Once again, Lt. Smash sends us his thoughts from overseas:

From the Ground Up

They didn’t have electricity, or running water. Most families lived in homes they had constructed with their own hands, and with whatever materials were locally available. They often survived solely on the food they would grow or raise for themselves. No motorized transportation was available. Most communities did not have paved roads--when the rains came, the dirt tracks turned to mud and travel of any kind became impossible. Families were large, both because the young ones were needed for labor and, sadly, because so many children did not survive to adulthood. Public sanitation was non-existent. Plague and disease were facts of life, and the victims were buried the same day they died--often right behind their own homes.

Life in eighteenth century North America was not easy.

Communication between small towns and the colonial governments was problematic—it could take several days or even weeks for messages or instructions to complete the round trip from village to capital and back again, and the vast Atlantic Ocean often made consultation with London impractical. If the colonists had a local issue that required urgent attention, the only realistic option they had was to take care of it themselves.

The church was the center of most communities, and everyone for miles around would gather on Sundays to attend services and catch up on the local gossip. But after their weekly duty to the Eternal One was complete, many of the townsfolk would remain to discuss more temporal issues. Sometimes these meetings would be held in an inn or a private home, but just as often they would meet in the church itself. They were the first American town councils.

If there was an issue of some dispute, the colonists would discuss and debate it for a while, then simply count up how many supported each side of the question. Whichever side had more votes won the argument—it seemed to them the fairest way to conduct community business.

When these meetings became too big to be handled informally, the colonists would elect a leader to referee the disputes. In larger communities, they also elected representatives to argue on their behalf. These were called “councilmen,” and their leader was called “the mayor.”

Over time, this model was applied to the colonial governments themselves. Many of the colonies formed representative legislatures, which addressed matters that were of concern to the entire colony, and made recommendations to the colonial governors.

Thus, a democratic tradition in America was born.

Unfortunately, while these colonists were developing means of self-government, the Atlantic Ocean was not getting any smaller. Without consulting the colonial legislatures, the British restricted colonial trade, levied heavy taxes and duties, and even forced an oppressive military occupation upon the colonies when they protested the harsh measures. As the cries of injustice from the colonial legislatures grew louder, the British authorities ordered them to dissolve.

But the democratic tradition in the Colonies refused to die. After an attempt by the British Army to seize a cache of weapons in a small Massachusetts town resulted in violence and open rebellion, representatives from each of the Thirteen Colonies gathered in the City of Philadelphia during the hot summer of 1776. The result of this Continental Congress was the document that we celebrate today as the Declaration of Independence.

Once the War of Independence had been won, the former colonies formed a loose confederation of independent democratic states, each with its own distinct government, laws, and currency. This often-confusing state of affairs continued for several years until 1789, when the States met again in Philadelphia to draft a national Constitution, creating the United States of America that we know today.

* * *

We talk quite a bit about the future of Iraq. It often seems an impossible problem, to build a democratic society out of such a divided and war-torn nation. But when you look back at our own history and consider the difficulties that our forefathers overcame, it doesn’t seem so out of reach.

You just have to start small, and build from the ground up.

Read Lt. Smash's weblog for more treasures like this.

Executive Mansion, Washington, November 21, 1864.
Mrs. Bixby, Boston, Massachusetts:

DEAR MADAM: I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

A. Lincoln.

As it turns out, only two of Mrs. Bixby's sons were killed. 'Only'.

And two more American sons were laid on 'the altar of freedom' just yesterday.
Most of us never knew Sergeant First Class Gladimir Philippe of New Jersey or Private First Class Kevin Ott of Ohio. But they knew us. And knowing us, they were willing to put their lives on the line for us. We honor them because they honored us first. And we offer our respects to their families who love...and mourn.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" And take these men into Your care.

Godspeed, brothers. Our brothers.

Are federal agents doing their best to preempt another terror attack? Some people think they are. A bunch of Muslims were rounded up here in Northern Virginia, and indicted for being part of a "Virginia Jihad Network". The Washington Post reports that the 11 men have been charged with conspiring to violate the Neutrality Act; that is, they are accused of preparing to attack foreign nations with which the U.S. is at peace. Namely, they were said to be training to drive India from the Kashmir pass.

The problem I have with the indictment, is that the evidence seems rather weak.

Specifically, the men are accused of practicing small-unit military tactics on private property in Spotsylvania County and using paintball games, weapons and equipment to simulate actual combat "in preparation for violent jihad," the indictment says.

That's right. They were playing paint ball. The federal government also seized firearms from various homes, including one that, according to a local radio report, contained 400 rounds of ammunition. [rolling my eyes and whistling]

Four hundred rounds and the media goes berserk. Is that all it will take to launch a war against India, a nation with nucular capability?

I appreciate the efforts of our men and women in law enforcement, and I know how difficult it is to take preemptive action. However, I really hope that they have more evidence than this article suggests.

Cross-posted from Ravenwood's Universe

Orson Scott Card is a "Tony Blair Democrat." Hmmm. Does this mean that George W. Bush is a real-life Ender Wiggin?

Card's article, "Moral Stupidity," is one of the most clear-headed indictments of Democratic policy-making that I've read in some time. And that's saying something.

But I was truly surprised when I noticed the author: Orson Scott Card - who has penned some of the most thought-provoking, top-quality science fiction books ever written, like "Ender's Game" and "Speaker for the Dead." I highly recommend them.

Indeed, Card's "Ender's Game" - in which the Earth destroys a distant planet to prevent further war - is itself a strong argument for the kind of preemptive war which Bush has rightly advocated. And, of course, I love Card's term, "Tony Blair Democrat" - the man always could turn a phrase.

And I can't help but note the implicit comparison this conjures: George W. Bush as Ender Wiggin. (And, ironically, I suppose I'm kind of serving in the rhetorical role of the "Ender's Game" character, "Demosthenes" - the mother of all warbloggers. Go read the book). I wonder what Shadow of the Hegemon would have to say about that...

Via InstaPundit.

Donald Sensing has posted a significantly expanded version of his paper, The Soil of Arab Terrorism, online. It's a long version of the presentation he made yesterday to the Middle Tennessee chapter of the Military Officers Association of America.

To which I would add, an important part of that soil also lies in what Orson Scott Card refers to as "Moral Stupidity" in the West. He certainly makes a persuasive case.

Another Op Ed from LT Smash:

The United States of America is at war. We didn’t realize it for a long time—several years, in fact—but two years ago, the war came to our shores in a way that we could no longer ignore.

After the September 2001 terror attacks, we were faced with two options.

The first option was to look within ourselves, to attempt to understand what had happened and how it had occurred. We would examine not just the intelligence and security failures, but how our foreign and defense policies had provoked such rage against us. We would then invest heavily in intelligence and homeland defense, to make sure it would Never Happen Again™. We might launch surgical strikes against those who attacked us, but only when we had sufficient evidence of guilt or complicity and could be certain that collateral damage would be minimal or non-existent. Finally, we would re-tool our foreign policy to be less offensive to the Islamic world, encourage Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians, and pull back our military from the Arabian Peninsula and Persian Gulf. Hopefully, this would remove any incentive for terrorism against the United States, and we could go on with our happy and peaceful lives.

I call this option “withdrawal.” It is exactly what our enemies hoped that we would do.

The second option was to carry the fight to the enemy. We would take away their sanctuaries, force them to go deep underground, and hunt them to the ends of the Earth. We would undermine or overthrow governments that supported them. We would sever them from their networks of financial support, disrupt their planning, and arrest their leaders in the dark of night. We would humiliate and discredit them. Rather than wait for them to strike at our weak points, we would force them to confront our strength. We would draw them into battle, and slaughter them. We would sow discord and division amongst their ranks. Finally, we would bring the war to their homes, and kill them where they live.

I call this strategy “engagement.” This is how we win wars.

Less than two years later, it is very clear which path we have chosen. Within a month of the terror strikes, we were bombing al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Within two months, we had overthrown the Taliban government and forced the terrorists to hide in caves. Then we bombed the caves.

We proceeded to hunt down those who had escaped the onslaught. We seized their assets, and arrested their financial chief. We chased their chief of operations all over Pakistan, capturing him in a pre-dawn raid outside Islamabad. A photograph of him, handcuffed and humiliated, was beamed around the globe.

We launched a campaign to liberate Iraq, and thousands of Bin Laden disciples were urged to come to the defense of Baghdad. But terrorists armed with Kalishnikovs and RPGs were no match for laser-guided bombs and heavy armor. We slaughtered them by the thousands.

The surprising ease with which Coalition Forces took Baghdad has discredited our enemies and caused many of their would-be supporters to question their leadership. There are now well over 100,000 battle-tested US troops in the heart of Arab civilization, and all that our enemies have been able to do about it is launch an occasional sniper attack. At their current rate of assault, it will take about 800 years for them to take back Iraq.

In the meantime, the government of Syria has been “convinced” to shut down the offices of Hamas and Hezbollah in their capital. Students demonstrating across Iran are no longer simply demanding reform—they are now calling for the death of “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Khameini. The US military is moving out of Saudi Arabia, because we no longer need those bases—and the House of Saud is beginning to feel a much cooler breeze blowing in from Washington.

Suddenly, the regional leaders appear very eager to discuss peace plans with Israel.

Al Qaeda has not remained quiet through all of this. Terrorist attacks have occurred in Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Jordan, Tunisia, and Morocco. But these countries are their home, not ours. By going on the offensive, we have seized the initiative and moved the front lines back to their neighborhood. Indeed, many of these recent terror attacks have killed more local Muslims than Westerners, creating animosity between the terrorists and the local populations.

But this is no time to rest on our laurels. This war is not over yet. We continue to hunt terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is still some fighting to be done in Iraq. And there are other havens that must be visited.

The peace process in Israel and Palestine must continue, but terrorists will be given no quarter. Syria must be further “encouraged” to eliminate all support to Hamas and Hezbollah. Their puppets in Lebanon must do the same, and the training camps in the Bekaa Valley must be dismantled. The Palestinian Authority must begin to take responsibility for its own security, and purge terrorist influence from their government. The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict is the single largest source of animosity in the Islamic world towards the United States. We will not achieve victory in this war until there is a reasonable level of peace and stability between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.

We must also continue to express moral support for those who oppose the teetering theocracy in Teheran. The best possible outcome in Iran would be a bloodless revolution, where the people seize power and force the mullahs to step aside. Semi-democratic institutions already exist in that country, they merely need to be freed from the shackles of theocratic oversight. There is still hope that such an outcome can be achieved—but it could just as easily turn into a bloody mess. While foreign intervention would most likely undermine the legitimacy of any future Iranian government, we must be prepared to provide such assistance if it is requested. To do otherwise would constitute a betrayal.

We must remember that we are the good guys. We cannot continue to indefinitely support despotic regimes in the region simply because we have common strategic interests. We must encourage them to reform—or they can try their hand at ruling without our assistance. If we are viewed by the people of the region as an obstacle to reform, we will never win their hearts and minds.

Finally, the rebuilding of Iraq is critical. It will not be enough to restore Iraq to its prewar level of misery. It must become the civil and economic model for the rest of the Islamic world. This is not something we can do for the Iraqis—they must do the bulk of it themselves—but we can help (and are helping) to show them the way. This will give the Arab and Islamic peoples hope that a better future is possible. Given a choice between hope and death, most people will choose hope.

This is how we will win the peace.

You can see more of Lt Smash's work at his website, Live From the Sandox

Over at the Command Post -- where I cross-post many of my entries on the Middle East -- commenter Simon Barnett has a good idea regarding a buffer force that, with some revision, may actually work. In any case, it's the first new idea I've heard regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict and it's worth exploring on these pages. First, here's Simon's original proposal:

Ok -- Let's have a buffer force. But let's build it from Israeli and Palestinian forces and equip and uniform them identically. Let's build this force from people who believe that peace by compromise is better than eternal bloodshed - people who know that the alternative to peace is either the total genocide of the Israelis or the total genocide of the Palestinians and who know that neither is acceptable. Let them patrol together. Let them shed blood together. Let them develop a trust and reliance upon each other. Let some mutual respect enter this tragic equation.

This plan has two benefits.

The first benefit is that US, UK or NATO forces - who can neither protect Israel better than the IDF nor control Hamas better than the PA - don't get shot at. In fact, such a multi-ethnic buffer force, with a well worded mandate, might be able to avoid being shot at at all. They could even report directly to the US observers specified in the Road Map to avoid squabbles over the chain of command.

The second benefit would be to foster some degree of trust and mutual respect between the protagonists. Even at the end of this road-map, even if we ever get to that point, even if we achieve a two state solution, Israel and Palestine will one day have to live side by side as neighbours. I cannot see how two such states can hope to live in aught but a constant state of war without all sides making an effort to create the trust and mutual respect necessary between two independent neighbour states.

Before I get into discussing the specifics of Simon's proposal I would like to make it clear I'm looking for a way to make this work, not a way to trash it. That means putting your thinking caps on, boys and girls. Bashing the UN -- which is something I normally enjoy -- is a waste of time because they wouldn't be involved, even if the idea for a buffer force came from Kofi. I'm asking you to think constructively and, if the idea falls apart after we've given it our best effort, so be it. We're no worse off for having tried.

Giving the Palestinians and Israelis a common interest in peace is a worthy goal and a security force composed of both Palestinians and Israelis could be a worthy first step in achieving that goal. The units in this force would be equally divided between Israelis and Palestinians and the members of these units would likely form a bond -- having bullets fired at you has a way of doing that among men.

Finding Palestinians willing to do this might be difficult given that 80% currently see Israel's existence as a threat to their own. Nevertheless, that leaves 20% from whom to pull. Out of that 20% there have to be some idealists who ultimately want peace more than genocide, which Simon accurately pointed out is the only likely outcome of this conflict as things stand right now. As for the Palestinians who are part of the 80%, seeing their sons, daughters and other relatives willing to risk their lives for peace could affect them profoundly.

The security force would need to replace the IDF and the PA's security force in all of the West Bank and Gaza and would need to extend well into Israel along the borders. A command structure, possibly a joint command consisting of the Americans and British, would be needed and they would need to be prepared to strike back against the perpetrators of violence. Not keep Arafat trapped in his compound for a month for no good reason, but actually go after the perpetrators as the IDF has been doing of late.

As Simon said -- no pun intended -- the forces would need to dress identically with identical equipment and, I would add, the equipment should be provided by a third party, probably the Americans. Night vision goggles, the best munitions, everything.

Have at it. Let's see if we can make this idea work. I'll delete any comments that aren't constructive.

I have a new column in today's Birmingham News:

Patience warranted in weapon search; credibility at risk

Past the Point of Justifying (washingtonpost.com)
John McCain, a man I greatly admire, has always had a gift for pointing out the absurd, as this statement shows:

Critics today seem to imply that after seven years of elaborately deceiving the United Nations, Hussein precipitated the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors from his country in 1998, then decided to change course and disarmed himself over the next four years, but refused to provide any realistic proof that this disarmament occurred.

The argument on whether the war was justified or not is over as far as I'm concerned. Hussein's apologists in this country and abroad can continue carping, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The fact is we unseated a bloodthirsty dictator with acres of shallow graves and saved lives by doing so. If others want to shill for Hussein, let them. Their lack of morals has already been exposed.

But do critics really believe that Saddam Hussein disposed of his weapons and dismantled weapons programs while fooling every major intelligence service on earth, generations of U.N. inspectors, three U.S. presidents and five secretaries of defense into believing he possessed them, in one of the most costly and irrational gambles in history?

After the first Persian Gulf War, the discovery of Hussein's advanced nuclear weapons program following years of international inspections surprised everyone. When U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they catalogued Iraq's continuing possession of, or proven failure to disclose, one of the biggest chemical and biological weapons arsenals in history.

Critics today seem to imply that after seven years of elaborately deceiving the United Nations, Hussein precipitated the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors from his country in 1998, then decided to change course and disarmed himself over the next four years, but refused to provide any realistic proof that this disarmament occurred.

I am not convinced. Nor was chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, who recently catalogued Iraq's failure to come clean on an array of weapons programs the United Nations believed were continuing. Nor were Congress and President Clinton, who advocated regime change in Iraq in 1998 -- before the U.N. inspectors left.

While war was never inevitable, it was, in retrospect, the most telegraphed military confrontation in history. Hussein had plenty of time to destroy or disperse weapons stocks and to further conceal weapons programs, which often rely more on human knowledge than physical infrastructure. If Hussein had the weapons destroyed or concealed, reconstituting them would have required primarily the skills of Iraqi scientists. Precious few Iraqis would have been involved in the actual destruction or concealment. That's why capturing and interrogating Iraqis involved in concealment -- as well as scientific personnel -- is essential.

This was definitely the most telegraphed war in history and Saddam Hussein had more than enough time to either come clean, destroy the weapons -- knowing full well he could reproduce them -- or hide them. He chose poorly.

For a great collection of quotes from Democrats who had, in the past, supported regime change in Iraq and believed the WMD argument, go here.

Many people (myself included) have wondered about the nature of Hamas, whose leaders are now officially targets for the IDF. Recently, I found (courtesy of Yale University's Avalon Project) the "Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement", otherwise known as the Hamas Covenant, which clearly states the nature of the organisation, its aims and aspirations.

It contains things that surprise me, but in retrospect shouldn't have. (Not for the first time - I was aghast when I found out that Itzak Shamir, ex-PM of Israel, once headed a group that proposed an alliance with the Nazis against the British). No-one really believed what Adolph Hitler said in Mein Kampf until he started to implement the Endlosung, the "Final Solution". Think the comparison is invalid (as I tend to do when anyone ever starts talking about Nazis)? Read on, to find out exactly what Hamas's beliefs and aims are.

WARNING : May be offensive to Freemasons, Rotarians, members of the Lions Club, and other tools of the International Zionist Conspiracy (just read it, OK? I can't make this stuff up)

Some quotes;

Article Two:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times.

So while "Moslem Brotherhood" and "Hamas" are not synonyms, Hamas is part of the Moslem Brotherhood - support for it is support for Hamas.

Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

Taken literally, this would lead to Hamas members becoming Human Bombs to kill unbelievers. Hmm, I guess we do have to take this document's words literally, no matter how unbelievable. OK....

Article Six:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned....

Given the situation where Sharia law is practiced, I have grave misgivings about the truth of this proposition, but at least the intent is relatively sane and rational.

Article Seven:
...

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

(related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

You know what I said about "sane and rational"? I take it all back. Still, you can find equally crazy things in the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavid-Ghita etc etc. But these people take it literally.

Article Ten:
As the Islamic Resistance Movement paves its way, it will back the oppressed and support the wronged with all its might. It will spare no effort to bring about justice and defeat injustice, in word and deed, in this place and everywhere it can reach and have influence therein.

More rationality, few could quarrel with these words as worthy objectives.

Article Eleven:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.
...
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

This includes Spain, France as far north as Tours, India, and all parts of Europe east of Vienna. Osama Bin Laden is not alone in not accepting the "Tragedy of Andalucia" as he put it in one of his tapes, and so will continue to fight as long as Spain remains outside of the Caliphate. Hamas says they will do likewise, unless this translation is erroneous.

Article Twelve:
Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed. Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Moslem, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission.

An interesting section from a Feminist perespective : to praise because it gives the Right of Women to blow themselves up (as long as they kill unbelievers), or to condemn because it portrays women as slaves? To an old Abolitionist like me, any slavery is odious, whether it be due to gender or otherwise, and I don't value the right to become human dynamite very highly.

Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement....

OK, so they're being consistent. Peace is impossible as long as Hamas exists(and Israel, Spain, and India aren't under Sharia law). Rigghhht.

Article Fifteen:

...It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin). The Crusaders realised that it was impossible to defeat the Moslems without first having ideological invasion pave the way by upsetting their thoughts, disfiguring their heritage and violating their ideals. Only then could they invade with soldiers.

So the Renanaissance, the Enlightenment, in fact all of Western Civilisation is all just a plot, hatched over 8 centuries, to win the Crusades. Damn Cunning, these Fiendish Occidentals! These people really believe this....

Article Seventeen:
The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.

So Feminists, Rotarians, and Freemasons are all part of the International Zionist Conspiracy. Sorry, my bogglemeter just pegged at maximum. I'm not playing Illuminati, these people are For Real.

Article Nineteen:

...All this is utterly serious and no jest, for those who are fighters do not jest.

Believe me, we're not laughing. there's nothing funny about Psychopathic Insanity and serial Killers.

Article Twenty:

...The society that confronts a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people - such a society is entitled to this Islamic spirit. Our enemy relies on the methods of collective punishment. He has deprived people of their homeland and properties, pursued them in their places of exile and gathering, breaking bones, shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason. The enemy has opened detention camps where thousands and thousands of people are thrown and kept under sub-human conditions. Added to this, are the demolition of houses, rendering children orphans, meting cruel sentences against thousands of young people, and causing them to spend the best years of their lives in the dungeons of prisons.
In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder.

Such sub-human conditions that the 750,000 Palestinians that left Israel, some "ethnically cleansed" by Jewish terrorists, some just temporarily vacationing until the victorious Arab Armies killed all the Jews, have now grown to 4 millions. There's no mention of the similar number of Jews in the surrounding Arab countries that were forcibly deported, or sometimes just exterminated. To compare the survivors of the Holocaust with the perpetrators of it is a classic case of "blaming the victim". What are suicide bombings against civilians but a classic case of "collective punishment" and "shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason." There's still more than just a smidgeon of justice in what they say though.

Article Twenty-Two:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

Ummmmmm...... Genuine Moonbats. we're talking serious reality dysfunction and derangement here. Any moment now they'll start babbling on about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Article Twenty-Eight:
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

So the International Zionists control the UN, the drug trade, the alcohol industry, the Freemasons, Lions, Rotarians... and it's all a part of an 800 year plot by the Crusaders.

Article Thirty-One:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions.

<sarcasm>Whew! That's a relief!></sarcasm>

It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

In other words, do what we say, ad no-one gets hurt.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

As for Hindus or Buddhists - they don't count.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.

We are the Master Race - er - Religion, destined to rule all Untermenschen - er - inferior religions, in a Thousand Year Reich - er - Caliphate.

Article Thirty-Two:
...The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

There! Told you the good old Protocols would be making an appearance.

Summary:

• Islam is the Master Religion, it is the duty of all other religions to peacefully submit to co-existence under the benevolent rule of Islam
• Spain, Most of France, Israel, Europe east of Vienna, and India should be under Sharia Law
• Until this is achieved, in full and in every particular, there can be no Peace
• And any violence (as well as the French and Russian Revolutions, WW I and WW II) is all the fault of the Zionists, and their puppets, the Freemason, Rotarians, Lions Club, and 800-year-old Crusader Conspiracy against Islam

There's always a danger in any article quoting from another that parts may be taken out of context, that the lilly may end up being gilded. So rather than take my word for it, read what the original article actually says - then tell me where I've gone wrong with my interpretation. Because if I've got it right, then this organisation must be destroyed, root and branch, purely as a matter of self-defence. Especially if you're a Freemason, Rotarian or Lion.

Reaping the World's Disfavor (washingtonpost.com)
The author is right about one thing: our ability to wage war is unparalleled in history and is even more remarkable when you consider our ability to minimize civilian casualties: 3240 for the Iraqi war. As for our popularity and our soft power -- the ability to sway people through diplomacy -- it's a secondary consideration. I'd rather be feared and unpopular but still do the right thing, than be loved and do the wrong thing.

There are a couple of interesting points here: the idea the the EU will act as a counterweight to the U.S. and the related idea that a western alliance -- the one the author says is coming unglued -- is even necessary.

Regarding the EU as a counterweight to the United States, it doesn't matter if the EU grows in strength relative to us or not. How many parents have told their children that "I love you both equally"? There's some wisdom in that statement. Even if the EU emerges as a strong military and economic force, they aren't taking anything away from us; we'll continue to do the right things -- hopefully -- and continue to prosper and have a strong military. Economics is definitely not a fixed pie and seeing the EU prosper creates customers and employers for us. In world affairs, unless the EU planned to go to war with us, I don't see how we lose anything.

As for the Western alliance -- read "NATO" -- it's a relic of the Cold War and I'm surprised we're even still in it. The only real benefit I see -- and it's not for us -- is the recent expansion to include former Soviet countries. It provides them with some assurance that they will remain unmolested by Russia or some other enemy. Of course, we could establish treaties with these countries in place of NATO and accomplish the same thing.

The last paragraph of this column -- where the author calls President Bush a xenophobe -- is libelous. An outright lie. Just because the President doesn't favor multilateral institutions doesn't make him a xenophobe. Would a xenophobe favor expanding immigration -- which admittedly got derailed by 9/11 -- or seek to project Western values such as liberalism to other parts of the world? I think not. He simply has values and understands that some values are objectively better than others.

Save for the continuing search for its justification, the war in Iraq is over. For the United States, if not yet for Iraq, the consequences are clear. We have established yet again the utter supremacy of our hard power.

Unfriendly governments tremble anew at our armed might and our willingness to use it. Some, to be sure, are hard at work building their atomic arsenals, and the last thing we need is a trembling adversary with a nuclear trigger. Still, if the challenge before us is military, our government is justly confident we can deter or defeat it.

But when it comes to our soft power -- our ability to persuade nations to work with us, to inspire their people to admire us and our social arrangements and ideals -- we have all but unilaterally disarmed. At least so long as George W. Bush is president.

Consider some new polling by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which measured public opinion in 44 nations during the summer and fall of 2002 and took further soundings in 21 nations in late April and May. All told, 54,000 people were surveyed, the clear majority of whom were mightily peeved at the United States in general and Bush in particular.

Not surprisingly, the number of people holding a favorable view of the United States has plunged in the wake of the war. Last summer the percentage of Germans who viewed us positively was 61 percent; today it's 45 percent. In France, our favorability rating has declined from 63 percent then to 43 percent now. In Spain, where Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government supported the war, U.S. favorability ratings are down to a scant 38 percent.

Look at the numbers a little more and you see unmistakable evidence that support for the Western alliance is coming unglued. The idea that Western Europe should have an approach to security and diplomatic matters that's more independent of the United States won the support of 76 percent of the French, 62 percent of the Spanish, 61 percent of the Italians, 57 percent of the Germans. If the Bush administration's goal was to keep the European Union from becoming a rival superpower, its war seems to have had precisely the opposite effect.

The world is adjusting to a new reality and, when they discover we have no intention of trampling on their rights they'll get accustomed to it.

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Straw plan to boost UN security council
Britain is planning to propose reforms to the UN Security Council and presumably make it more relevant. I say leave it as is. Better yet, do away with it and the UN altogether. We've already exposed its corruption with Russia and France's concern for commerce over our security or the well-being of the Iraqi people.

A group of liberal democracies with membership criteria would do more to create legitimacy than an expansion of that amoral body. By using membership criteria we would do more to pull other countries towards freedom whereas the UN does nothing to move countries towards freedom. It fights for the status quo unless there is bloodshed. Even then it is highly selective as to whom it pursues as Iraq demonstrates.

The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, is planning to put forward detailed proposals at the UN in the autumn for reform of the security council to try to mend some of the damage done by disagreements over the Iraq war.

The Foreign Office confirmed yesterday that it wants to see the 15-member security council expanded to 24 to provide a more realistic reflection of world opinion. The security council has remained unchanged since the formation of the UN at the end of the second world war.

But the British reform plan will run into trouble from various countries hostile to the new members being proposed by the Foreign Office. The government is also braced for opposition from hawks within the US administration who regard the security council as neutered by the Iraq row and are happy to leave it in that state.

The US state department is believed to be sympathetic to the British plan but the hawks in the Pentagon, which has a big say in US foreign policy, are hostile.

The British plan is for the five permanent members on the council - Britain, the US, Russia, China and France - to be expanded to 10.

The new countries Britain wants to see become permanent members are: Germany, Japan and India as well as one Latin American and one African country, yet to be decided.

Ha'aretz: Kofi Annan calls for international 'buffer' force
The last thing the United States needs is soldiers in the middle of Hamas and Israel trying to act as peacekeepers. The UN can use European troops for that mission. Besides, the last thing we need to do is legitimize a tactic we would never use ourselves: hold off a terrorist group. If we get involved militarily it should be to destroy the military wing of Hamas.

According to what I'm hearing on the news, Hamas is now more popular among Palestinians than Arafat. It's not hard to understand why since they provide social services to Palestinians with one hand and kill Jews with the other.

Think I'm being too harsh in my assessment of Palestinian attitudes towards Jews? A recent Pew Global poll showed the following:

80% of Palestinians agreed with the statement: "The rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the State of Israel exists."

Kofi is kidding himself if he thinks sending peacekeepers will do anything other than trap them in the middle of a war, and they'll be instructed not to take sides. Each side will be equally to blame, the "peacekeeper" logic goes.

That's why the U.S. military should stay out of it. They excel at meeting clear objectives and destroying Hamas would be one such objective. Without that mandate, leave it to others.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan does not have much faith in the ability of Israelis and Palestinians to resolve their bloody conflict on their own.

He nods vigorously when asked if he supports the posting of an armed peacekeeping force to separate the adversaries. He expects that the 51 American monitors led by John Wolf will not be enough and believes the conflict probably cannot be ended without the intervention of a foreign buffer force, as has been done in other regions of the world.

"The monitoring mechanism that will be put in place next week is a beginning and it may be enough if the parties are able to break the cycle of violence. In the interim period, I would like to see an armed peacekeeping force act as a buffer between the Israelis and Palestinians," Annan said in an interview with Haaretz.

Until then, he urges Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to muster the necessary strength to break the cycle of violence. "The international community has an obligation to support Abbas and to work with him," says Annan, immediately adding that the Israeli government could make it easier for him by easing some of the restrictions in the territories, so Abbas "would be able to indicate that there is hope, that there is progress and that we are moving forward."

James Taranto was right today when he suggested that the phrase "cycle of violence" is moral equivalence. But the Israelis and Hamas are not moral equals: even when Israel strikes preemptively they are acting in self defense and aiming for terrorists. Hamas intentionally targets civilians. They are monstrous.

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | US attacks Belgium war crimes law
Is Belgium trying to destroy NATO? I wouldn't mind if they did since it serves little purpose anymore, but this is a pretty poor way to go about it. If it's to be dissolved it ought to be done in a mutually agreed upon manner. Belgian hubris, in the end, would look like a sorry end to NATO, though it would be a valid one.

Their insane claim of "universal jurisdiction" to prosecute what they deem to be crimes against humanity is about more than just building a new NATO headquarters building in Brussels. It's also about future American participation in "peacekeeping" exercises. Am I exaggerating? They currently have charges outstanding against Bush 41, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney over the first Gulf War. As war criminals. Tommy Franks is the latest addition to their list for his command of the second Gulf War.

I'll repeat what I've said in the past: 1) Belgium has no authority to prosecute crimes beyond its own borders and 2) if they ever pursue an American official they should be prepared to go to war over it. We won't tolerate it.

The United States has renewed controversy within Nato over Belgian legislation which makes foreigners vulnerable to prosecution for alleged war crimes.

American Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that Washington would block further funding for Nato's new headquarters in Belgium until the legal threat was withdrawn.

US authorities have been outraged by complaints brought against General Tommy Franks - who commanded US forces in the Iraq war - and other officials under laws that allow Belgian courts to try war crimes wherever they are committed around the world.

In another development on Thursday, the United Nations Security Council granted US peacekeepers another year of immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) by 12 votes to none.

Speaking after a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels, Mr Rumsfeld said it did not "make much sense to make a new headquarters if you can't come here for meetings".

According to the BBC's Jonathan Marcus in Brussels, it was an unusual and blistering attack upon one of America's Nato allies - a sign that there are still some serious tensions that from time to time break through to the surface.

It's getting harder and harder to call these countries allies.

For more on this see this NYT article.

Watching the moves made by the administration to intercede, and to push the 'Road Map' have been troubling, and absolutely confusing. For the life of me, I couldn't grasp why on Earth the man that acted with such moral clarity following 9/11, beginning a steadfast campaign to hunt down and destroy terrorists, refusing to take the old bait last year and rejecting negotiations with Arafat, would suddenly do an apparent about face, and push a plan that rewards terrorists demands, and compromises the security of one of our most steadfast friends and allies in the Middle East. It seemed to make absolutely no sense.

Until today.

Its the same method he used to deal with the Saudis in the run-up to the War - praising in public, and turning the screws in the background. Giving their 'honor code' its due, but with currency that is only good for that purpose, and not much else. Nice photo ops, some glad-handing, and earnest, hopeful statements, talking of the desire for lasting peace - a desire which I think the President genuinely holds. The signs are coming out that the other part of his strategy is beginning to kick in - it was probably waiting for something like the bus bombing yesterday. The isolation and condemnation of the hard core terrorists.

The statements of regret at the loss of Palestinian civilian lives on his part is genuine as well. But note, however, that the line coming from the administration is clearer today, that Hamas is the problem, and there is no outright condemnation of the Israelis for going after them, Hamas. At most, I expect to see a complete reciprocation of the act being dished out by the PA - something along the lines that the US administration will 'try real hard' to get Sharon to call off the IDF. And if the IDF racks up some significant progress without leaving a big mess, that is about all that will happen. They'll 'try' to get Sharon to ease up. Just like the PA is 'trying' to get Hamas, Al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbullah to ease up.

The situation is ugly, but about the best the administration can make of it, and probably the reason Sharon seems to be going along with it. The US, we get the Arabs off our backs, with their harping for us to 'do something to help the 'process' along', because we are. Sharon is given more latitude to go after those most directly responsible for the killings of the intifada - because he's gunning for the murderers, but negotiating and trying to work with the 'legitimate' PA figureheads.

The logical next step will be the pressure back at the PA types, when they begin to seriously raise a fuss over the prosecution of Hamas targets by the IDF, that they'll be happy to stop - if the PA is willing to take over eliminating the terrorists as a threat to Israel, and to....the process. And actually begins to do it. It is a wonderful package to hand to the hand wringing Euro types willing to hop up and chastise the Israelis.

It will be interesting to see how the latest 'new idea' will be handled. Since the phrase 'new idea' is about the most overused term to describe suggestions about what to 'do' about the situation, I'll be more specific. The call for outside 'peacekeeping' troops to be inserted into the situation.

Bad idea. Primarily because if this is done, a lot more people will get killed, nothing will get solved, and then what? Secondly, because that is the likely result, everyone with a clue really knows it, and the Arab States and the Euro Wieners would absolutely love to push the idea, with the insistence that it be US troops, because we are 'the only ones that could legitimately act as honest brokers'.

No one has more experience nor better rules of engagement for interdicting Palestinian infiltration attempts than the IDF. Pull them off the case, and the floodgates will be open, and the streets of Israel will run red with blood - and not all of it Israeli. It would also condemn significant numbers of the 'peacekeepers' to being taken out in one-sies and two-sies as well. The only people it might protect would be the terrorists, who would be afforded safe haven from IDF pursuit. They wouldn't have anything to fear from the peacekeepers, because they would probably be saddled with rules of engagement similar to the ones issued to the troops recently deployed in the Congo - rules which virtually emasculate the troops present from doing any sort of meaningful intervention to stop the violence. Thus, only one side would be inhibited - the Israeli side, because they would avoid direct confrontation with the peacekeepers, which would most certainly occur if they pursued the terrorists in the West Bank or Gaza. Hopefully, the idea of injecting outside forces into this mix will be rejected completely - and hopefully, the 'Road Map' will be enough of a talisman to keep that vampire of an idea at bay.

I'm watching with renewed interest, and hoping that my take on the situation is somewhat close to what is actually going on. I'd initially thought that this was similar to the way Bush dealt with the Security Council - a last chance for Saddam to come clean, a last chance for the navel gazers to to sign on to the effort, and finally, when they didn't, the rug getting pulled out from underneath them, and leaving them floundering and flopping. That sequence may yet be unfolding.

So far he's said what he means, and proceeded to do what he's stated as his end goal. And he's stated that his end goal is peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I think he means to get there, but not exactly following the 'Road Map' in the way that everyone thinks.

This today from the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal site, under the headline From Tragedy to Farce: Anti-American journalists and the museum looting that wasn't."Why" is exactly the question that needs to be asked. Not "Why did they do this?" but "Why is the press so gullible?" A few weeks ago the collective countenance of the fourth estate was, like Hamlet's Denmark, contracted in one brow of woe. Oh, those savage Americans: What they didn't bomb they stole, or allowed others to smash and steal.

But wait. That story plays brilliantly but, as the London Guardian reported June 10, "it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's bollocks." It wasn't the crazed Iraqi populace that denuded the museums but careful Iraqi curators, who spirited the swag away into vaults and secret storerooms before the war even began. Yes, there have been a few important losses. But there weren't 270,000 items missing, or (the most frequently reported number) 170,000. One museum official put the number at 47 items, but that was later revised down to 33. Meanwhile, the museum that was supposed to have been destroyed is scheduled to reopen next week. Stay tuned for further reductions.

About face, folks: The tape with the self-righteous denunciations has been taken off the reel while the new tape, full of self-righteous media navel-gazing, is cued up.Read the rest ...

In a previous post, I stated that the Australian SASR in Iraq were carrying on in the tradition of the Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) of WWII. Well, further research shows that the tradition goes a long way before that. Back to 1918 in fact, and not a million miles away from Iraq.

Australian Forces in Aleppo, Syria, 1918.

Photo used with the express permission of the kind folks at the Australian War Memorial - whose website is well worth a visit. If you're in Canberra, it should be top of the list of places to see.

More recent photos

Aussie SASR "somewhere in Afghanistan" 2002.

Photo Credit : AFP

Aussie SASR "somewhere else in Afghanistan" 2002.

Let me begin with a caveat - I never really liked Selig Harrison, who competes with the University of Chicago's Bruce Cumings as America's #1 North Korea apologist. However, his June 6 interview ("Finding a Way Out With North Korea") with that reputable paper of record, the NYT, left me speechless. Stupefied. Aghast. Allow me to share it with you:

Q: Was it a good idea for the United States to agree two days ago to pull back American forces from the demilitarized zone that separates North and South Korea?

A: I think they're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way.

It's long overdue to do this because the threat of another North Korean attack on the South, as in 1950, is remote. North Korea is in such bad shape economically that it could not sustain a protracted war. North Korean forces are forward-deployed at the DMZ to deter us, to make an American pre-emptive strike unacceptably costly, not to attack the South again. Also, it's desirable for the United States to end its role as a "tripwire," so that we're not automatically involved. But the reasons they're pulling back are the wrong ones.

The Pentagon wants to get American forces out of harm's way in order to have greater flexibility when and if they decide on military action against North Korea. They're doing this in the context of a confrontational American posture toward North Korea, which is unfortunate.

The right way to pull back American forces would have been as part of a policy of improving relations with the North. We should have traded American pullbacks for Korean pullbacks.

"North Korean forces are forward-deployed at the DMZ to deter us, to make an American pre-emptive strike unacceptably costly, not to attack the South again."
Come again? I have to wonder whether the good scholar has ever taken a look at the force structure of the Inmingun (People's Army), which luckily for us is posted over at Global Security.org for all to see. What's that you see? 25 special operations brigades? That wouldn't be the world's largest special-ops force, per chance? Why, yes they would be. Would Mr. Harrison please speculate as to why the North Koreans would continue to devote increasingly dear resources on maintaining such a force, which is dedicated to infiltration missions deep inside South Korea, if the North Korean military wasn't seriously contemplating an invasion of their slightly better-fed brothers to the South?

North Korea also maintains a 2 to 1 ration in tanks and artillery over the combined US-ROK forces to the South; it also fields 35 mechanized brigades and possesses one of the world's largest submarine fleets. This is not the makings of a deterrent force, unless your definition of deterrence calls for reaching Pusan in the shortest time possible. It's about as defensive as Soviet forces based in East Germany were - meaning not very.

As far as this sinister plot to launch pre-emptive strikes on the North from the safety of positions far south of the DMZ is concerned, it's sheer nonsense. Ralph Cossa, Asian specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Pacific Forum, addresses this ludicrous but nevertheless pervasive assertion by pointing out that:

Once this "tripwire" is removed, the theory goes, Washington will then feel more comfortable about attacking North Korea. This ignores the fact that the real tripwire is the tens of billions of dollars of American direct foreign investment in South Korea and the tens of thousands of American businessman and tourists (not to mention military families) that are located within artillery range of North Korea, whose missiles could reach American forces regardless of where they are based in the ROK (or even in Japan, for that matter).

And as far as "trading American pullbacks for North Korean ones" is concerned, one just has to wonder how a million man force can view the 13,000 strong Second Infantry Division as such a mortal threat that it would be willing to consider significant withdrawals away from the DMZ should the 2ID be removed. The DPRK would never countenance such a trade, because its forces aren't sitting along the DMZ to stop the Americans - they're there to put pressure on the South, and quite possibly to invade it.

Q: How do you think North Korea will react to this?

A: They'll be very suspicious that it is connected to possible future military action against them. They will read it in the context of the current talk in Washington about promoting regime change or a collapse in North Korea and the unwillingness of the United States to negotiate about their economic and security concerns in return for an end to their nuclear program.

Would someone please explain to me why the United States has a responsibility to negotiate with the North Koreans because of their economic and security concerns? Perhaps I missing something, but it would seem to me that Pyongyang's economic troubles are of its own making; certainly, the United States isn't responsible for the North Koreans' insane economic policies. As far as the North's security concerns are concerned, those concerns are equally of their own making; the only time Pyongyang finds itself the object of "unwanted" American attention is when it does something intentionally designed to get that attention. It's a state that views crisis as a way of life, a way to obtain the means of survival from the West while avoiding basic socio-economic reforms that could threaten the viability of the regime. If North Korea feels that the United States is unwilling to "negotiate" about their homemade economic and security concerns, perhaps they're correct.

Q: What about the South Korean reaction?

A: There are mixed feelings in the South. The government is afraid that any change in the status quo will affect the stock market and the influx of foreign investment by giving the impression of an unstable security situation. But the younger generation wants a gradual American disengagement. They see the present American diplomatic confrontation with the North and the presence of the American forces as obstacles to improved North-South relations and eventual reunification. If the impression grows that this is indeed designed to give the United States greater flexibility, with an eye to military action, then the reaction will be very negative.

Let's make something very clear - I am a long-term resident of the Republic of Korea, I love this country, and regard it as my home. That being said, I see no reason why Washington should care what the South Korean public thinks. Does Seoul care what the American public thinks? Yes, but only as far as its own interests are concerned. Not that there is anything wrong with that - it's the South Korean government's responsibility to look after the interests of its tax payers, not America's. Likewise, it's not Washington's responsibility to base policy on the whims of a South Korean public that's unwilling to trade Seoul for Los Angeles (understandably so, by the way). The view of Korea's younger generation, as cited by Harrison, are so absurd that they hardly merit discussion here, let alone consideration by American foreign policy makers.

Q: Still, you are optimistic that the North Korean leadership can be convinced to refrain from building more nuclear weapons?

A: I think they're ready to dismantle their nuclear program under adequate inspections if we're prepared to pay what they consider an acceptable price. First, we'd have to join in a bilateral or multilateral agreement pledging not to use our nuclear weapons against North Korea, an agreement that would have to be linked to a de-nuclearization process. Second, we'd have to pledge not to pursue the policy of regime change that President Bush has made clear is his preferred approach to North Korea. Third, we'd have to be prepared for large-scale energy and food aid. If we pursue pressure tactics that they would view as designed to overthrow the present regime, they are certain to respond either militarily or through other retaliation such as selling nuclear material to anti-American third parties.

Isn't it kind of curious that the "acceptable price" North Korea demands (for ceasing to do what it shouldn't have been doing in the first place!) always seems to go up every time this whole nuclear thing pops up? I've already discussed the problems involved with negotiating a permanent settlement to this problem in a previous op-ed piece here at the Command Post; suffice it to say, you'll see pigs sprout wings and fly before you see the North Koreans voluntarily dismantle their nuclear facilities. The most you can hope for is to negotiate temporary halts, and even those will come at increasingly dear prices.

Q: Do you agree with some analysts who argue that North Korea's recent behavior and threatening statements have alienated China, which was previously sympathetic to their cause?

A: I think China is equally disgusted with the United States and North Korea and will exercise pressure on both countries to change their present policies. I'm sure they're telling the North Koreans not to threaten us. But they've made it very clear that they believe the United States should be willing to trade commitment to North Korea relating to its military and economic security in exchange for verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear program.

I think China is insisting that the United States conclude a bilateral security agreement with North Korea and would be prepared for a multilateral, six-power agreement involving the United States, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea. The external powers would commit themselves not to deploy nuclear weapons in Korea. And the two Koreas would pledge not to make nuclear weapons. This would require inspection machinery centering on, but not limited to, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

My own view is that such a six-power de-nuclearization is the most promising way to resolve the current crisis because it would not require the Bush administration to give a bilateral security guarantee to North Korea. The administration has refused to do that, but some form of security assurance to North Korea is required. We cannot expect North Korea to give up its nuclear options if we continue to maintain our "nuclear umbrella" and assert our right to pre-emptive military strikes.

If China is disgusted with the United States now, wait until Beijing reaps what its inactivity in Korea has sowed - a Japanese nuclear program, possibly combined with a massive conventional buildup. China, together with South Korea, has steadfastly maintained the fiction that it is not a direct party to the crisis. It uses the situation on the Korean peninsula in order to humiliate the United States and weaken its influence on the Pacific Rim. Being somewhat of a fan of realpolitik, I can appreciate what Beijing is doing. But the Chinese leadership should know that the Middle Kingdom is not the only nation that can play such games. The United States can easily remove itself from the fray, declare North Korea a regional problem, take its ball and bat (or the Second Infantry Division, be it as it may) and go home. The ramifications of such a move would be enormous, and not necessarily contrary to American interests. Northeast Asia's two democracies, Japan and South Korea, would instantly go nuclear, and now all of a sudden, Asia's communist dictatorships no longer possess a monopoly on the military use of the atom. Beijing would go from encouraging the US to give in to North Korean demands for concessions to being forced to show some degree of strategic responsibility. It would no longer be able to pretend that North Korea is America's problem, that's for certain.

Q:What has been the impact of the American victory in Iraq on North Korea?

A: There is no question that the lesson that the North Koreans have learned from Iraq is that it needs a nuclear deterrent. The American unilateralism reflected in Iraq and in many other ways is alienating the United States from China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. We could end up with the worst of both worlds - a nuclear North Korea and estranged relations with countries important to us globally as well as regionally.

The lesson Pyongyang should have learned from Iraq is that being a bastion of anti-Americanism with an active WMD program is not conducive to regime survival. Still, being a peace-loving man and living well within North Korean missile range, I have no problem with the North developing its own "deterrent," as long as its not willing to transcend deterrence by selling its goodies on the open market. Unlike Iraq, the United States was never really considering an invasion of North Korea, anyhow.

And American unilateralism? The reason the United States is acting unilaterally in North Korea is that the other regional powers refuse to take active roles of their own. As William Safire put it, "[o]ur Asian friends are quite content to let the United States "engage" the threat alone. Unilateral U.S. appeasement suddenly looks good to them; let the sunshine in." It's always easy to pick on American unilateralism, or at least until you're forced to make meaningful foreign policy choices of your own.

Q: Contrary to the expectations of many policymakers, you argue that North Korea is not about to collapse. Why?

A: Not only is North Korea more effectively insulated from outside influences than the countries of Eastern Europe, but it also has a nationalist mystique and a Confucian historical legacy that makes its totalitarian system more broadly accepted than was the case in Eastern Europe. The late Kim Il Sung is revered as the George Washington of his country.

My disagreement with Mr. Harrison on this point is not so with his conclusion as it is with his reasons. I, too, am not so sure that North Korea is on the verge of collapse, but that's because after a decade of severe material deprivation, North Korea resembles a nation of shock victims more than it does a nation of budding revolutionaries. There's no question that Kim Il Sung is "revered" in North Korea, but then again, so were Stalin and Mao while they were alive. And Mr. Harrison's Confucian critique is way off base; South Korea is just as Confucian as North Korea (more so, actually - Korea's "Confucian Heartland" has always been in the South, while pre-colonial North Korea was better known as a hotbead of Western missionary activity), yet if the massive pro-democracy demonstrations that brought down South Korea's comparatively less-odious military dictatorship in 1987 are anything to go by, Confucianists can love freedom as much as anyone can. The fact that the two Koreas, despite sharing a common cultural heritage, have developed (or not) in two completely divergent directions simply undermines any attempt to explain the situation in the North in terms of culture. North Korea might not collapse over night, but there's no reason to associate one of the world's richest cultures with that monstrosity that is the DPRK.

Another guest Op-Ed from L.T. Smash, a reserve officer in the United States Military who has been recalled to active duty and deployed overseas in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.

Living With America

In the wake of America’s stunning military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, the world is waking up to the realization that the United States of America is now the single most powerful nation on Earth, and is likely to remain so for quite some time. This has caused great discomfort in some quarters, but it need not be so.

Nations of good will have little to fear from the America, and indeed have much to gain from maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship. As this new reality begins to take shape, the United States will begin to hammer out new free trade agreements, treaty negotiations, and security arrangements with unprecedented speed. For astute statesmen and skillful diplomats, opportunities abound.

Therefore, as a service to all the world leaders, non-governmental organizations, dignitaries, lawmakers, and diplomats who will be conducting negotiations with the United States in the years to come, I present this simple three-point guide to “Living With America.” I hope they find the information within to be helpful.

Americans revere their Constitution. It is their most treasured national document. Schoolchildren are made to memorize the preamble, which famously starts with the words “We, the People.” Across the political spectrum and regardless of race, religion, gender, or class, Americans point to their Constitution as the single thing that defines and unifies them as a nation. Indeed, the American concept of “patriotism” is not based on racial, religious, or class identity, but rather on an appreciation of the rights and freedoms enumerated in this centuries-old document. It may seem quaint or even silly to an outsider that anyone should treat a piece of paper drafted by a committee of wealthy 18th century farmers, merchants, and lawyers with such awe and wonder, but don’t tell that to an American—unless you want to start a fight.

When an American president takes the Oath of Office, he places his hand on a Bible. But he doesn’t swear an oath to his God, or his country, or a monarch. He swears to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” All high government officials and military officers swear this same oath. To them, the oath is more than just a formality that one must go through to get a decent job. Bringing the Constitution into the picture lends these ceremonies a near-religious significance.

The United States Constitution is considered by Americans to be almost divinely inspired, and is not to be tinkered with lightly. If you are negotiating a treaty with the United States government, you had better make absolutely certain that it doesn’t violate their Constitution—because if it does, you won’t get very far. And don’t even bother to suggest to an American that they should amend their Constitution in order to bring it more in line with the values of the international community. Americans may vigorously debate the meaning and intent of individual articles and amendments amongst themselves, but the wise foreigner will steer clear of such discussions.

Americans believe in free-market capitalism. While it is true that the United States has many state-sponsored social programs, such as welfare, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and Social Security, it remains fundamentally a free-market system with a somewhat limited social safety net. A surprising number of Americans are directly or indirectly invested in the stock market, and labor unions in the USA exert a relatively small influence over the economy as compared to those in other industrialized nations. The government does play a role in regulating key industries, but that role is limited; indeed, many politicians have proposed further reducing government regulation.

One of the most popular proposals that any politician can make while running for public office in the United States is to lower taxes. Even if it means a reduction in government services, most Americans would rather keep their own money than have the government spend it for them. They do not see this as greed so much as a desire to “make it on their own.”

When confronted with global problems like poverty, famine, and disease, Americans seek out solutions that are consistent with free-market capitalism. They do not see this as “economic imperialism” so much as helping others to help themselves. Rather than allow dependencies to develop between givers and recipients of aid, Americans would rather assist others in developing their own, lasting solutions.

There is a culture in America of “rugged independence,” born out of the experience of exploring, taming, and populating a wild frontier. While the days of the frontiersmen are long behind them, many Americans still hold to such virtues as determination, self-reliance, and toughness. Thus, when foreigners mock them as “cowboys,” most Americans generally don’t take it as an insult.

Americans reserve the right of self-defense. America has constructed a military leviathan that has no match anywhere on Earth. What is even more incredible is that they have done this with a force composed entirely of volunteers. They are able to achieve this remarkable accomplishment primarily because most Americans have a genuine love for their country, a pride born (so they will tell you) not from any perceived national superiority, but a sense of brotherhood and equality with their fellow citizens.

The US military, unlike those of many other nations, is not designed to be a jobs program, a prop for parades, or a symbolic peacekeeping force. It is designed to fight and win wars.

To Americans, self-defense means more than just striking back when they are attacked. They take a more pro-active approach, seeking to confront threats as they develop. Hostile nations should be very wary of the temptation to use the threat of military action against American interests to blackmail the United States. Likewise, providing aid and comfort to America’s enemies will more than likely attract unwanted attention.

Living in an open society, Americans are generally tolerant of differences of opinion. When the United States moves to protect its interests, Americans understand that they will face some level of principled opposition from other nations, even some from their friends. They will have little patience, however, for any nation that moves to prevent the United States from exercising what Americans believe to be their sovereign right to defend themselves. There is a fundamental difference, in their eyes, between protest and obstruction.

Despite this pro-active stance towards self-defense, Americans do not see themselves as imperialists. They seek engagement with the rest of the world, but not domination. Indeed, they will proudly tell you that after the Second World War, when their armed forces occupied much of Western Europe and most of the islands of the Pacific, they gave it all back.

Except Guam.

You can read more like this from L.T. Smash at his website.

This article comes from the Moscow Times. The lead is about claims of intelligence revision by the coalition ... but it then goes in all sorts of, well, bizarre directions. Some highlights:

Holocaust revisionism took decades to rear its ugly head, but the whitewashers of war crimes in the Bush Regime are trying to pervert the facts of history mere weeks after their Leader triumphantly declared "mission accomplished" in the war on Iraq. "Weapons of mass destruction?" Never heard of 'em. Never mentioned 'em. Maybe we'll find some. Not that important. Time to move on. Hey, how about a tax cut?

But even as revisionist-in-chief George W. Bush was staging his somber photo-op in Auschwitz last week, the web of lies he and his little buddy Tony Blair concocted to "justify" launching an act of military aggression -- on the very Hitlerian grounds of "preventive war" -- was being shredded by their own intelligence services. In an unprecedented move, U.S and British spies went public to denounce the cartoonish manipulation of professional intelligence data by the war-hungry leaders. Reports of Saddam's "imminent threat" were "sexed up" on Blair's order, said British spooks, while American agents said Bush was spoon-fed a stew of uncorroborated confabulation by a "special team" of ideological hatchet-men overseen by Pentagon honcho Don Rumsfeld. Congressional and parliamentary probes are now afoot.

Frankly, it gets even "weirder" after "that" ... to wit ...

Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, and Prescott's father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, helped finance the rise of the Nazi Party through their intimate entanglements with Nazi industrial, shipping and banking interests. This long (and well-documented) collaboration continued even after America was at war with Nazi Germany. It seems the blood money was just too good to pass up -- even if it had to be dug out of the corpses of young American soldiers and innocent civilians throughout Europe and North Africa. The Walker-Bush cabal's Nazi partners also helped finance - then profited from - the Auschwitz camp.

Read the rest ... and note that this artcile comes from the Metropolis section, NOT Opinion. Scary.

How about this from the Saudi Arabian Arab News:

With the liberation of Iraq the “Don’t-Touch-Saddam” lobby has transformed into a hunt party to chase British Prime Minister Tony Blair out of office.

The claim is that Blair “lied” about the reasons for the war against Saddam. A few months before the war, Blair published a dossier on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. At the time, some of us realized that the Blair dossier contained many flaws. But that did mean that there was no justification for going to war against Saddam. Saddam’s program of weapons of mass destruction was only one of many issues between him the United Nations.

And then there's this:

It is important to recall all this to show that the case of taking action against Saddam was not exclusively based on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Finding and getting rid of weapons of mass destruction in the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa took between 18 and 30 months, even though all actively cooperated with the UN. Thus, it is fanciful that similar results could be achieved in Iraq in a few weeks. Not finding the WMDs in a fixed timeframe does not mean that they never existed.

Read, as they say, the rest.

Allison in her Unsealed Room asks:

You've got to love the fact that the Palestinians are going to announce "an end to the armed intifada."."

As opposed to some other, nice peaceful form of intifada?

There's a simple explanation to how the palestinians will manage to carry out an unarmed intifada while still maintaining their goal of eliminating the Jewish state from the Middle East, Allison. You see, tthey've all been learning Kung-Fu, Karate, Judo, and Ju-Jitsu so they can murder Jews with their bare hands and feet.

No weapons, so it's unarmed.

See?

A Road Map for Syria Too (washingtonpost.com)
It's not time to break out the champagne yet, but Syria, a Ba'athist regime like Iraq, seems interested in discussing peace with Israel and an end to their occupation of Lebanon. The war against Iraq was an astounding success, though we haven't yet shown we can rebuild a country. But we will.

What we have demonstrated -- and this didn't go unnoticed in Syria or any other Arab country -- is that we are damned good at destroying regimes we consider hostile and with a bare minimum of civilian casualties. The bad guys might as well be wearing pink jumpsuits when it comes to the accuracy of our munitions and it'll only get better -- or worse, if you're a bad guy.

Syria is a known state sponsor of terrorism. This alone bodes ill for the future of their regime, particularly if they pursue WMD. They've been occupying Lebanon since 1976 and Israel has been in the Golan Heights since the Six-Day