There were extraordinarily wild scenes in the Commons yesterday as the Liberal Democrats and Tories wrapped themselves in the Union Jack, told America to get lost, gave the Government a kick and went home early to sing Land of Hope and Glory and drink Pimms. It was like a dream, if an extremely noisy one.
The madness of it all surprised everyone, for it had begun soberly with a worthy but dull Lib Dem speech on the inequities of our extradition treaty with the US. It was, as they say in that terrible place called America, Yawnsville. But then Mike OBrien, the Solicitor-General, made a crucial error: he said something interesting.
Mr OBrien did not refer to British bankers at the centre of this debate as the NatWest Three. Instead he called them the Enron Three. The Tory backbenches buzzed with outrage. Boris Johnson shook his head so hard that I thought it would come off.
Continued on Page 49
Admiral Horatio Nelson may have guided the British naval fleet to a famous victory at the Battle of Trafalgar, but he faced a far tougher foe during celebrations to mark its 200th anniversary. Organizers of a re-enactment of the sea battle in 2005 decided to bill it as between a Red Fleet and a Blue Fleet, rather than Britain and its French and Spanish adversaries, describing it as a re-enactment of an early 19th century sea battle.
Trafalgar, in which the British Royal Navy saw off a combined Franco-Spanish fleet off the southern coast of Spain, marked a crucial defeat for Napoleons sea power. Nelson himself fell during the battle. Apparently, we now live in the age of the Borderless Utopia and the Brotherhood of Man, and shouldnt be too hung up on Spain, England, France or other irrelevant historical details. Its just rude. Maybe soon, we will hear that WW1 or even WW2 was fought between the Yellow Team and the Blue Team. We wouldnt want to insult anybody, would we?
The incident is part of a broader trend of re-writing history. Partly because of immigration, the British government appointed a commission on the future of multiethnic Britain. It concluded that Britishness had systematic, largely unspoken, racial connotations. The report said Britain should be formally recognized as a multicultural society whose history must be revised, rethought, or jettisoned.
In the European Parliament, the German Christian Democrat Hans-Gert Pöttering stated that school textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam by experts overseen by the European Union and Islamic leaders. He said textbooks should be checked to ensure they promoted European values without propagating religious stereotypes or prejudice. He also suggested that the EU could co-operate with the 56-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference to create a textbook review committee.
Continued on Page 49
#1
One of the worst things with the multicultism is that it rejects those people born Muslim who want to break from that slavery called Islam. Instead of seeing that local authorities protect apostates and fight repellent usages like burkha they see them unrolling the red carpet not merely for Islma but for the ones who get the better treatemnt are the wahabis and similar.
As an example in a left governed city, an employee lost his job for racism (the official word) in fact for criticizing Islam. He is an Arab.
#2
Has an elite political class of any civilization so hated its own civilization that it paved the way for its own immolation? I submit that it would have been impossible for this to happen at any time in our past. Even the demise of Rome did not occur in quite this way.
What we are witnessing here is unique in human history. Perhaps we as a species cannot handle the level of technology that we now have attained. If we can, then the framework for a society doesn't look anything like Europe.
If the Republicans were smart, they'd be quickly easing awareness of what is being described in this article into the American consciousness. They could then point out that essentially all of the Democrat platform moves us in the direction of a society that would be identical to Europe. Dems who attempted to portray this strategy as "racist" would have a much more difficult time of doing so successfully given America's already multiethnic composition.
This would also hold to the fire the toes of Republicans who are squishy on illegal immigration.
In lieu of that, the blogosphere must continue to hammer away at this issue.
Europe is already all but lost, regrettably. If the same happens here, then it will be proof that humanity is not ready for the level of technology we achieved in the 2oth century.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/13/2006 6:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't think it's tech-related.
It's a post WWII paradigm shift (Nations are bad, people are dangerous, european identities must be erased into a super-State run by theEuropean Enlightened Elites), which was elaborated in the 1920's as a reaction to WWI, and whose spread was facilitated by the subversive work of cultural marxism against western civilization (western civilzation = obstacle to socialist utopia).
Both threads are socialist (soft socialist for the former, "socialist with guns" for the latter).
To, that, add France's Eurabia geopolitical megalomaniacal project, the ideological globalist mvt supported by various think tanks/orgs with similar goals of erasing borders, and the reawakening of islam thanks to deobandism and salafism, fueled by wahabi money, manned by mulsim population growth, and vanguarded by the MB, and you've got IT.
Frankly, I blame "socialism", to be short, the egalitarian utopian project born from french revolution and various Enlightment thinkers like Rousseau.
Europe started dying in 1789, though it was not apparent until very recnetly, when the cancer metastased.
#4
I was about to post a comment which said essentially the same: this is the final destination of Socialism, not a consequence of technology. It is the slow suicide of a culture which no longer has the will to live. It is the "whimper" of which T.S. Elliot spoke.
JFM and A5089, Europe is fucked; get out of there while you still can, and come over here. Really.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/13/2006 6:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
This, attitude, which he calls oikophobia, is the disposition, in any conflict, to side with them against us, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ours.
It's also called "ethnomasochism" (on an ethnic basis), a world coined by ultraright neopagan/antimodernist writer Guillaume Faye which has somewhat became accepted in some conservative circles, and I think it's spot on.
#6
JFM and A5089, Europe is fucked; get out of there while you still can, and come over here. Really.
Nope, there's enough fat people in the USA. Besides, I'm a perfect representative of that death culture, somehow I'm asking to be destroyed too.
#10
Here's theory. Let's call it cultural neotony.
It's well established that evolution frequently 'advances' by retaining juvenile characteristics into adulthood. There are many examples. Human hairlessness is one of them.
Let's also say cultural development mimics evolotionary development. So each generation tries to retain it's juvenile social characteristics into adulthood.
IF NEWSPAPERS are the first, the second draft of history on Iraq is in books and broadcast. Two new offerings might well be called the CIA's revenge, so devastating are their accounts of the Bush administration's pre-Iraq War conduct.
One is a ''Frontline'' production titled ''The Dark Side,'' so named for Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that in combating terror, the administration would have to ''work the dark side.'' The other is ''The One Percent Doctrine,'' Ron Suskind's revealing new book about the way the Bush administration has conducted the war on terror.
That, too, takes its title from a Cheney comment, this time from his reported declaration that if there was even a 1 percent chance of a catastrophe occurring, the administration had to treat that possibility as a certainty when formulating a response.
Continued on Page 49
#1
I don't know. I think these campaigns are about as effective as the massive effort to undermine Wal-Mart. They do work. But I'm not sure how well. The end result is that some people won't shop there and these same people will dominate conversations as to why the rest of us should not shop their either.
But in the end, Wal-Mart just keeps on keeping on with parking lots jammed full and lots of people who heard - but blew off the multi-million dollar PR efforts. And even those people who insist we shouldn't shop there go in and shop when its in their interest.
I know its a stupid analogy. But despite the fact that a large segment of the population will parrot anything if you repeat the lie enough times, I'm just not sure how effective getting those people on your side as a long term strategy for success.
#3
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it fascinating that the same generation of journalists who once thought the EEEEEEVVVIIILLLLL CIA was behind all kinds of nefarious deeds now thinks of them as fearless truth tellers, whose efforts to tell Chimpy McBushitler the real deal are being thwarted time and again by the likes of Karl Rove's minions?
I mean, hell, considering how wrong they've been about virtually everything since the Soviet Union collapsed, WTF is up with that?
Posted by: DanNY ||
07/13/2006 9:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You know, if they put as much effort into fighting Al Qaeda as they do fighting Bush, they'd ... actually be a usefull intelligence organization.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/13/2006 9:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"These two impressive pieces of reporting reveal and reinforce a picture of an administration operating in a world where belief overrode evidence and ideology trumped analysis as it pressed for an ill-conceived war."
Oh but of course reason and prudence prevailed from Jan. 20, 1993 to Jan. 20, 2001. No ideology here, just reasonable assumptions that one could approach the Islamist terror threat via law enforcement efforts and the occasional, empty-gesture Cruise missile strike against empty tents in Afghanistan.
And while we're on the topic of the period of bliss and wisdom (1993-2001), let us not forget that ideology did not guide the foreign policy strategy of Madam Secretary when she feted Kim-Boy and the Norks. Yes sir ree, how we all yearn for a return to the days when terrs were just a nuisance and when a more nuanced approach to terrorism left our embassies, overseas's bases, and a few significant buildings in NYC and DC in peace and security.
#7
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it fascinating that the same generation of journalists who once thought the EEEEEEVVVIIILLLLL CIA was behind all kinds of nefarious deeds now thinks of them as fearless truth tellers, whose efforts to tell Chimpy McBushitler the real deal are being thwarted time and again by the likes of Karl Rove's minions?
The CIA's been infiltrated by that same generation.
#8
"Cheney comment - if there was even a 1 percent chance of a catastrophe occurring, the administration had to treat that possibility as a certainty when formulating a response."
They say it like it's a bad thing. It's likely the right decision under the assumed condition.
#10
Do books like these sell?
Anne Coulter sells the shit out of "Hurray for America" books, I wonder if these assholes will even break even on the "See how we suck" approach.
You'll come closer to finding out what the box office receipts were for "Brokeback Mountain" than you will ever find out what the true sales figures are for this never ending stream of bush bashing wastes of paper.
F@#k Suskind he's a red from way way back
F@#k Frontline they studied journalism at either Pravda or with Goebbels ("tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth").
The day that The LACrimes and the NYWhines go bankrupt, I will dance in the streets.
The Bush administration should stop repeating that it is fighting the war on terror for truth, justice and the American way. Instead, the president and his staff should be blunt and explain that, since Sept. 11, it has had to choose between options that are bad or far worse.
By all means, the administration should invite critics to suggest constructive alternatives to the way it's handled this war. But it should also point out that those who have honed in on flaws in current U.S. anti-terror policies have so far been bereft of other workable ideas.
Take the uniform-less and stateless terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay. To be sure, there are alternatives to the current U.S. policy, but are they any better? Should we try hundreds of them in American courts like Zacarias Moussaoui or in international tribunals as the Europeans attempted with Slobodan Milosevic? Or send them home to face torture in autocracies like Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Or do we ship the terrorists back to countries that would simply declare them heroes and let them go?
And can the critics offer better ways to track terrorists than through wiretapping and surveillance? How, otherwise, would one have learned in time about those in Miami who plotted to take down the Sears Tower, or the Lebanese cadre who planned to blow up the Holland Tunnel?
The Bush administration can also use history to show that, despite what detractors say, its techniques aren't so unreasonable. It's worth reminding the American public that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and shut down newspapers; that Woodrow Wilson imprisoned prominent dissenters like Eugene Debs; and that Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese-American citizens and secret military tribunals for German saboteurs (six of whom were executed) and allowed for the cover-up of military catastrophes (such as the hundreds killed during training exercises for the Normandy landings).
In other words, there's an advantage to providing historical perspective by engaging one's critics and answering their charges. The public, for example, should be informed that the accusation that the U.S. went into Iraq for oil ("no blood for oil," as the slogan goes) is not merely inaccurate, but crazy. For starters, gas prices skyrocketed once we induced risky change in the Middle East. How does that benefit the American people? Meanwhile, because of the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's energy sector has been purged of corruption (such as the U.N.'s scandal-plagued oil-for-food program).
In Europe, a poll recently showed that people there view the U.S. as a greater threat than Iran. If this is the case, is it not time to politely suggest to our "allies" that many of our half-century-old military bases in prosperous Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain have outlived their usefulness?
The Arab world's perennial grievances against the United States don't hold up either, given that America has saved Muslims in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait and Somalia, and provided billions in aid to Egyptians, Jordanians and Palestinians.
The Bush administration would also be in the right to wonder aloud whether its domestic critics wish to go back to bombing away without consulting the U.S. Congress or the United Nations as we did in the Balkans. And when Americans are butchered, are we to skedaddle, as both Presidents Reagan and Clinton did, from Lebanon and Somalia respectively?
Our present muscular policy - and we also hear this all too infrequently - grew out of just such past bipartisan inaction that led to 3,000 murdered Americans. The truth is that the old way of doing business, rightly or wrongly, was seen by jihadists as encouragement to up the ante with Sept. 11.
Ultimately, the Bush administration needs to do a better job of presenting this current war in a far larger context. Jihadists of the Arab world for decades have been at war not with George Bush alone, but with modernity itself. The radical Middle East street may be fascinated by the Internet, satellite television, ATMs and cell phones - but not by the foreign anathema of democracies, religious tolerance, free markets and gender equality that ultimately accounts for such goodies.
Here at home, we are witnessing the end of the multicultural dogma. Yes, there are really evil people who wish to kill us for who we are, not what we do - and they embrace cultural assumptions that are not just different from our own, but, let us be honest enough to admit it, far worse.
So, there are many fronts in our struggle against Islamic terrorists from the 7th century. The American people must be reminded of our challenges constantly in lieu of platitudes about the inevitable triumph of freedom and democracy. In short, our government should provide much more explanation of this complex war and far less simple declarations about it.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."
#1
Instead, the president and his staff should be blunt and explain that, since Sept. 11, it has had to choose between options that are bad or far worse. Yeah, like world domination by the islamofascists. And wearing burkas. And forced slavery by the a*shats.
#2
Some good points, but: silence speaks. Something huge and decisive is brewing. The White House has said nothing about Ahmadinejad's archipelago of genocide-against-Israel rallies in Iran, and they are taking a business-like approach to the Hamas-Hizbollah war against the Roadmap to Middle East Peace. Nothing will happen until the G8 process ends. I believe that some surprising US allies will be disclosed, and that Iran's borders will be shrunk before September.
No Dem with an ounce of integrity would suggest continuing the peace process after what has happened in the last week. Israel is talking total war, and the US will join the chorus. The Euros will come on line.
I hope you're correct. Either way, you've put forth an intertesting analysis.
In today's WaPo, Robert Kagan speculates that Bush is practically bending over backwards on the diplomatic front so as to silence critics if and when diplo-options run out and US chooses to reduce part of Iran into an irradiated ash-heap.
#5
This article reminds me of a boss I once had. He made a bad decision that I had argued against at the time it was made. Later, when the ramifications became apparent, he said it was my fault because I couldn't talk him out of it.
Bush has been straightforward in his message. It takes two to communicate, a sender and a receiver. If the receiver is turned off or otherwise screwed up, it is not the sender's fault.
There are a great mass of people who don't believe we need a War on Terror. There are people who believe, and scream, that Bush is worse than the terrorists. Nobody's mind will be changed by more sophisticated arguments; only by events. The only question is how many WTC's, Madrids, Londons and Mumbai's its going to take.
#6
There is a great mass of people outside the Islamic world who don't believe there is such a thing as Islamic fascism, and a big chunk of that mass would prefer Western civilization to go out of existence altogether. Hanson presupposes that this mass doesn't constitute the bulk of the opposition to Bush's war. Better explanations by the Bush administration would have no effect whatsoever on the "opposition", really a fifth column.
#7
"and that Iran's borders will be shrunk before September" Anginens Threreng8133
What does this mean exactly? Dismembering Iran into ethnic groups? Invading and taking chunks of land? Removing Iranian clients and thus shrinking their "virtual border"? It's an odd phrase and I'm not sure I get it.
#10
Don't think it's been commented on here flyover, and I can't remember how I found it, but it's some article isn't it! :)
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
07/13/2006 17:48 Comments ||
Top||
#11
rjschwartz:
Are you not aware that the government of Iran holds only provisional respect for any borders, anywhere? The Islamists believe that sovereignty belongs to Allah, and man-made laws must conform to Sharia. They don't respect our borders, therefore we shouldn't respect theirs. As for the oil fields in what is currently Iran: local savages had little or nothing to do with creation of that industry. One option Bush has is to demand something like $20 billion compensation for the 1979 hostage taking of US diplomats. And, react to Iranian refusal.
I don't know exactly what is the Bush administration game plan, but I read something into the fact that the IAF work against the Beirut airport, will prevent quick resupply of Iranian missiles, and that is not something that would have been done without US knowledge. In the cases of the US invasions of Grenada and Panama, President Reagan waited until the days of intervention, before giving reasons for the attacks. Why would President Bush throw his cards on the table before tossing out the Ayatollahs. I would advise that the justification be partly on the fact that the Ayatollahs have each created conditions where they have amassed hundreds of millions of dollars (Rafsanjani has $1.4 billion), by manipulating the economy. Besides the fact that there are minorities who are oppressed by the Islamofascist government, many Iranians are ashamed of the emulation of Arabs by the kleptocrats. Ahmadinejad may have some popularity based on his confidence, but when he begins to look like a pathological loser, that will collapse.
#12
Anginens Threreng8133, how hard is it to copy paste my name and spell it correctly? Why add the T? Did you think I forgot how to spell my own name?
Pakistan must stop harbouring terrorists to be a true ally
THE seven blasts that ripped through Mumbai's commuter rail system during the Tuesday evening peak hour, killing at least 190 people and wounding countless others, were more than just the worst terrorist atrocity India has suffered in more than a decade. Beyond maiming and killing innocent civilians on the way home from work, the co-ordinated attacks were a dagger aimed at the heart of the world's largest democracy and one of the most open and rapidly growing states in the developing world. The financial hub of a Western-oriented democracy with especially close ties to the English-speaking world, Mumbai should be remembered along with London, Madrid, New York and Washington as a city that has been stricken by the nihilist madness that is 21st-century terrorism. Although no one has yet claimed responsibility, all indicators suggest the attacks were carried out by a Pakistan-based and al-Qa'ida linked group such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (or Army of the Faithful), possibly in conjunction with the local Student Islamic Movement of India. India is home to the world's second-largest Muslim population after Indonesia, and this minority group harbours a series of grievances that range from perceptions of discrimination to anger over India's sovereignty over the northern provinces of Jammu and Kashmir. But regional events may have provided the trigger to the attacks. While the country already has a handful of paramilitary police stationed in Afghanistan, the Government of Manmohan Singh is debating sending troops to that country under the banner of NATO. This possibility infuriates Pakistanis, who are loath to see Indian troops stationed on both its eastern and western fronts. And the prospect of Hindu Indian soldiers fighting fundamentalist Taliban insurgents is anathema to radical Muslims. SIMI and other associated Islamic radicals have carried out a series of attacks in India over the past decade, including last year's bombings in New Delhi, which killed 60 people.
Assuming that Lashkar-e-Taiba or one of its affiliates were responsible, yesterday's bombings highlight the two-faced nature of the Pakistani regime and its relations with the West, particularly Washington. While on the one hand, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has been a valuable ally in the war on terror, his regime has all too often provided succour to Islamic terrorists. He has done little to smash local terrorist infrastructure such as training camps and madrassas. The Taliban is reasserting itself in Afghanistan now precisely because it was able to regroup in Pakistan. And Osama bin Laden is thought to still be hiding within Pakistan's borders. Yesterday's attacks make it all the more incumbent for the world community, and in particular the US, to take a much firmer line with Pakistan. Australia has a stake in this as well: Lashkar-e-Taiba has made repeated attempts to infiltrate this country and has close links with Southeast Asian jihadi groups. While the group has at its foundations grievances over Kashmir, from the mid-1990s it morphed into a more sinister organisation that sees itself as an arrowhead for al-Qa'ida's worldview determined to take the fight to non-believers wherever they might be including Australia. Australian-born Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks joined Lashkar-e-Taiba before taking up arms with the Taliban. Convicted would-be terrorist Faheem Khalid Lodhi is said to have acted as Lashkar-e-Taiba's "quartermaster" for foreign troops at its camps in the mountains of Pakistan, and a Sydney medical student currently faces charges of having trained with the group. And when French terror suspect Willie Brigitte came to Sydney in 2003 to meet Lodhi and activate a sleeper cell, it was allegedly at the behest of a Lashkar-e-Taiba official named Sajid.
As horrific as the scenes of carnage were, yesterday's bombings must not be allowed to derail India's progress as one of the most promising nations in the developing world. Although still desperately poor in many ways, India's economy is growing at 8.1 per cent annually the second-highest rate of any major economy and is home to a thriving middle class. India's vibrant and open political culture is a living rebuke to everyone who says democracy is incompatible with economic development. This fact punches an irreparable hole in the sneakily racist argument mounted by many progressives opposed to toppling Saddam Hussein, namely that democracy cannot take root in non-Western cultures. Economically, India boasts a vast entrepreneurial class that has forced the Government to embrace reform. Besides being "the world's back office" India is home to vast numbers of competitive private enterprises and a modern financial sector. John Howard rightly condemned the attacks as "an attack on the democratic way of life". And Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has pledged intelligence and forensic investigation resources to the Indian Government. This is a good start. But Australia can do more to come to India's aid. For too long, General Musharraf has been allowed to walk both sides of the street in the war on terror and to claim that essentially his country is in such a bad way that any improvement should result in Western reward. In the wake of the Mumbai outrage, that is no longer acceptable. Australia should bring diplomatic weight to bear on Pakistan, both directly and by encouraging the US to do likewise, to clean up its act and crack down on the likes of Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Posted by: john ||
07/13/2006 19:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: DanNY ||
07/13/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't know. I for one am sick of the UN. I don't care what they write in their strongly worded resolutions. The word games are from an era gone by. I suppose there is still some benefit in placating the geezers of 20th Century diplomacy. Yappity yap yap. No one is listening anymore. Times have changed.
#2
Personally, I regard the pre Camp David Accord period as Israel's Golden Age. Funny thing, more and more of my countrymen seem to feel the same way.
Freebie from Stratfor, no link.
Middle East Crisis: Backgrounder
Israel lives with three realities: geographic, demographic and cultural. Geographically, it is at a permanent disadvantage, lacking strategic depth. It does enjoy the advantage of interior lines -- the ability to move forces rapidly from one front to another. Demographically, it is on the whole outnumbered, although it can achieve local superiority in numbers by choosing the time and place of war. Its greatest advantage is cultural. It has a far greater mastery of the technology and culture of war than its neighbors.
Two of the realities cannot be changed. Nothing can be done about geography or demography. Culture can be changed. It is not inherently the case that Israel will have a technological or operational advantage over its neighbors. The great inherent fear of Israel is that the Arabs will equal or surpass Israeli prowess culturally and therefore militarily. If that were to happen, then all three realities would turn against Israel and Israel might well be at risk.
That is why the capture of Israeli troops, first one in the south, then two in the north, has galvanized Israel. The kidnappings represent a level of Arab tactical prowess that previously was the Israeli domain. They also represent a level of tactical slackness on the Israeli side that was previously the Arab domain. These events hardly represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power. Nevertheless, for a country that depends on its cultural superiority, any tremor in this variable reverberates dramatically. Hamas and Hezbollah have struck the core Israeli nerve. Israel cannot ignore it.
Embedded in Israel's demographic problem is this: Israel has national security requirements that outstrip its manpower base. It can field a sufficient army, but its industrial base cannot supply all of the weapons needed to fight high-intensity conflicts. This means it is always dependent on an outside source for its industrial base and must align its policies with that source. At first this was the Soviets, then France and finally the United States. Israel broke with the Soviets and France when their political demands became too intense. It was after 1967 that it entered into a patron-client relationship with the United States. This relationship is its strength and its weakness. It gives the Israelis the systems they need for national security, but since U.S. and Israeli interests diverge, the relationship constrains Israel's range of action.
During the Cold War, the United States relied on Israel for a critical geopolitical function. The fundamental U.S. interest was Turkey, which controlled the Bosporus and kept the Soviet fleet under control in the Mediterranean. The emergence of Soviet influence in Syria and Iraq -- which was not driven by U.S. support for Israel since the United States did not provide all that much support compared to France -- threatened Turkey with attack from two directions, north and south. Turkey could not survive this. Israel drew Syrian attention away from Turkey by threatening Damascus and drawing forces and Soviet equipment away from the Turkish frontier. Israel helped secure Turkey and turned a Soviet investment into a dry hole.
Once Egypt signed a treaty with Israel and Sinai became a buffer zone, Israel became safe from a full peripheral war -- everyone attacking at the same time. Jordan was not going to launch an attack and Syria by itself could not strike. The danger to Israel became Palestinian operations inside of Israel and the occupied territories and the threat posed from Lebanon by the Syrian-sponsored group Hezbollah.
In 1982, Israel responded to this threat by invading Lebanon. It moved as far north as Beirut and the mountains east and northeast of it. Israel did not invade Beirut proper, since Israeli forces do not like urban warfare as it imposes too high a rate of attrition. But what the Israelis found was low-rate attrition. Throughout their occupation of Lebanon, they were constantly experiencing guerrilla attacks, particularly from Hezbollah.
Hezbollah has two patrons: Syria and Iran. The Syrians have used Hezbollah to pursue their political and business interests in Lebanon. Iran has used Hezbollah for business and ideological reasons. Business interests were the overlapping element. In the interest of business, it became important to Hezbollah, Syria and Iran that an accommodation be reached with Israel. Israel wanted to withdraw from Lebanon in order to end the constant low-level combat and losses.
Israel withdrew in 1988, having reached quiet understandings with Syria that Damascus would take responsibility for Hezbollah, in return for which Israel would not object to Syrian domination of Lebanon. Iran, deep in its war with Iraq, was not in a position to object if it had wanted to. Israel returned to its borders in the north, maintaining a security presence in the south of Lebanon that lasted for several years.
As Lebanon blossomed and Syria's hold on it loosened, Iran also began to increase its regional influence. Its hold on some elements of Hezbollah strengthened, and in recent months, Hezbollah -- aligning itself with Iranian Shiite ideology -- has become more aggressive. Iranian weapons were provided to Hezbollah, and tensions grew along the frontier. This culminated in the capture of two soldiers in the north and the current crisis.
It is difficult to overestimate the impact of the soldier kidnappings on the Israeli psyche. First, while the Israeli military is extremely highly trained, Israel is also a country with mass conscription. Having a soldier kidnapped by Arabs hits every family in the country. The older generation is shocked and outraged that members of the younger generation have been captured and worried that they allowed themselves to be captured; therefore, the younger generation needs to prove it too can defeat the Arabs. This is not a primary driver, but it is a dimension.
The more fundamental issue is this: Israel withdrew from Lebanon in order to escape low-intensity conflict. If Hezbollah is now going to impose low-intensity conflict on Israel's border, the rationale for withdrawal disappears. It is better for Israel to fight deep in Lebanon than inside Israel. If the rockets are going to fall in Israel proper, then moving into a forward posture has no cost to Israel.
From an international standpoint, the Israelis expect to be condemned. These international condemnations, however, are now having the opposite effect of what is intended. The Israeli view is that they will be condemned regardless of what they do. The differential between the condemnation of reprisal attacks and condemnation of a full invasion is not enough to deter more extreme action. If Israel is going to be attacked anyway, it might as well achieve its goals.
Moreover, an invasion of Hezbollah-held territory aligns Israel with the United States. U.S. intelligence has been extremely concerned about the growing activity of Hezbollah, and U.S. relations with Iran are not good. Lebanon is the center of gravity of Hezbollah, and the destruction of Hezbollah capabilities in Lebanon, particularly the command structure, would cripple Hezbollah operations globally in the near future. The United States would very much like to see that happen, but cannot do it itself. Moreover, an Israeli action would enrage the Islamic world, but it would also drive home the limits of Iranian power. Once again, Iran would have dropped Lebanon in the grease, and not been hurt itself. The lesson of Hezbollah would not be lost on the Iraqi Shia -- or so the Bush administration would hope.
Therefore, this is one Israeli action that benefits the United States, and thus helps the immediate situation as well as long-term geopolitical alignments. It realigns the United States and Israel. This also argues that any invasion must be devastating to Hezbollah. It must go deep. It must occupy temporarily. It must shatter Hezbollah.
At this point, the Israelis appear to be unrolling a war plan in this direction. They have blockaded the Lebanese coast. Israeli aircraft are attacking what air power there is in Lebanon, and have attacked Hezbollah and other key command-and-control infrastructure. It would follow that the Israelis will now concentrate on destroying Hezbollah -- and Lebanese -- communications capabilities and attacking munitions dumps, vehicle sites, rocket-storage areas and so forth.
Most important, Israel is calling up its reserves. This is never a symbolic gesture in Israel. All Israelis below middle age are in the reserves and mobilization is costly in every sense of the word. If the Israelis were planning a routine reprisal, they would not be mobilizing. But they are, which means they are planning to do substantially more than retributive airstrikes. The question is what their plan is.
Given the blockade and what appears to be the shape of the airstrikes, it seems to us at the moment the Israelis are planning to go fairly deep into Lebanon. The logical first step is a move to the Litani River in southern Lebanon. But given the missile attacks on Haifa, they will go farther, not only to attack launcher sites, but to get rid of weapons caches. This means a move deep into the Bekaa Valley, the seat of Hezbollah power and the location of plants and facilities. Such a penetration would leave Israeli forces' left flank open, so a move into Bekaa would likely be accompanied by attacks to the west. It would bring the Israelis close to Beirut again.
This leaves Israel's right flank exposed, and that exposure is to Syria. The Israeli doctrine is that leaving Syrian airpower intact while operating in Lebanon is dangerous. Therefore, Israel must at least be considering using its air force to attack Syrian facilities, unless it gets ironclad assurances the Syrians will not intervene in any way. Conversations are going on between Egypt and Syria, and we suspect this is the subject. But Israel would not necessarily object to the opportunity of eliminating Syrian air power as part of its operation, or if Syria chooses, going even further.
At the same time, Israel does not intend to get bogged down in Lebanon again. It will want to go in, wreak havoc, withdraw. That means it will go deeper and faster, and be more devastating, than if it were planning a long-term occupation. It will go in to liquidate Hezbollah and then leave. True, this is no final solution, but for the Israelis, there are no final solutions. Not an ideal choice of words, perhaps.
Israeli forces are already in Lebanon. Its special forces are inside identifying targets for airstrikes. We expect numerous air attacks over the next 48 hours, as well as reports of firefights in southern Lebanon. We also expect more rocket attacks on Israel.
It will take several days to mount a full invasion of Lebanon. We would not expect major operations before the weekend at the earliest. If the rocket attacks are taking place, however, Israel might send several brigades to the Litani River almost immediately in order to move the rockets out of range of Haifa. Therefore, we would expect a rapid operation in the next 24-48 hours followed by a larger force later.
At this point, the only thing that can prevent this would be a major intervention by Syria with real guarantees that it would restrain Hezbollah and indications such operations are under way. Syria is the key to a peaceful resolution. Syria must calculate the relative risks, and we expect them to be unwilling to act decisively.
Therefore:
1. Israel cannot tolerate an insurgency on its northern frontier; if there is one, it wants it farther north.
2. It cannot tolerate attacks on Haifa.
3. It cannot endure a crisis of confidence in its military
4. Hezbollah cannot back off of its engagement with Israel.
5. Syria can stop this, but the cost to it stopping it is higher than the cost of letting it go on.
It would appear Israel will invade Lebanon. The global response will be noisy. There will be no substantial international action against Israel. Beirut's tourism and transportation industry, as well as its financial sectors, are very much at risk.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
Just last Friday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad warned that Israel's return to Gaza could lead to an "explosion" in the Islamic world that would target Israel and its supporters in the West. "They should not let things reach a point where an explosion occurs in the Islamic world," he said. "If an explosion occurs, then it won't be limited to geographical boundaries. It will also burn all those who created [Israel] over the past 60 years," he said, implicitly referring to America and other Western nations who support Israel.
Years from now, the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit will be regarded like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
I believe I mentioned something like that yesterday
Against the backdrop of Kassam rocket fire on Israelis living within range of the Gaza Strip, it was the fate of Corporal Shalit that triggered the Israeli return to Gaza, which in turn brought the Hezbollah forces into the game.
Israel is fighting two Iranian proxies on two fronts. It may, or may not, open a third front against a third Iranian proxy, Syria. It is from the Syrian capital that Khaled Meshaal, the exiled leader of Hamas, has been laying down Palestinian Arab negotiating conditions. Why listen to Mr. Meshaal? Because the Hamas troops are loyal to him, rather than to their erstwhile leader, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, let alone the increasingly (as if that were possible) hapless Palestinian Arab leader, Mahmoud Abbas.
As one senior Palestinian Arab close to Mr. Abbas told me Mr. Meshaal believes that any resolution of this crisis, and of the wider crisis brought on by the surprising Hamas election win last January and the ensuing isolation of the Palestinian Authority from its European and American funding sources, must await the outcome of the discussions between Iran and the West over its nuclear enrichment program.
Perhaps a grand bargain is in the works, in which Tehran will forgo its nuclear weapons ambitions in exchange for Washington's recognition of its emergence as the new regional power. Every day, Iran grows more powerful; any deal should reflect Iran's growing importance. For example: forcing Israel to bargain for prisoner swaps, cutting the Israeli military advantage down to size, and scuttling both the possibility of unilateral disengagement in the West Bank (the preferred Israeli option) and renewed negotiations with weakened Palestinian Arab moderates (the option preferred by the Europeans).
Even more loyal to Tehran is the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, whose forces yesterday kidnapped two more Israeli soldiers, opening up the second front. Sheik Nasrallah is warning Israelis that they must not think Lebanon is unprotected as it was in 1981 and 1982 when Israeli forces came pouring across the border to silence Palestinian Arab guns. Sheik Nasrallah's men are the recipients of tens of thousands of rockets longer range and presumably more deadly than their roughly engineered younger Kassam cousins that put central Israel in their range.
Each one of these players Hamas inside Gaza and in Damascus, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Assad dictatorship in Syria are chess pieces on the Iranian board. The pawn moves, drawing in the Israeli bishop; the Lebanese rook challenges; the Syrian queen is in reserve.
Just listen: A few weeks ago, the Swedish government announced that it would label Golan Heights wine as a product from "Israeli Occupied Syria."
The Swedes were oblivious to the little dance played out around a request by the United Nations that Syria demarcate its view of the 1967 border. Turtle Bay was aiming to push Syria to claim the Sheeba farms, a small tract held by Israel and claimed by Hezbollah for Lebanon. The United Nations recognizes Sheeba Farms as belonging to Syria; should Israel and Syria ever negotiate a peace treaty, it is clear the Security Council would expect Sheeba Farms to be returned to Syrian control.
The United Nations wanted Syria to assert its claim, in order to deny Hezbollah its basic raison d'etre "liberating" all Lebanese soil from "the Israeli occupation forces."
Passed in 2004, Security Council resolution 1559 requires the dismantling of all Lebanese militias and their replacement by a Lebanese state army. Thus far, this has been as successful as the requirement by the Quartet (America, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations) that all independent Palestinian Arab terrorist groups and militias be disarmed.
Guess what? The Syrians refused. Just turned the United Nations down flat. Apparently Sweden is more passionate about asserting Syrian territorial rights than Syria itself.
The reason is simple: Iran does not want to deny Hezbollah the justification for maintaining its armed presence in southern Lebanon, along northern Israel, and Syria does Iran's bidding.
Ephraim Sneh, a former general and Labor Party leader who is the Israeli longest drawing attention to the approaching conflict with Iran, is saying that the current moment reminds him of the Spanish Civil War. The broader global forces are aligned; local actors are committed. It is a bloody test, a macabre dress rehearsal, for what lies over the horizon.
The war with Iran has begun.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/13/2006 11:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, so be it.
I'm sure when the chips are down we will do the right thing and side with Israel. Some journalists have been saying for about a year now the World War III has begun, the sooner we realize that the sooner we can start to win it.
I don't think the Israelis should have to endure daily rocket attacks, murder of their soldiers, and abduction of its citizens and soldiers to keep the peace. That is asking too much, arabs don't understand dimplomacy or reasoned discourse,they understand force and power. They seem to be understanding Israel's counter offer to the prisoner swap just fine, in fact they are getting a little worried that it isn't just going to blow over this time. When you got em on the ropes you don't let them go, you knock them on their ass.
#2
Finally, it's only taken 27 years for us to realize we are at war with Iran and Islam. Lets now get at it.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/13/2006 15:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This war will most likely become a ME regional conflict and could engulf Asian/Pac
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/13/2006 15:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Could id a misnomer. Southern Thailand, the Philippines, Malay, Indonesia, Sabah, etc... are already swallowed up by this war.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/13/2006 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I listened to Praeger (sp) yesterday, he had a missionary on, but I didn't catch the whole segment.
Missionary said after working w/them the missionaries are becoming more -- I'll choose the word "aware" because I can't remember exactly what term he used -- but in short - they're building churches.
#6
I believe that the article's main premise regards Cpl Shalit is absolutely right. That will be seen soon as a watershed moment in history. I am very sorry for Shalit - I'm certain his fate is sealed, but the animals on Israel's borders - and beyond - have jumped the shark and will now pay. All of them.
Despite the wimps and assholes and Tranzi morons in the Congress, when it comes to supporting Israel in conflict, the outcome is (still) never really in doubt. I'm sure it gives them a massive case of heartburn to do it, but even the Tranzi twits in Congress know they must support Israel - or get ripped to shreds in some future November.
Iran's backing of Hezbollah is transparent enough that the US Congress will soon be revisiting the resolutions to smack down Iran. The House version, which was a clear warrant for Bush to proceed against Iran to prevent them from acquiring nukes by all available means, will be resurrected and sent back to the joint committee. And this time, the Senate will have to get tough or feel the wrath of the voters who roundly support Israel. That 20% segment of Paleo-sympathetic morons won't provide enough cover.
Israel's actions (Go Olmert!) will tip the scales and Bush will get his warrant to prosecute Iran and, as their proxy puppet, Syria. I'll bet my next paycheck that a fat resupply list of military hardware and munitions is being worked on at this minute between the Israel MoD and the Pentagon.
With Hezbollah joining the conflict, the door has opened wide to allow, politically, the US to jump in. Thanks, fools. Funny how the asshats always manage to shoot first and think later. The Donks have to be going apeshit about now, wondering how they can triangulate this -- and realizing they can't. Scream and wail and gnash teeth, you fucking assholes.
I hate politics only slightly less than I hate IslamoNazis, the Klepto UN, and Tranzi Tools, but this will happen -- right after the G8 process completes, as "AT" said in another thread.
Gonna be an interesting summer. Bang the drum and saddle up. That very bumpy ride has, indeed, begun.
#7
Oh, I forgot to add that I think the UN "response", which will be a stream of anti-Israel screeching, all vetoed by the US (and, perhaps, others), will help a great deal in making it clear to the US public, that 80% of non-useful tools, that the UN is seriously and (I hope) irreparably broken. The expected Kofi Stupid Statements have already begun - implying both absurd moral equivalency BS and that Israel should not be allowed to defend itself or its people - and his big mouth will help seal the UN's fate.
Americans don't take kindly to kidnappers, no matter what they say to justify it. The end-time of the Middle East Muddle, a State Department Production: from the asinine Camp David games to the various Tranzi Accords and Road Maps, has come, IMO.
#8
Now on FoxNews is confirmation: Jane Harmon (and I'm no fan of hers) is confirming the missile (not a rocket) that hit Haifa was an Iranian al-Fajer missile and most likely fired by Iranians, not Hamas idjits. She says this seriously ups the ante and makes Iran directly culpable.
"This changes the situation considerably."
-Janeypoo
I agree. Thanks, Jane. Glad you spoke before consulting with your triangulators. Now go beat the living shit out of your party's assholes for us. Give Bush the warrant. Now.
#12
With this latest Iranian missle bit thrown in things are going to get really interesting now!
Yikes!
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
07/13/2006 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#13
As an aside, a Russian defector who used the name Suvarov, once wrote a very interesting piece on the invasion of Czechoslovakia. He said the Red Army was very puzzled about the invasion, because they had been expecting to invade Yugoslavia.
The Czechs had been one of Russia's best allies, and were always helpful and supportive; but the Yugoslavians, under Tito, were obnoxious, rebellious, and went out of their way to offend and irritate Russia.
So why invade Czechoslovakia?
Whereas the Czechs were loyal, they were liberal. They were allowing a free press and many other civil rights, and were even moving in the direction of democracy. But Yugoslavia was bitterly oppressive to its own people--a true authoritarian dictatorship.
And Russia's prerogatives at the time felt far more threatened by liberal democracy and civil rights. They could live with a brutal dictator who hated them.
Since I read this, I now ask the deeper question about war. What can we tolerate, and what behavior by another country is intolerable to us?
For example, the US invasions of Granada and Panama. They were not obvious at all to the typical American. Why should we invade some unimportant fly-specs?
So now look at the current situation. A big jump indeed from the simplicity of our reasons for Granada. And one that doesn't just apply to us, but to Israel as well.
Is Israel content, as in the past, to fight the proxies in the war, Hamas and Hezbollah? Are the actions serious enough to warrant an attack against Syria? Knowing that Iran has signed a mutual defense agreement with Syria?
If the US enters the fray, will it limit itself to Iran, or will it attack Syria? And what of other nations that wish to play? Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, NATO?
The question goes back to what is tolerable and what is intolerable? Things that may not be as easy to imagine as all that. Not just to us, but to Israel as well.
What if the Israeli soldiers are paraded around Tehran? Large missiles fired effectively at Israeli cities? Is it possible to know what the Israelis will grin and bear, and what will make them go berserker on the Arabs and/or the Iranians?
#14
SR-71 - Sorry Bro, my internet response has gone straight to shit. Make that MegaShit. I have some very choice words I'll withhold...
40K? A Wargamer or Music reference?
I was thinking literally - in the third dimension - and recalling some of those "colorful" and "unauthorized" patches from my youth, LOL. Not the 502nd mind you, as we don't need to put boots on the ground. We just need to stage some TOT waves on the 1500+ aimpoints that Gen McInerny has talked about. Sorry if this reply disappoints. :)
#15
Flyover - That works for me. It's time to inflict some real pain on the asshats. They think that our "decency" will restrain us indefinitely. However I see a hardening of attitudes here, even among the borderline moonbats.
My son and I play the wargame. Assault troops use that motto in the game.
#16
Ah, gotcha. If the Iranian IRG are proven to be behind the Haifa attacks, then you'll find more "entertainment" here, and long overdue it is, I think. If we only knew everything that Bush knows - and exactly who is telling him what... :)
#17
My son starts basic training at Ft Sill Sept 22nd - I hope this shit is finished soon, and in favor of our interests
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/13/2006 21:32 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Moose,
Whose side will Russia, China and Pakistan take?
It is unfortunate the UN has become a laughing stock, because now is when it could earn its pay. But it will be worse than useless. Good thing there's a G8 coming up. However, I suspect nothing will stop the descent to war because it's what Ahmadinajihad & the MM want. I sure hope those Israelis don't show up in any videos.
#21
Nimble Spemble: What side will Russia, China and Pakistan take? What about Egypt? Will the Norks try to take advantage of the situation?
But that is the other side. Equally important is what Israel and the US will do. And why.
Who would have thought that kidnapping a single soldier would result in an invasion of Gaza, and of kidnapping two, of Lebanon. The US has lost many soldiers to enemies and not invaded or even attacked. But the Israelis have different prerogatives.
If they suspect their soldiers have been moved to Damascus, will they attack Syria?
Will the US let them fight Syria and not get involved, or will we only get involved if Iran joins the side of Syria?
And here's a good question: what about the West Bank? Are they going to try and open a third, or fourth, front against Israel?
#22
I would not be surprised if every body is getting a bit nervous.
I tend to see this as a test for Olmert. He flunked in Gaza. Hezb learned the lesson and pulled the same stuff in Lebanon and then he overreacted. Now we're getting into one of those punk fights where nobody will back down and somebody actually gets badly hurt. I think that's what Iran wants, though they may not like the timing. I think they want enough time to test a nuke before January 2009 so they can jerk the new pres around like this on day 1.
#23
Anonymoose, the US went to war against Greneda because Nicaragua had upped their support of Commie Rebels in El Salvador and was expecting a shipment of Hind helicopters. The US felt we had to draw a line to send a message to the Soviets and invading Nicaragua was not in the cards. That's the way I understood it. The rest was just propaganda and bullshit. Nicaraguan support for Commies in El Salvador slowed as a result.
The invasion of Panama was because Pinapple head declared war on us and that happened so infrequently in those days we couldn't pass up the chance for a live fire training exercise.
#24
Years from now, the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit will be regarded like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand
In this version, the role of the Hapsburgs will be played by the Alawites; the role of Germany will be played by Iran, soon to be renamed Persia, Lebanon will play the role of France as host of much of the actual carnage, and the allied US, British and Austrialian forces will reprise their roles as themselves.
Posted by: Baba Tutu ||
07/13/2006 22:40 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Intel - first assignment after basic: Ft Huachaca, AZ
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/13/2006 22:43 Comments ||
Top||
#26
I'm not the only one, by far. Dave D has a son just returned. Pray he doesn't have to go back quickly...Let the Air Force earn thir pay from high altitude and accurate firepower. We don't want to occupy Syria, Iran, NK or Hizbollah-land. Just bomb them into the 7th century, as requested.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/13/2006 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
#27
I believe that the article's main premise regards Cpl Shalit is absolutely right. That will be seen soon as a watershed moment in history. I am very sorry for Shalit - I'm certain his fate is sealed, but the animals on Israel's borders - and beyond - have jumped the shark and will now pay. All of them.
I'm not so sure...
To many times we've seen political and "diplomatic" deals end what should have been decisive conflicts which would have ended the situation in just that - a decisive - manner.
Instead we get diplomacy and politics and end up with both sides growling at each other and nothing decided - and it just goes on and on and on without resolution.
We live in a world where decisive conflict resolution is really the only effective means of dealing with deviant/antisocial/psychopathic behavior, but we keep trying to be reasonable and civilized people and deal civilly with situations which would better off, in many cases, be dealt with through the calculated use of large amounts of high explosives and the unmeasured use of force.
But some bunch of damned fools will refuse to believe that this conflict can (and should) only be resolved by force of arms and will essentially force Israel and the terrorists and their sponsors to "come to the table" and talk things out.
Unlike the hysterical reaction of America and Spain, India's restraint under pressure is exemplary
By Anatole Kaletsky
People of goodwill have been unanimous in their denunciation of the Bombay terrorist outrage. For once, the whole civilised world could agree with Tony Blair, speaking yesterday in Parliament: Our message is that we stand in solidarity with the Indian people to defeat this terrorism wherever it exists. When we see human bodies so cruelly ripped apart, not only in such bastions of Western imperialism as New York, Madrid and London, but also in India, Indonesia and Kenya we can all surely agree that the War on Terror is more than just an American or British obsession. This is truly a global war, in which all civilised nations stand united.
United and wrong. For there was one small note of dissent, or at least of nuance, in yesterdays ringing declarations of solidarity and renewed commitment to the war against terror. Manmohan Singh, the famously cerebral Prime Minister of India, denounced the attack as a shocking attempt to spread a feeling of fear and terror among our citizens, but carefully refrained from blaming any specific terrorist group or threatening any particular counter-measures.
Instead of describing this atrocity as an act of war, the Indian authorities were treating it essentially as a criminal act. Instead of succumbing to the populist temptation to blame Pakistan, where many anti-Indian terrorist groups enjoy safe haven, Dr Singh did exactly the opposite. The very first statements from India stressed that dialogue and confidence-building measures with Pakistan would continue, Professor Radha Kumar, one of Indias leading authorities on inter-communal tensions. noted yesterday.
The people of India seemed equally calm. Bombay, instead of panicking or wallowing in self-pity, went on with its daily business. The shops and markets stayed open. The transport services went on running and passengers were not intimidated from using buses and trains. In all these respects, Bombays reaction was similar to Londons and a world apart from the hysteria in New York and Madrid.
This contrast can be tritely explained by clichés about the national character the fatalism of the Hindus, the stoicism of the British, the passion of the Spaniards and so on. There are, however, more instructive political conclusions.
India, even more than Britain or Spain, has a history of terrorist horrors. Starting with the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, moving on through the intercommunal bloodshed after partition to the shooting of Indira Gandhi, the murder of numerous local politicians and the seemingly endless bombings by Kashmiri separatists, Maoists and religious fanatics of all kinds, India probably has more experience of terror than any other nation.
We can draw lessons from Indias cool, self-confident behaviour. The first lesson is that Indians, both politicians and ordinary people, seem to respond much more rationally than Americans to the risks of terrorism. While 170 deaths is a terrible tragedy, the Indians seem to recognise that terrorism remains a negligible risk in the greater scheme of things and need not unduly disrupt their lives.
Even if the bombings in Bombay were repeated weekly, they would represent a smaller risk than crossing an Indian road. Seen as a one-off event, this bombing was a far less destructive tragedy than the earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis and other natural disasters that regularly afflict southern Asia. This sense of proportion should allow Indians to get on with their lives after the bombings and discourage the overreaction, the inter-communal bloodshed and the Indo- Pakistani confrontation that the terrorists obviously want.
The need to deny terrorists their objectives leads to a second conclusion. To treat terrorist attacks as acts of war, as President Bush has famously done since 9/11, is the most counterproductive policy imaginable, at least if the objective is genuinely to prevent further terrorism, rather than to wage a never-ending war on terror. Equally wrongheaded is to try to draw every country hit by terrorism into an imaginary brotherhood of solidarity against terror, as Tony Blair did in yesterdays parliamentary statement.
The disastrous consequences of confusing terrorism with war are obvious enough. Observe the confusion of US objectives in Iraq, the descent into anarchy in Afghanistan and, just yesterday, the self-destructive decision of Ehud Olmert to respond to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers as if it were an act of war by the Government of Lebanon. Or note that it is now almost five years since 9/11, yet Osama bin Laden is still at large and the Taleban virus has been transmitted from Afghanistan to nuclear-armed Pakistan. But why has the War on Terror been such a failure? The most plausible explanation was presented last week by Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, at the LSE conference on George Soross book, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror. Liberals such as Mr Soros have long argued that the War on Terror was a false metaphor because the enemy was not an army or a state, but an abstract concept, implying that the war, with all the attendant restrictions on open civil liberties and political debate, might continue for ever.
But, as Ms Chakrabati pointed out, there is another hawkish argument against the War on Terror metaphor, which is even more powerful: the War on Terror has turned common criminals and mass murderers into soldiers and martyrs. As Ms Chakrabarti noted, the greatest aspiration of Irish terrorist groups was to be recognised as soldiers an aspiration that British governments consistently and rightly denied them. Yet just before the 7/7 attacks in London, the lead bomber was able to write in his testament, without a hint of self-doubt: We are at war and I am a soldier.
This is the glamorous image of terrorism that President Bush and Mr Blair have spent five years promoting. Luckily for India, her leaders have greater intelligence and sang-froid.
This one is wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.
#1
So let me get this straight in my own mind. This author is glad that the Indians are "taking it like a man"? Would that not signal a victory, beating them into submission, accomplishing the terrorists goal? Give them some credit, it has only been a day. Public rage takes a little while to build to a boiling point, but rest assured they will be pissed when the shock wears off. This peace loving shitbird that is writing this article has a very naive and idealistic outlook on the realities of the world. Enemies kill each other, any way they can, and keep killing until they win.
Refusing to fight, like your mother's advice when you were bullied on the playground is not an option. It will only get your people killed. 9/11 wasn't the first attack we suffered it was the last, because we started busting heads on a truly suprising scale.
#2
Kaletsky's point of view is not "naive and idealistic", but more propaganda designed to strengthen terrorism and weaken everyone else. He explicitly calls civilized nations "united and wrong." He certainly favors "nuance." He explicitly says "terrorism remains a negligible risk." He explicitly says "To treat terrorist attacks as acts of war ... is the most counterproductive policy imaginable" He dedicates most of his article to confusing causes and effects, stating the "descent into anarchy in Afghanistan" is a result of "confusing terrorism with war." Afghan anarchy certainly predated 9/11 by many years. He states "the Taleban virus has been transmitted from Afghanistan to nuclear-armed Pakistan" thus denying the obvious, historical, roots of the Taleban in Pakistan. He holds George Soros up for admiration. spit etc., etc. Kaletsky deserves an honorary degree from the Noam Chomsky School of Rhetoric at MIT.
#3
While 170 deaths is a terrible tragedy, the Indians seem to recognise that terrorism remains a negligible risk in the greater scheme of things and need not unduly disrupt their lives.
Yep. A 100 here, 3000 there, 200 over here, 50 or 60 over there. What's the big deal?
He seems to favor the "Bend Over and Provide the Vaseline" Defense. But maybe I'm just being hysterical?
Comments in bracket by Jan Lamprecht, the site owner. [Oh boo hoo hoo, this idiot on CNNMoney is bemoaning the loss of "Mass culture". Translation: Choice means that the masses can no longer be BRAINWASHED by the FEW AGAINST THEIR WILL THROUGH LACK OF CHOICE! Yes, that's what this jerk is really crying about.
It's actually an argument that runs against the excellent analysis of Professor Adam Smith in 1776. Adam Smith showed, in a long and detailed analysis that the Free Market produced the lowest prices and was the most efficient mechanism. If the Free Market is good for economics, I see no reason why it can't be good for the media and for ideas and for a (supposed) free society.
Radio, TV and the Newspapers were dominated by a few oligopolies for decades and it was a prime instrument in the dissemination of propaganda by ALL countries on Earth.
Now, suddenly, "choice is bad" for politics. No you idiot! "Choice is bad" because it means the whole world isn't being fed a lot of Liberalism or Communism. It means people can actually be Conservative or something else if the hell they want to.
So he whines that the newspaper is closing its Moscow and Johannesburg offices. Well, idiot, I live in Johannesburg, and I think your newspaper is doing a pretty crap job of reporting on what is going on in my city. It is not even coming close to telling Americans what is going on. So I am *GLAD* and utterly delighted that its closing its offices. There will be other, better sources of news of what is going on in Johannesburg - like my own website for example - which is telling all the stories which your "professional organisation" was too damned useless to report on.
Sod the mass media. I will enjoy watching Internet Websites dancing on the graves of CNN, Larry King and all the rest who lied by ommission and who told the twisted stories they wanted to tell. The sooner some of these organisations, like CNN go BANKRUPT, the better.
And what great "mass culture" are we going to miss? A bunch of hippies? Frankly, I see nothing worth missing. Instead I am hoping that people will be more individualistic and will do some thinking about their own views instead of being brain dead.
Let the Internet smash the Mass Media into the ground, because as far as I'm concerned the Mass Media played a major, major role in the destruction of Africa by covering up so much of the truth. You dug a grave for us, and I am delighted that you Liberal bastards are going to fall into it yourself. Jan]
The advent of 300 channels and the Internet has fragmented audiences - and the explosion of choice has left us poorer
By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
#6
In an example of amazingly convoluted logic, Michael Powell, ex-chairman of the FCC and CATO institute member, tried the CATO philosophy that monopolies would self-destruct if allowed to continue.
This is why he opened the flood gates to media consolidation, hoping that big media would destroy itself.
All we got out of the deal is bigger big media. Next time, just use the screwdriver to turn the screw, don't hope the screw screws itself.
#7
Watch carefully. When someone or something enjoys a monopoly for an extended period of time and a competitor comes on the scene, what does the monopoly do? Offer a better product or service? No. It seeks those of power to cripple the competition. Itll be written in fine words. The best interests of the people will be invoked. It is really all about power. It's already started.
#9
Mass media sucks but internet media has own problems.
EG: explosion of conspiracy theories
Because there is so much choice sometimes the masses are fooled by internet 'sources' that are propaganda/outright lies and don't have to adhere to journalist code of ethics ie: cannot be sued in a court of law, hence the company doesn't force it's journos to keep records or try to verify any facts (no matter how flawed at least there were operational demands).
#11
I like rense.com... but for ufo, cattle mutilations, flying entities over Mexico, and the like. For anything else, I must take a mental shower afterward... but who could take that site seriously, except for the fringe left/right?
#13
The second arena where we are worse off is politics. This is related to journalism, as the moderate and responsible (okay, bland) voices of the MSM get drowned out by partisan, opinionated cableheads and bloggers.
"Moderate" and "responsible?" Uh, who told you chuckleheads that you were "moderate and responsible?" In what parallel dimension did THAT occur?
#14
Big media doesn't have to go clear out of business to make me happy. All they have to do is quit fucking us around and report the news. Without the opinion or spin, just the news. They havent done that since the 50's(if ever) and we would probably have to re-learn a good deal of modern history. But it would be worth it. Having said that, I don't for a minute think they will, I don't think they can, they will go down in flames lying and accusing all the way.
#15
This is a load of crap. Quality will get noticed and mass culture will succeed.
If you looked around at movies before tv you would have seen a lot of crap and a few gems (we remember the gems). Movies improved with letterbox formatting, cinescope, and other inventions and survived and in many ways improved.
If you looked around during the 70s and 80s before cable tv you would have seen a lot of cookie-cutter programs on television. Then cable came around and sucked up market share. Now television is pretty high quality from Sopranos on HBO to The Shield and 24 on basic cable. Despite Internet growth.
Choice is good as it forces the media to improve. Of course CNN refuses to improve so they will go the way of disco in time.
#17
I like Jan. Don't know if you all have ever checked out his website, but he was one of the first to convince me that the MSM was hiding a LOT of what's going on in the world. He was stationed in ZimBOBwe at the time and his site had pictures, names, dates and locations of white farmers being run off AND KILLED (execution style) by Bob's goons. Heck, I'd never even heard of Zimbobwe, but he peaked my interest and I began to research and see how quickly a potentially incredible country could be run into the ground by a communist thug...he even had stats on how much grain Zim produced...basically, the "bread basket of Africa.
Posted by: BA ||
07/13/2006 21:07 Comments ||
Top||
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.
