadent "intellectuals" with a death wish accompanies them in death.
If/When the jihadis take over, the LLL (Hollywood, gays, Donks, etc.) will be the first to be put up against the wall and "re-educated."
Posted by: BA ||
02/21/2007 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I believe that thousands of Americans fully deserve to be tried and executed for treason and genocide for their conduct during the Vietnam War. I further believe that this statement is defensible on common law and constitutional grounds, if considered outside the limited mental horizon of mass media culture.
Potential defendants would include political and academic personalities as well as leading media figures. If we can defeat these same people and their successors and current proxy forces in this current war, it may yet happen.
#9
I believe that thousands of Americans fully deserve to be tried and executed for treason and genocide for their conduct during the Vietnam War.
Seconded. And for the conduct of so many during the current war. You could be sent to the stockade for spreading defeatism in England during the Second World War; I cannot understand how our common sense has failed us now.
#10
This is a textbook example of a 180° turn. And I mean 180.0000°, not 179.9999 or 180.0001!
Posted by: Dar ||
02/21/2007 17:46 Comments ||
Top||
#11
You can e-mail the distingusihed gentleman from Virginia here.
I did. It took me a long time to find his Senate website,but the "Elect Jim Webb " site pops right up on Google.
I have recently read two of your essays from about ten years ago, regarding the disgrace of Vietnam. I believe one was "The Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty" and the second was "Sleeping With the Enemy". Excellent pieces!
I did not vote for you Senator, but had I read those essays last fall, I might have.
But I am confused. Your positions seem quite liberal, or perhaps just anti-conservative. Has your position changed so much in ten years? Did you write those essays?
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/21/2007 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
From all accounts, it is clear that the explosion that struck the Samjhauta Express was a terrorist strike, obviously aimed at derailing the peace talks between India and Pakistan. Suitcases packed with unexploded crude bombs and bottles of gasoline were reportedly found in cars not hit in the attack, which suggests that an identical explosive device probably set off the blasts.
There are reports that an outfit like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, or Army of the Pure, a Pakistan-based Islamic militant group, or even the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) could be behind the blasts.
The country is still dangerously unprepared to prevent such terror strikes and the tragic loss of life and economic havoc they leave in their wake. Despite many security precautions that have been proposed, serious vulnerabilities remain ominously exposed.
Terrorists have a chillingly vast menu of soft targets to choose from, be it water and food supplies, chemical plants, energy grids and pipelines, bridges, tunnels, or trains that we depend upon in our everyday lives. To many people, particularly in Kashmir, who were disappointed with the progress made in establishing a bus link between the two parts of the divided territory, the rail connection between the two countries was a big consolation.
Targeting it was evidently an attempt to derail the bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan that has picked up steam of late. The Pakistani Foreign Minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has reportedly decided to go ahead with his visit to New Delhi for scheduled talks. Not that anyone expects these talks to lead to any significant breakthroughs, if the past is any guide, especially since the Musharraf administration has to address its domestic constituency and demonstrate that it has not changed direction in negotiating with India. But that said, talking about talks is not enough as is evident from the several rounds of talks that have been held over the years.
So this time round, if real progress is to be made, Islamabad would do well to go beyond making conciliatory gestures and not let terrorist outrages, as happened on Monday, pave the way for highlighting customary grouses, which invariably happens in Indo-Pak parleys. It is a welcome sign that Islamabad has reportedly said it won't let anyone stand in the way of the peace process.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/21/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
From all accounts, it is clear that the explosion that struck the Samjhauta Express was a terrorist strike, obviously aimed at derailing the peace talks between India and Pakistan.
Derailing... it's a train... get it? It's this kind of high-quality metonymy that keeps me coming back to the Hindustan Times.
"MOHABBAT DI gaddi," Allah Ditta, a locomotive driver on the Samjhauta Express called it in a February 2000 interview: "the train of love." Only when counter-terrorism investigators in India succeed in arresting the perpetrators of the Samjhauta Express bombing will a full account of their motives emerge. But Pakistan's jihadi press, little monitored in India, provides not a little insight into the hearts and minds of the terrorists who most likely carried out the attack.
Islamists have, in recent weeks, repeatedly argued that the peace process poses a threat to both Pakistan's economic survival and its ideological raison d'etre. Growing interaction at the level of ordinary people, Islamists have claimed, is working to soften the hatred they believe is necessary to protect their nation. In their imagination, Allah Ditta's train of love is a Trojan Horse, a vehicle for the destruction of the project of Pakistan.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: John Frum ||
02/21/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In 1988 an audit team from the DoD was supposed to arrive in Pak to find out where the Stinger Missiles were. Some Pak ISI generals had sold some to Iran, to China and had been arming Kashmiri groups for a jihad planned against India (and launched when the Afghan war ended and jihadi manpower was available).
The ISI bombed the Ojhri arms dump in Rawalpindi (situated in a heavily populated area) to hide the evidence, killing thousands of people.
The Pak victims of this train attack are likewise expendable. Just collateral damage in the jihad.
Posted by: John Frum ||
02/21/2007 6:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Posted by: John Frum ||
02/21/2007 6:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Islamists have, in recent weeks, repeatedly argued that the peace process poses a threat to both Pakistan's economic survival and its ideological raison d'etre. Growing interaction at the level of ordinary people, Islamists have claimed, is working to soften the hatred they believe is necessary to protect their nation. In their imagination, Allah Ditta's train of love is a Trojan Horse, a vehicle for the destruction of the project of Pakistan"
Another example of how Islamist whether in Saudi, Pakistan etc believe in hatred and not Love to get their polictical gains.
Four countries that thrive on hatred ie Saudi, Pakistan,Iran and Syria all need sorting out in the WOT!!!!
With Russia stringing some interesting words together lately, requiring Condi to have to supply some answer to the Russia statement of "Poland and the Czech Republic would now be on the target list of Russia," she responds with "a planned missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic was designed to counter a threat from Iran"
My thoughts kept going back to an article I'd read during the early days of the Iraq War about the elite military generals extremely concerned, their plans for Iraq were failing!
Last night, while searching for a recipe, I found the article! Just wanted to share it with you, noticing it's placement in the OPINION section. Notice the date, one day after our Marines helped the Iraqis pull down Saddam's statue
The Elite's Feeling the Heat
Moscow Times
April 10, 2003
By Pavel Felgenhauer
As the war in Iraq winds to its inevitable end, uneasy reflections are taking over Russia's political and military elite. No one in Moscow ever seriously believed that Saddam Hussein might indeed "defeat" the allied forces. But the speed and decisiveness of the offensive has bewildered many.
Russian generals were expecting another prolonged so-called non-contact war, like the one against Yugoslavia in 1999, in Afghanistan in 2001 or the first gulf war in 1991, when a four-day ground offensive was preceded by a 39-day air bombardment. It was believed that the Americans were afraid of close hand-to-hand encounters, they would not tolerate the inevitable casualties, and that in the final analysis they were cowards who relied on technical superiority.
In the first week of the war, allied forces rapidly fanned out of Kuwait, occupied most of southern Iraq and moved deep into the central part of the country without prolonged preliminary air bombardment. This successful blitz caused shock in Moscow. Then came news of the first U.S. casualties and prisoners, of severe sandstorms hampering movement, of increased Iraqi attacks and an overall pause in the offensive.
As the allies' push into Iraq seemed to falter, many hearts in Moscow and in Europe rejoiced. In a poll taken in late March, 52 percent of Russians were of the opinion that the U.S.-led military action in Iraq was unsuccessful; 58 percent believed it would be a long war; 35 percent were convinced the United States would win in the end, while 33 percent assumed Iraq would prevail.
Last week it was disclosed that two retired three-star generals -- Vladislav Achalov (a former paratrooper and specialist in urban warfare) and Igor Maltsev (a specialist in air defense) -- visited Baghdad recently and were awarded medals by Hussein. The awards were handed out by Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Khashim Akhmed.
It was reported that the retired generals helped Hussein prepare a war plan to defeat the Americans. Achalov confirmed he was in Baghdad just before the war and received medals from Hussein for services rendered. He also told journalists that the defense of Baghdad was well organized, U.S. tanks would be burned if they enter the city and U.S. infantry would be slaughtered. According to Achalov, the only way the allies could ever take Baghdad and other Iraqi cities was to raze them to the ground by carpet bombing.
Last week, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov echoed Achalov's opinion: "If the Americans continue to fight accurately, avoiding high casualties, the outcome is uncertain. If the Americans begin carpet bombing, Iraq will be defeated." Ivanov also announced that the Defense Ministry was attentively studying the war in order to learn how to build a stronger Russian army.
It seems that up to now the result of the study has been negative. It would appear that Russian generals and Ivanov assume it's the Americans that should be learning from them how to flatten cities -- the way our military destroyed the Chechen capital, Grozny.
Many Russian generals truly believe that a bombing campaign that leaves some buildings still standing is ineffective.Precision-guided munitions are widely considered to be costly pranks -- not real weapons. In Chechnya, we tried to use some of these gadgets, but they did not work, as most Russian officers and men have not been trained in how to use the limited number of modern weapons our military inherited from the Soviet armed forces.
The worst possible outcome of the war in Iraq for the Russian military is a swift allied victory with relatively low casualties. Already many in Russia are beginning to ask why our forces are so ineffective compared to the Brits and Americans; and why the two battles to take Grozny in 1995 and 2000 each took more than a month to complete, with more that 5,000 Russian soldiers killed and tens of thousands wounded in both engagements, given that Grozny is one tenth the size of Baghdad.
The Russian media is generally avoiding the hard questions and serving up anti-American propaganda instead. It is alleged that the U.S. government is "concealing casualties" (like its Russian counterpart), and that hundreds if not thousands of U.S. soldiers have already been killed. Maybe this deceit will become the main semi-official excuse for disregarding the allied victory.
Or perhaps our generals who do not want to build a modern post-Soviet military will come up with some other propaganda ploy.
Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst.
#1
I'm surprised the Russian Generals said carpet bombing would be the only way Iraq would lose. If I remember correctly, the Nazi's leveled Stalingrad and this gave the Russians an advantage in urban fighting because the ruble was great cover and heavy armor could not be brought in. The red bastards never seemed to make much sense to me anyways.
#2
Back in the 1980s, it was pointed out that after the Napoleonic wars, every major army on the planet adopted Napoleon's tactics, for two opposing armies to meet in a wide front, while a second eschelon looked for a weak point to split the enemy forces. Sometimes called the "axe strategy".
The first major conflict after Napoleon's wars was the American Civil War, and the Americans discovered the fatal flaw of the strategy: when both sides used it, it resulted in stalemate.
In Europe, however, this was not discovered until World War I, neither the revolutions of 1948 nor the Franco-Prussian war really giving it a chance to be discovered.
But it took a long time, and Russia had left the war before the light dawned that the axe strategy no longer worked. So Russia never got the big lesson, and continued to embrace that strategy.
World War II also never presented a chance to test it again, as fronts were too flexible and terrain changed hands too quickly.
So into the Cold War, Russia still embraced these tactics. Every new innovation they integrated into the existing model, be it armored helicopters used like heavy cavalry; or even tactical nuclear and chemical weapons.
This was why Soviet tactics always looked so antiquated--because they were. And also why when those tactics were tried in a modern war and failed horribly, there was such shock in the Kremlin.
#1
A subset of the Disruption scenario the author describes is the dismantling of AQ's infrastructure in the US. We'll never know how many AQ operatives were picked up/chased off in the days after 9/11.
#3
"Mahdi/Jesus in Spring" vv IRAN has upped the ante for Radical Islam regardless of org or faction. Both will be humiliated iff no appearance occurs andor any Mahdi, etc personage is proven to be more hi-tech, PC human Magician than God's Madonna fan. WOT > ANTI-STATUS QUO. among others > MERELY KICKING OUT THE USA-WEST FROM THE ME IS ONLY THE BEGINNING.
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.
