"You hate Egypt?" a disbelieving aristocratic roué demands of his impoverished secretary in Alaa Al Aswany's novel The Yacoubian Building.
"Of course," she replies, shocked that he had to ask.
In Cairo, this is a dangerous sentiment - and Al Aswany's portrayal of homosexuality, Islam ism, poverty, exploitation and corruption is doubly so. Writers in Egypt are caught in a tug-of-war between an autocratic government intolerant of criticism and dissent, and an increasingly powerful Islamist movement vio ently opposed to any "affront to public morality".
The space between them is narrow. In the past few years, writers have been imprisoned, beaten, fined and had their books pulped by government agencies - and suffered harassment, attacks and even murder at the hands of Islamists. But The Yacoubian Building slipped through, selling hundreds of thousands of copies since its first publication in 2002, and becoming the bestselling Arabic novel in recent history. In 2006, when a lavish film adaptation was released, 112 MPs demanded that the film be censored for "spreading obscenity and debauchery".
Controversy, especially involving sex and Islamists, sells. The Yacoubian Building, in an excellent translation by Humphrey Davies, has been picked up by HarperCollins for a rare publication in the west. Like The Bookseller of Kabul and last year's Booker-shortlisted In the Country of Men, it will become famous for offering, as the New York Review of Books put it, "an amazing glimpse" into Middle Eastern society and culture. Ominously, President Bush's adviser Karen Hughes has it on her bedside table.
#2
Democracy is viral. It is spreading around the ME invisibly, unpredictably infecting people here and there. And once they have the bug, they are the quiet revolutionaries, slowly and steadily pushing, always pushing, towards a system that they know is better.
Every now and then, someone's democratic sense becomes acute, and they openly advocate it. At first they lose and are persecuted, but more and more, the infection spreads.
#1
What a good article.Best i have reasd in ages and is exaxtly what the world needs to know that Saudi is spreading hatred worldwide and the West especially the Bush family turns a blind eye.
Eighty per cent of the violence in Iraq takes place within 50km of Baghdad
According to my dictionary, the word "ally" comes from the Old French. Very Old French, I'd say. For the New French, the word has a largely postmodern definition of "duplicitous charmer who undermines you at every opportunity".
For the less enthusiastically obstructive NATO members, "ally" means "wealthy country with no military capability that requires years of diplomatic wooing and black-tie banquets in order to agree to a token contribution of 23.08 troops." Incidentally, that 23.08 isn't artistic licence on my part. The 2004 NATO summit in Turkey was presented as a triumph of multilateral co-operation because the 26 members agreed to contribute between them an additional 600 troops and three helicopters to the Afghan mission. That's 23.08 troops and a ninth of a helicopter per ally. In fairness, Turkey chipped in the three helicopters single-handed, though the deal required them to return to Ankara after three months.
And these days troops is something of an elastic term, too. In Norwegian, it means "fighting men who are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, as long as they don't have to do any fighting and there are at least two provinces between their shoulders and the American ones". That's to say, Norway is "participating" in Afghanistan, but, because its troops are "not sufficiently trained to take part in combat", they've been mainly back at the barracks manning the photocopier or staging amateur performances of Peer Gynt for the amusement of US special forces who like nothing better than to unwind with five acts of Ibsen after a hard day hunting the Taliban.
Britain will and should maintain troops in southern Iraq
Much is being read into Tony Blairs statement on Iraq yesterday that he did not read out. It is being claimed, for example, that withdrawing some British troops from the Basra area at the same time as the United States in building up its forces in the Baghdad region represents a serious split between London and Washington. Others have concluded that while his announcement covered, strictly speaking, a reduction in force numbers of 1,600 men soon and 500 more by late summer leaving a substantial presence of 5,000 the real message being delivered was of a phased withdrawal of all soldiers by 2008.
Such thinking represents the triumph of prejudices over evidence. As Mr Blair sought to emphasise in the House of Commons, the positions in Basra and Baghdad are very different. British troops have not had to deal with a Sunni insurgency or much in the way of Shia-on-Sunni violence. What they have faced instead are radical Shia militias (often backed by and from Iran) seeking to assert themselves as much over their traditional leaders as against British military commanders. Their strategy has been based on the infiltration of police units along with direct strikes against British targets. Operation Sinbad appears to have severely curtailed their activities. It makes sense, in this context, to redeploy UK forces, releasing some to leave Iraq in the process, and allow the Iraqi Army to take command.
Baghdad, by contrast, is less a crucible of resistance to an American occupation than a battleground for Iraqi-on-Iraqi conflict. With 80-90 per cent of all the violence in the country occurring in the capital it makes immense sense for the US and Iraqi administrations to redouble their efforts in the city. The latest Baghdad security initiative has made an encouraging start and might bear more fruit than cynical critics would like to concede is possible.
Even so, Britain should not be rushing to leave southern Iraq on an artificial timetable. With some fortune, it may indeed be possible to draw down force numbers to well below 5,000 men by the end of 2008. Much, however, depends on the development of the Iraqi Army, which now has 130,000 troops (making it larger than the entire British Army is), political developments in Basra and whether Iran continues to be a very malign player in the area. There is little doubt that fanatics will try to force the pace of the British troop movements on terms that suit them. They could sense that British public sentiment favours complete withdrawal sooner rather than later. It is up to Mr Blair and his successor in No 10 to convince Iraqis that the political resolve to see through this mission remains undiminished.
Iraqis are increasingly determining the fate of Iraq. That process will accelerate but it does require assistance. While this should not, hopefully, demand a large outside military presence it would be rash to assume that the entire infrastructure of a working government, a comprehensively trained army and a corruption-free police force will be in place in just two years.
The Iraqi Cabinet has shown more energy and urgency of late, not only in placing more resources into establishing order inside Baghdad, but in addressing the vexed but essential question of the fair distribution of oil revenues among the countrys 18 provinces. That in turn should allow for a fresh focus on political reconciliation and economic reconstruction. This statement may be the beginning of the end for Britains role in Iraq. The end itself will not come for some time yet.
#1
Much, however, depends on the development of the Iraqi Army, which now has 130,000 troops (making it larger than the entire British Army is)
A point. A very sharp and pointed point. And British strength is to be redeployed to prevent Iranian infiltration, which will benefit the whole of Iraq, not just the Basra region.
Keith Longo, on his animation blog
Seems when theyre not busy making nukes and being a general menace in Asia the fellas up in NoKo bang out their own animated TV shows for the kiddos to watch. Guess they gotta do something while they slowly starve in their bunker society. Thing is, on a TV level this stuff isnt half bad. Oh its not good, no. But its not horrible like I expected, either. Ive seen worse on US air/cable-waves, thats for sure. Of course the stories might be a tad, um different. To quote the story
It aint exactly Warner Bros.the cartoons are designed to implant into the minds of children warm patriotism and towering hatred for the enemy, according to official news agency KCNA.
All I gotta say is if youre gonna have hatred for your enemies, make sure its not some half hearted wimpy hatred, but a towering hatred. Hit the link for one of those embedded YouTube player thingys. James Lileks comments in today's "Bleat" (scroll down past the mayonnaise ads) and links to more Nork video goodness.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/22/2007 05:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They can't be that bad, they've got baby ducklings! No fluffy bunnies, though.
AoS note: this is JFM's summary and translation of the cited work. He promised us this yesterday and we're very pleased to have it here on the Burg.
On the next days I will be publishing a summary of a series of thirty two articles published on the web site of the COPE the spanish catholic broadcast network.
Their theme is about the Madrid bombings, the many uncomprehensible errors in the investigation, the unnumerable details who don't fit in the official thesis, the troublig coincidences and the attempts from the socialist governement to hinder the discoverty process.
Notice that I have not crosschecked the allegations of the journalist with original sources. All of it could be invented. However an ever growing number of Spaniards disbelieve the official version and the pro-socialist press has been increasingly shrill into silencing those who express doubts about the official version and its denegations are contradictory or simply not believable.
#1
Strangely enough, Ferdinand and Isabella felt no need for a criminal investigation process before addressing the same problems centuries ago. Such is progress.
Also the judiciary dossier about the investigation is available online. Google for "sumario" "11-M".
Finally when I talked about contradictions from the partisdans of the official thesis I refer to facts like that for two years we were being told that police quitely surrounded the Leganes appartment (where a number of terrorists blew themselves off) and in the summer 2006 the public prosecutor (in Spain it is appointed by the minister of justice) told us that in fact there had been a pursuit in the streets of Madrid with sirens blaring, trafic lights ignored, old ladys nearly overrun.
When I told about shrilliness I tell about calls to close the COPE and El Mundo (one of Spain's main newspapers who happens to be critical of the investigation), about a try, to effectiely close the COPE in Catalonia and about threats uttered by teh leader of apolice union against the peoiple whop pointed about the funny things in the investigation. I agree that these by themselves are not proofs: smeaed people can alspo have treactions of exasperation.
#3
JFM: Thank you for all your work on this. I'm looking forward to the upcoming installments.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/22/2007 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hi,
I personally have doubts about the ETA link;
ETA is a Spanish home grown organization that doesnt have a history of simultaneous attacks against civilians. Apart from an attack in a supermarket that caused a lot of civilian deaths & widespread revulsion amongst non violent supporters of its political aims, ETA has since steered clear of mass murder of civilians. They generally give a warning before their Bombs explode.
The Madrid train attacks were classic Muslim extremist tactics, Mass murders of innocent civilians in separate simultaneous actions.
The political repercussions of the attacks held no political profit for ETA but for the Muslim Extremists there was an immediate & profitable result from the attacks. The General elections were held a few days later & the left were unexpectedly swept into power as the Spanish public blamed the Governing Parties implication in the war on terror as the cause of the attacks. The Socialists had been promising a return of all soldiers from IRAQ in case of victory.
This has an important lesson, & that is that a Country had better think twice before going to war if the main political parties are not backing the action. Division will be exploited by the enemy.
Eta does not a track of successful attempts at mass terrorism. They tried to sink a ferry-boat (1400 persons on baord), to destroy the tallest building in Madrid through a bombing and to cause a multi-thousand victim bombing in Madrid's railway station.
Now because in every one of thse cases they were twatheted by the police it could be that ETA would have warned in advance and thus there would have been no massacre.
Also in late years, ETA has become increasingly rtadical, there have been contacts between ETA and Islamists and de Juana Chaos has lauded the methods of the islamists telling: those guys would eject the Spaniards from Basqeue country in less than six months.
Also you are making two fundamental mistakes: first base ETA's behaviour on their past one: ETA has evolved and there is a world betwen first "honorable" ETA (who explicitly told people they were not forced to give it money if they didn't share its objectives) and presnt one.
The second one is taht ETA would not do under its own colors (because 99% of their supporters would turn against them), they could do as subcontracters or in cooperation with the islamists (ie without political backslash).
Now one of ETA's leaders has told well before Madrid bombings: "the day we sit to negotiate we need to be able to put 200 dead on the table".
Finally, we have the context: ETA is on the ropes. If Rajoy wins the police will get the time to finish job. Zapatero's victory meaned: police action being called off, concessions both to ETA and to all the independentisms in Spain, the repelling of the sanitary wall around ETA, instead now socialist startegy is to isloate the Popular Party.
Now, the series is less about who did it but about the "curious" facts in the investigation, about clues appearing in places who had alreaday been searched and found empty, about elementary procedures (ie analyzing teh explosive not being done). We will trade hypothesis about authorships and about teh attempts to hinderr the investigation once we are fartehr in teh series.
Ladies and gentlemen, the first major Clinton vs. Obama fight of the campaign has begun.
And for those of us with no dog in this fight it's awesome.
The short version:
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd talked to Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a former Bill Clinton backer whos now backing Obama. Geffen ripped Hillary. He called her incredibly polarizing, referred to the Bush and Clinton royal families, speculated that Bill Clinton was still sleeping around and thus represented a scandal waiting to erupt; called the Clinton machine (their network of supporters and operatives) very unpleasant and unattractive and effective; called the former President a reckless guy, mocked his pardon of Marc Rich, declared the Clintons unwilling to stand for things that they genuinely believe in and that they lie with such ease, its troubling. Finally, he asked if anyone was more ambitious than Hillary.
The Hillary campaign read this in Dowds column and shot back, A day after Barack Obama goes out and eschews the politics of slash-and-burn, his campaign embraces the politics of trash. The Obama campaign responded, We arent going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom. Ouch!
Later in Iowa, Obama himself added, Its not clear to me why I would be apologizing for someone elses remarks My sense is that Mr. Geffen may have differences with the Clintons, but that doesn't really have anything to do with our campaign.
At the candidate forum in Nevada yesterday, Hillary didnt directly say whether she believed Obama was obligated to disavow Geffen's comments, but instead, she lamented . . . come on, you can guess the standard-issue Clinton response to these situations . . . you got it! The Politics of Personal Destruction! Yes, Geffens criticisms and observations amount to an attempt to personally destroy her. . . .
From where I sit admittedly, pretty far both ideologically and geographically from Beverly Hills, Nevada, Iowa, or even Washington Geffen pointed out the elephant in the room, the fears and irritations that a lot of Democrats feel about Hillary but dont like to talk about. Team Hillary reacted with its characteristic whine, completely fudging the difference between a substantive disagreement (her vote on Iraq, the Marc Rich pardon) and speculation about scandals and personal defects (the idea that Bill is sleeping around). I find this line of argument completely unpersuasive, but apparently it works, because the Clintons keep using it. Obama reacted by pointing out the obvious and staying out of the fray. But so far, its being scored as a loss and a gaffe for Obama.
UPDATE: So I thought a bit more about Richardson and other Democrats in yesterday's candidate forum responding as if Obama had done something wrong, and I began to wonder if the Democratic field is tired of hearing about Obama the Messiah, and how lame they are in comparison to the Illinois Senator Who Walks On Water and is eager to see him taken down a peg.
Also, a Smart Republican Guy explained why I'm scoring this fight wrong.
Smart Republican Guy: I thought it was one more step in the inevitable process of taking the shine off the guy [Obama]. He's in a tough spot. If I were advising him, I'd tell him not to engage the other Dems at all. To set himself by, among other things, being apart. (Smart, for example, to blow off the debate yesterday.) But that's tricky. Because sometimes you have to engage. And everytime he does, I think it diminishes him. Most voters will see what I saw on the today show this morning Howard Wolfson attacking Obama. And they'll believe it because they're used to it. They're used to politicians attacking each other. So this is believable. They expect it.
Jim: I mean, I guess at issue here is that Joe Voter is so disengaged, pays so little attention to the details of the story, that they'll walk away from the conversation convinced that Obama did something wrong?
Smart Republican Guy: Essentially, yes.
I don't want SRG's interpretation to be right, but I fear he may be.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/22/2007 12:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
" He called her incredibly polarizing, "
Duh. All she needs to win in November is 50% plus one. And shes polarizing cause some rightwingers that Dem primary voters dont listen to dont like her. Obama is farther left on issues. Is the guy who wants to pull US troops out of IRaq immediately, damn the consequences going to be less polarizing cause he talks nice? (and dont lets get started on how polarizing GOP candidates are)
"referred to the Bush and Clinton royal families,
Duh. They still elected Bush W, twice.
"speculated that Bill Clinton was still sleeping around and thus represented a scandal waiting to erupt;"
he aint running for president. But thanks for keeping it clean and fresh.
" called the Clinton machine (their network of supporters and operatives) very unpleasant and unattractive and effective;"
They play tough. Cause theyve been up against Repubs who play tough. Its unpleasant if youre a player, like Geffen is and get involved in it. I dont think the voters care.
" called the former President a reckless guy, "
Now THATS news ;)
"mocked his pardon of Marc Rich,"
Again Mr. Clinton aint on the ballot. Hey Geffen, arent your pals in Moveon angry against Leiberman for attacking fellow Dems?
" declared the Clintons unwilling to stand for things that they genuinely believe in"
I think theyve been remarkably consistent about their policy positions. Sometimes you have to face reality and compromise though. If St Obama aint gonna do that, how is he gonna avoid being polarizing?
"and that they lie with such ease, its troubling."
St Obama OTOH says hes unconnected with Geffens comments. Lie, or truth?
" Finally, he asked if anyone was more ambitious than Hillary"
OMG! someone running for president is ambitious. As opposed to somebody who 3 years ago was an Illinois legislator (and spare me the Lincoln comparisons) and now is running for Prez. But Geffen has said Hilary is ambitious, and Geffen is an HONOURABLE man :)
#3
Obama will try what worked for Deval Patrick up here. "Together, we can!", "Yes, we can!", "Let's reach for that!"
Feel good slogans, will never let anybody pin him down, will propose nothing, will let the adoring media fly top cover for him.
It may not work on a national scale, but it sure did work with the sheeple up here.
#9
This was round 2. Round 1 was when the Clintonistas planted all those "Is Obama really black" stories.
Obama won. He's now going to be mentioned in the same sentence as presumptive nominee St. Hillary for several days. This will lift him above the other dwarfs like Edwards and Kucinich and clinch him the VP nomination.
John Bolton's tell-all book on his days at the State Department and as ambassador to the United Nations could be coming out as early as the end of this year.
All right, maybe not a classic "tell-all" -- perhaps just a "tell-some" -- but top folks in Foggy Bottom and at the United Nations are most surely not going to be happy when this one comes out. The buzz is that it's going to focus mostly on Bolton's work at the United Nations, where he's said to be still upset at his inability to lop off 10 of the building's 38 floors that he had said were expendable. The book is likely to rank the floors in order of those most expendable.
Unclear how Bolton will treat his most recent bosses, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. His view of Rice may have altered a bit after last week's agreement with North Korea on its nuclear program, an agreement Bolton and other conservatives have criticized as "a bad deal." There are others at State sure to come in for their share of abuse.
No working title yet and no publisher, although several have expressed interest. But if this is to come out before Christmas, he'd better get typing.
#1
The book is likely to rank the floors in order of those most expendable.
LOL! If Darth Bolton pulls that off in a tell-all book, maybe, just maybe, there's hope for us to kick them out of the U.S.! His comments and insight into the NorK deal should be interesting "reading" too. Definitely one for my collection when if it gets printed. BTW, do we have a Kofi-Watch thingy in effect? Does anyone know where he and his spawn offspring ended up?
Posted by: BA ||
02/22/2007 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
UN space would be better utilized for construction of East river condos. As for Bolton, he is a 2-stater on Palestine. I won't buy anything from one of those.
Indiscriminate criticism of President George W. Bush is an infectious disease. Some conservatives seem to have caught it, but congressional Democrats might be crippled by it.
Consider some conservatives' reflexive rejection of the administration's achievement -- with China, Russia, South Korea and Japan -- of an agreement that might constrain North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Voicing the obvious with a sense of originality, critics exclaim that North Korea is a serial liar. And, echoing the equally reflexive disparagement of the agreement by some liberals, these conservatives say it is not significantly different from President Bill Clinton's 1994 agreement, which failed.
The new agreement might not bring Pyongyang to heel. It is, however, unlike that of 1994, in three particulars.
First, China was infuriated by North Korea's October nuclear test, which fizzled but expressed defiance of China. So now China seems amenable to serious pressure on its mendicant neighbor, which is substantially dependent on China for food and energy.
Second, the new agreement, like the 1994 pact, is an attempt to modify behavior using bribery. But under the 1994 agreement, North Korea got the bribe -- energy assistance -- before being required to change its behavior. Under the new agreement, North Korea will receive just 5 percent of promised oil -- 50,000 of 1 million tons of heavy fuel oil -- before it must fulfill, in 60 days, the first of the many commitments it has made.
Third, the administration believes it found, in Banco Delta Asia, a lever that moved Pyongyang. The Macau bank was pressured into freezing 52 accounts holding $24 million -- yes, million, not billion -- of North Korean assets because Pyongyang has been using them for illicit purposes. If Pyongyang flinched from being deprived of $24 million -- less than Americans spend on archery equipment in a month -- Pyongyang's low pain threshold suggests how fragile, and hence perhaps how containable, that regime is.
Regarding Iraq, the Democratic-controlled Congress could do what Democrats say a Democratic president would do: withdraw U.S. forces. A president could simply order that; Congress could defund military operations in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are, however, afraid to do that because they lack the courage of their (professed) conviction that Iraq would be made tranquil by withdrawal of U.S. forces.
So they aim to hamstring the president with restrictions on the use of the military. The restrictions ostensibly are concerned with preparedness but actually are designed to prevent deployments to Iraq.
Last Saturday, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on a resolution disapproving the president's policy because Democrats would not permit a vote on a resolution stating that the Senate will not cut off funds for troops in the field. That resolution would have committed the Senate to not taking the path that many Democrats already are tiptoeing down.
Suppose Democrats write their restrictions on the use of forces into legislation that funds the war. And suppose the president signs the legislation but ignores the restrictions, calling them unconstitutional usurpations of his powers as commander in chief. What could Democrats do? Cross First Street NE and ask the Supreme Court to compel the president to acquiesce in congressional micromanagement of a war? The court probably would refuse to get involved on the grounds that this is a "political question."
The court has held that some constitutional controversies should be settled by the government's political -- meaning elected -- branches. In 1962, the court said that a case involves a political question when there is:
" . . . textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question."
In that welter of criteria there are reasons that the court will not rescue congressional Democrats from facing the logic of their posturing. They lack the will to exercise their clearly constitutional power to defund the war. And they lack the power to achieve that end by usurping the commander in chief's powers to conduct a war.
They can spend this year fecklessly and cynically enacting restrictions that do not restrict. Or they can legislate decisive failure of the Iraq operation -- withdrawal -- thereby acquiring conspicuous complicity in a defeat that might be inevitable anyway. A Hobson's choice? No, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's.
An American Congress has got itself into a war it cant win. It is stuck. Cant move forward, cant move back. And Congress is starting to take casualties. It doesnt know which way to turn. Its a quagmire.
The situation is dire, and congressmen everywhere are increasingly beleaguered. They have been unable to come up with any strategy for success, but more seriously, they havent been able to agree on a strategy for failure. One of their leading lights, Rep. John Murtha, has already been reduced to an object of derision and the danger is he will drag more of them down with him.
Congress spent four days four days! yammering earnestly, and then cast a strong, uncompromising, forceful non-binding resolution with a self-negating caveat. The president of the United States, in reaction to this devastating congressional shock-and-awe campaign, said, Thank you, that was interesting.
Since then, the Senate minority, wielding flimsy, antiquated procedural weapons, has tied down the Democratic juggernaut in the Senate.
The situation is increasingly desperate. Americans, who had seen in the Democratic Congress a chance to extricate themselves from an unpopular conflict, appear to be coming to the conclusion that Bushs war is a more attractive choice than the Democratic peace. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
02/22/2007 13:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Wonderful work the founding fathers did indeed. This is the last best hope to preserve freedom by clogging the arteries of the beast so as to prevent knee jerk spasms of profuse political pandering. The Three Card Monty of the Donks' "its all about the culture of corruption" campaign is now playing out in their true intended "its all about the war". They knew the latter could not give them Congress last November. The longer the game plays, the deeper they sink. Dig deeper, dig faster.
With great fanfare on February 16, 2006 the UN launched its Counter-Terrorism Online Handbook part of its claimed effort to implement the "UN counter-terrorism strategy" an oxymoron if there ever was one.
Robert Orr, Chairman of the UN Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force briefed non-governmental organizations on developments February 21, 2007. He told the assembled crowd that the UN was taking "historic" steps concerning the fight against terrorism. Buried in his remarks was a passing comment that the drafting of a UN comprehensive convention against terrorism is "still hung up over some definitional questions on how to specifically define who is a terrorist. With that one stumbling block, the last major pillar in the international legal framework remains yet undone."
Huh? The UN is celebrating the creation of a strategy, a task force and now a handbook, about its supposed role in a fight against something it can't define. The scary part is that nobody at the UN sees anything wrong with this picture.
After all, to the UN crowd it's just same old same old. A day before the launch, on February 15, the UN concluded another round of failed negotiations to adopt a comprehensive convention against terrorism. The talks ended in deadlock as they have for a decade because the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) believes blowing up Americans and Israelis (and anybody else they claim get in the way of "self-determination") is not terrorism. Of course, self-determination for the millions living under undemocratic rule across the Arab world is not quite what they have in mind. Meanwhile, the rest of the globe slinks away from a nasty confrontation that would certainly ensue if anyone dared to insist on adopting a treaty or a terrorism definition over the OIC's objections.
Will you be sleeping better knowing the UN online counter-terrorism handbook to counter who-knows-what is just a click away?
Posted by: DanNY ||
02/22/2007 08:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One man's terrorist is another man's United Nations head of state.
#3
The handbook is useful for learning obfuscation. Then there is the US counter-insurgency manual that prescribes placement of "70%" of field troops on patrol 24-7-365. Common sense is not in season.
#4
We shall fight them at the top hotels. We shall fight them at the five star restaurants. We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them in the first class cabin. We shall fight them at the spas. We shall never give up, till accounting pays our travel expenses.
Earlier this month, the Senate voted 8314 to confirm Gen. George Casey as Army chief of staff. Ten of those no votes came from Republicans, four of whom John McCain, John Ensign, Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). The four grilled General Casey during his confirmation hearing, forcefully taking him to task for lack of progress in Iraq during his tenure as the commander of US ground troops there.
Democratic senator Carl Levin, chairman of the committee, disagreed: It is not fair that General Casey be tagged with failures, massive failures which were caused by the false policies, the wrong policies, the deceptions, the ignorance, the arrogance, the cockiness of civilian leaders in this administration.
But Republican senator John E. Sununu, who is not a member of the SASC, had an answer for Levin. There are many factors that contributed to the failure to improve the situation [in Iraq], but ultimately our military leadership has to bear some responsibility for its choices. Simply put, we shouldnt reward a lack of success on the field of command with such an important promotion.
This is the central issue of civil-military relations during wartime. How much responsibility for victory or defeat does a military commander bear?
#1
The Army is in dire need of a cultural change, of a shift from thinking primarily in terms of conventional war
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! The Army is in no need of change. What the Army is in NEED of is the ability to execute a classic foreign internal defense (FID) mission without being hog tied and hamstrung by a US Embassy & State Dept, medling politicians, bureaucratic intelligence agencies, and a totally incompentent host nation government. Ask yourself why General Tommy Franks didn't stay on... and why he and several other very successful general officers have not commented publically on this situation.
#3
Not so sure, guys. (OK, I stipulate the incompetent host govt. and sometimes bizarre intel agencies)
First, Owens talks of an Anbar offensive that never was. Sure, there were fitful mini-campaigns in the western Euphrates valley, and some other stuff - but all were linked very specifically to securing the environment for elections. Never anything resembling a serious undertaking that would use scale and serious measures and deception to kill lots and lots of bad guys. Uh - if you actually secure a lousy small town with a serious perimeter, and don't telegraph every move (or better yet, falsely telegraph some moves), you can just about eliminate the "whack-a-mole" thinggy cuz the moles don't get out. But that's between me and Owens, I guess. Perhaps my memory fails me, but I clearly recall how every little eeny teeny offensive op that was described in the morning briefings would cause some of us to perk up and say "finally!" - of course they never lasted and were never all that serious.
I have limited, but non-zero, info and perspective on MNF-I plans and mindset. I am not aware of a single bit of evidence that Casey or MNC-I senior brass ever felt constrained by State, per se.
It always looked like the embassy's flawed (though not entirely incorrect) Sunni-engagement and politics-centric strategy dovetailed perfectly with a military command that showed not the slightest interest in closing with the enemy. I don't know how much embassy input there was in the campaign plan I saw early in '06, but I was crushed when I read it. All Iraqis-in-the-lead (when they weren't capable in many cases and when, in fact, the locals would have been far more favorably impressed by occupiers-in-the-lead, so long as they took DECISIVE action). Lots of stuff about building on the success of the elections and referendum, Sunni participation in the first sovereign parliament, etc.
I would agree that Owens is WRONG! about "The Army is in dire need of a cultural change, of a shift from thinking primarily in terms of conventional war". With some caveats, the problem looked to me like exactly the OPPOSITE: the Army needs to drop nearly all of its fanciful concepts about UNCONVENTIONAL war.
Last year there was actually a great story about US vs. Iraqi approaches to a classic Iraqi situation. I think it was in the WaPo. A US colonel, advisor to an Iraqi army unit, was the focus of the story - along with his conflict with his counterpart in the US Army unit, based across the road. A local town suffered some insurgentitis, the Iraqis wanted to cordon, detain military-aged males, round up and sit on key sheikhs, etc. US side was horrified, said "oh no, we can't do that, somebody will be upset!", etc., and the Iraqis watched with dismay as the US approach was tried and failed.
I could be wrong, but my sense is not that any of these bad instincts come from State or Washington, in the concrete sense. Feels and looks like there are some serious misconceptions among Army personnel about how to fight a war. An acquaintance used to say "too many graduate degrees" when shaking his head and lamenting the latest instance in which the US refused to use force or risk even the tiniest bit of hurt feelings in responding to utterly vicious terrorists operating within a populace that has a purely hobbesian understanding of power and domination.
I take a much darker view than you guys - and have for over a year. I think Casey, Chiarelli, and many others actually believe in the obviously inappropriate, ineffective strategies that have contributed to the failure to make more headway in Iraq to date. I've seen mid-level staff officers shake there heads at the same things, I've seen civilians making common-sense challenges to the brass and receiving pitiful responses (in one case a very senior officer just stopped coming to meetings where he simply couldn't offer persuasive replies to challenges from civilians).
The four SASC members may have "grilled" Casey to some extent, but my impression is that they still didn't go anywhere near the real problem. War is a test of wills - war in Iraq is as pure a test of wills as one will encounter on Earth Obsession with short-term political comfort and tidiness and telescoping years of political and economic reconstruction into a short period prior to establishment of security, all the while constantly telegraphing our desire to leave ASAP - these were key elements of the inappropriate strategy, and I'm not aware Casey objected to a bit of it.
#4
He clearly didn't read McMasters' book, and he didn't prosecute the war agressively. He failed. Just like the commander of the San Francisco, he is responsible for what happened under his command and he should not be promoted for failure. There needs to be some personal responsibility in the Army above the level of Sgt, Grainer.
If you could poll the flag officers in the Army, I wonder how many think the cancellation of the Crusader was a mistake. If it's above 5% then I say the Army is in dire need of a culture change. And I'm not sure the Clinton Generals are all gone.
Although many observers predicted that religion would enter a pattern of terminal decline in the 20th century, events took a different course. Religion not only revived but found expression in unexpected forms. The theologian Paul Tillich noted the way in which people invested worldly things, especially politics, with transcendent meaning. In a 1937 speech, Winston Churchill described communism and Nazism as "non-God religions" that aimed to reignite old religious wars. In "Sacred Causes," Michael Burleigh tracks the fate of religious and secular forces in the 20th century, registering their collisions and their effects on the culture we live in today.
What might seem to be a mere local echo of conflicts from Oliver Cromwell's day, Mr. Burleigh says, has a current parallel in Muslim ghettos across Europe. Alienated youths find meaning in Islam, and governments leave such communities to their own devices, allowing radical subcultures to grow. The 9/11 attacks, of course, brought political Islam into focus for many who had not given the matter any thought before. Mr. Burleigh asks why no one questioned the implications of introducing large Muslim populations into a secularizing West.
Absolute tolerance, Mr. Burleigh believes, makes Western societies particularly vulnerable to those who play by other rules, particularly when self-doubt hobbles Western leaders. Mr. Burleigh ends his fascinating chronicle by suggesting the new "sacred causes" are no less potent than the old ones, a truly troubling thought.
Posted by: DanNY ||
02/22/2007 08:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ended two days of meetings in Tehran Sunday, charging that the "enemies of Islam" were engaged in "the creation of a rift among Muslims" -- an unusual admission that the strategic relationship between Iran and Syria may be fraying.
"Recent developments have led to a conflict between the priorities of Damascus and those of Tehran," according to former Jordanian information minister Saleh Al-Qallab, writing in the London daily "Al-Sharq Al-Awsat." "The cooling [of relations between Syria and Iran] is serious, and is not just a tactical [maneuver]. It will develop into a split and into severe hostility, unless Tehran finds a way to bridge [the difference] between its own priorities and those of Syria," he wrote.
A real split between the two countries, should recent tensions lead to that, would break up one of the most important and lethal strategic alliances that has supported militant organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, in confrontations with Israel and challenged American policies across the board in the Middle East for the past 25 years.
The rift has been exposed by a flurry of recent diplomatic initiatives by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, aimed at preventing further escalation of Sunni-Shiite conflicts.
Once again, the flashpoint is the small country of Lebanon, which has been paralyzed for the past two months by a Syrian-inspired campaign by the Shiite party and militant organization Hezbollah to bring down the elected government of Fouad Siniora.
#1
This would also explain how the Saudis were able to go into the Paleo territories, and assert control and financing over both Fatah and Hamas without the Iranians making a fight over it.
By Rober Spencer 20 page PDF file. Download it and read it at your leisure.
via Front Page Magazine
Jihad is not, as some Western apologists claim, simply a striving for individual perfection. Nor is jihad merely a series of unrelated clashes involving groups of Islamists, each with their own limited objectives. Rather, jihad is a radical, expansionist, totalitarian ideology that seeks to establish a global Islamic state ruled by Islamic law, or sharia. The adherents of this ideology are willing and able to commit acts of violence to bring about their goals. They also use the democratic freedoms in Europe and the U.S. to advance their objectives by stealth meansagitating for special rights as aggrieved minorities.
These goals and motives of jihad are detailed in Islamic texts and by Islamic teachers. Osama bin Laden and other jihad leaders have repeatedly declared their intention to establish the Islamic social order globaly. As Irans President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted: The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world. South African Mufti Ebrahim Desai of South Africa explained recently that one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world . If a country doesnt allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country
The fact that this jihad is justified by the Korans repeated exhortations for the faithful to do battle with the infidels renders negotiations with jihadis utterly useless. As Osama bin Ladens lieutenant, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, stated in the summer of 2006: War with Israel is not subject to a treaty, cease-fire, Sykes-Picot Treaty agreements, patriotism or disputed borders, but it is jihad for the cause of God until the entire region is for him only. Jihad seeks the liberation of Palestine, the entire country of Palestine and to liberate every land that used to be a territory of Islam, from Spain to Iraq.
Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the radical Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami, supported this view: Islam is a revolutionary ideology and program which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals .Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it Maududi envisioned a unified Islamic state that would steadily expand throughout the subcontinent and beyond: The Muslim Party will inevitably extend invitation to the citizens of other countries to embrace the faith which holds promise of true salvation and genuine welfare for them. Even otherwise also if the Muslim Party commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic Governments and establish the power of Islamic Government in their stead. This was, according to Maududi, exactly what Muhammad and the first caliphs did. It is the same policy which was executed by the Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) and his successor illustrious Caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them). Arabia, where the Muslim Party was founded, was the first country which was subjugated and brought under the rule of Islam.1
The restoration of the caliphate--the unified Islamic state governed by a caliph who leads the Muslim community as successor of Muhammad--is a key imperative for jihadists today because only the caliph is authorized to wage war against non-Muslim states to bring them under the rule of Islamic law. This idea is not an invention or fantasy of marginalized jihadists, but is part of traditional, mainstream Islamic law: for example, a manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the most influential institution in Sunni Islam, Cairos Al-Azhar University, defines jihad as war against non-Muslims.2 And it spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: The caliph makes war upon Jews [and] Christians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya). With the goal of world domination for the religion of Allah, jihad proceeds by any means necessary, and until the goal is won. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
02/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
All one needs to know about Islam is that it's a "Religion" invented especially for people who believe that work is demeaning, and that the pinnacle of manhood it taking things from others by force.
#6
Well the real meaning above is waaaaayyy to long for their attention span!
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/22/2007 6:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Most media swine refuse to comprehend the real meaning of jihad.
We will never deal with the Jihad until we deal with the enemy within. They know what jihad is, but they think they will still be elite after the West is destroyed. In reality, they will be among the first to be stood against the wall: radical feminists, homosexual activists, animal rights nuts, etc.
#8
"We will never deal with the Jihad until we deal with the enemy within. They know what jihad is, but they think they will still be elite after the West is destroyed. In reality, they will be among the first to be stood against the wall: radical feminists, homosexual activists, animal rights nuts, etc."
Good call, Mr Blackbird.
This is nothing new in boomer circles. It's similar to Charles Manson's ideas about a race war which blacks would win. But in the ultimate hypocrisy regarding beliefs in equality, Manson felt that blacks were, in fact, not equal or superior but would need (surprise!) a bunch of elite leftists like him and his followers to lead the blacks after they had taken out white "pigs" (read: Western civilization).
Wretchard at Belmont Club wrote an article a couple of years ago entitled "The Ichneumon Wasp" which details the relationship and confluence of purpose between radical Islam and leftists living in the west better than anything I've ever seen. It's required reading.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/22/2007 6:39 Comments ||
Top||
#9
This ideology is funded by Saudi which alongside Pakistan must be tackled after Iran!!!!!
#10
South African Mufti Ebrahim Desai of South Africa explained recently that one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world
Borne out of the Protestant reformation of he 16th century, the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa does not share this view. Unfortunatly, the D.R.C. a predominately white congregation... is generally labeled as racist.
#11
As Osama bin Ladens lieutenant, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, stated in the summer of 2006: War with Israel is not subject to a treaty, cease-fire, Sykes-Picot Treaty agreements, patriotism or disputed borders, but it is jihad for the cause of God until the entire region is for him only. Jihad seeks the liberation of Palestine, the entire country of Palestine and to liberate every land that used to be a territory of Islam, from Spain to Iraq.
Well, well. If doc and too-tall want Europe, all the way to Iraq, then what are they doing in Afghanistan Pakistan, then? That (according to the above quote) is Crusader's land if he only want to go as far as Iraq. Or, did he consider Paki and Afghanistan to already be "Islamic enough" to be considered the home of the caliphate, lol?
Posted by: BA ||
02/22/2007 10:02 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.
Jim Geraghty, National Review
At the candidate forum in Nevada yesterday, Hillary didnt directly say whether she believed Obama was obligated to disavow Geffen's comments, but instead, she lamented . . . come on, you can guess the standard-issue Clinton response to these situations . . . you got it! The Politics of Personal Destruction! Yes, Geffens criticisms and observations amount to an attempt to personally destroy her. . . .
