May 27, 2005
Chertoff Sees Biometrics As "The Way Ahead" For Passenger Identification
Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security secretary, said Thursday that he sees biometrics as the way of the future for identification when traveling. The current method is too flawed relying on simple names which are subject to misspellings, misidentification and fraud. The key to biometrics is ensuring that the system is secure. If a hacker can change the information attached to his biometric personality on record then the system is worthless as it would identify him certainly, but display fraudulent information. I'm sure the civil liberties crowd will decry this of course. How dare the governments want to ensure that they know who you are and your intentions.
International travelers should get used to having their fingerprints taken or their irises scanned because traditional airport security tests are outdated and open to abuse, a leading U.S. official said Thursday."As a general principle, certainly in the area of international travel, biometrics is the way forward in virtually every respect," said Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security secretary.
"When we screen based on names, we're screening on the most primitive and least technological basis of identification -- it's the most susceptible to misspelling, or people changing their identity, or fraud.
"Biometrics is the way ahead."
Chertoff was speaking to reporters after meeting British officials during a four-day visit to Europe to discuss trans-Atlantic security cooperation.
On Monday, he visited the Netherlands, which will pilot a program later this year to allow passengers flying between New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Amsterdam's Schiphol airport to pass through border controls using a biometric card.
If they can produce the card, travelers will not be subjected to further questioning or screening.
The scheme is the first of its kind to be launched between the United States and a European country and, if it works, could be adopted elsewhere.
Originally posted at Diggers Realm.
May 06, 2005
VDH: The Bush Doctrine's Next Test
VDH steps up with another beaut. You can agree or disagree with his proposals, but you have to give full marks for consistency. The Bush Doctrine’s Next Test:
bq.. “…far from representing a distraction in the struggle against current front-line enemies like Iran and Syria, the reformation of Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia would only further isolate and enfeeble those states—as William Tecumseh Sherman’s “indirect approach” of weakening the rear of the Confederacy, at a considerably reduced loss of life, helped to bring to a close the frontline bloodshed of northern Virginia, or as Epaminondas the Theban’s freeing of the Messenian helots dismantled the Spartan empire at its very foundations.
Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are not the equivalent of the Soviet Union’s satellite states of Albania, Bulgaria, and Romania. Rather, they are the East Germany, Hungary, and Poland of the unfree Middle East: pivotal nations upon whose fate the entire future of the Bush Doctrine may well hinge.”
There’s lots more, and it’s all good. (Hat Tip: the fine left-right Daou Report)
If you want further background, we covered exactly what the Bush Doctrine is a while back, and talked at greater length about Pakistan (OxDem’s Democracy in Pakistan series) and Egypt (How Do You Solve A Problem Like Mubarak?).
March 24, 2005
Wolfowitz Appointment Shows Us Key Truths About International Relations
The Washington Post is reporting that the Europeans are backing off, which means Paul Wolfowitz looks like a lock for the top job at the World Bank (and not a minute too soon).
The Wall Street Journal has a good article about Bush’s recent international appointments that extends my recent “Reshaping the U.S. State Department” post. They will help you understand the internal logic behind these moves, whether or not you agree with them.
For the external logic, I’d like to draw your attention to an excerpt from the Washington Post. It illustrates some cold home truths about international politics that we forget at our peril, and ties in very nicely with a great STRATFOR analysis the Discarded Lies team discussed back in January. We’ll start with the WaPo:
December 21, 2004
Egypt & Democracy: What Should America Do?
Way back when in Does Islam Need a Reformation? praktike asked what I thought of this article: Egyptian Intellectuals Vow To End Mubarak Presidency - and what the U.S. approach to this good news/bad news item ought to be:
bq.. “Some 689 people, ranging from Islamists to Communists and including 30 lawmakers, signed a petition Saturday in the name of The Popular Campaign for Reforms, an umbrella group formed last month to try to amend Egypt’s constitution to limit a president to holding two terms only.
Among the signatories, including 26 human rights and civil society groups and opposition political parties, was the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest Islamic group, which has 17 members represented in the Egyptian parliament as independents.”
I was hoping our Cairo correspondent Tarek Heggy might comment, but with everything going on that hasn’t been possible. Nathan Hamm addressed similar issues in Central Asia very recently, and I thought I’d build on that to offer a full briefing on Egypt as I see it - the situation, the stakes, and my answer to praktike’s question re: what the USA should do.
December 14, 2004
The U.N.'s Unaccountable Inquisitors
Belmont Club has been on fire lately covering the “United Nations”, which is facing growing questions in America’s legislature and even bills that would stop payment of dues.
Whatever you think of the U.N., it’s worth looking at Belmont Club’s revealing analyses. He touches on many subjects: UNSCAM, Kofi Annan, legitimacy, the roots of U.N. failure; even the nature of the U.N.’s most prominent paradox. In that paradox, he says, lies the answer to the riddle of the U.N. itself.
We’ll start with the U.N.’s essential failures in UNSCAM. These include corruption, but were not limited to it.
December 06, 2004
Oil Infrastructure: The Next Terror Target?
Armed Liberal linked to some good articles yesterday. Global Guerillas and even the Christian Science Monitor have run a number of analysis pieces, noting that the recent attacks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia may be preliminary or “shaping” attacks for a more sustained assault on Saudi infrastructure.
As Terror’s Next Target explained back in January 2004, there’s a lot to recommend this view - and Gal Luft noted that the consequences could be immense:
“…About two-thirds of Saudi Arabia’s crude oil is processed in a single enormous facility called Abqaiq, 25 miles inland from the Gulf of Bahrain. On the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia has just two primary oil export terminals: Ras Tanura - the world’s largest offshore oil loading facility, through which a tenth of global oil supply flows daily - and Ras al-Ju’aymah. On the Red Sea, a terminal called Yanbu is connected to Abqaiq via the 750-mile East–West pipeline. A terrorist attack on each one of these hubs of the Saudi oil complex or a simultaneous attack on few of them is not a fictional scenario. A single terrorist cell hijacking an airplane in Kuwait or Dubai and crashing it into Abqaiq or Ras Tanura, could turn the complex into an inferno. This could take up to 50% of Saudi oil off the market for at least six months and with it most of the world’s spare capacity, sending oil prices through the ceiling. “Such an attack would be more economically damaging than a dirty nuclear bomb set off in midtown Manhattan or across from the White House in Lafayette Square,” wrote former CIA Middle East field officer Robert Baer.”
This is especially serious if the oil market is losing its shock absorbers - a critical economic role that the Saudis have traditionally played. Meanwhile, we know that Islamic radicalism retains a strong foothold in Saudi Arabia. We also know that it’s hard to protect this kind of infrastructure.
So, why haven’t these attacks happened yet?
Continue Reading “Oil Infrastructure: The Next Terror Target?”
October 20, 2004
Compilation of Saddam's Terror Links
Recent claims have been made that Saddam Hussein had no connections to terrorists, or terrorism, or more specifically, just not to Al Qaeda or 9/11. Claims have also been made that before the invasion, Iraq was not a haven for terrorists.
Deroy Murdock, a Media Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and contributing Editor at National Review, has accumulated a considerable amount of material on the subject, supplying the sources for all of the items presented. The materials may be reviewed at the site Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror.
Go check the material, then sit back, and decide for yourself.
::Update:: Typo and link fixed. Apologies.
October 16, 2004
The Messianic President
NYT magazine offers “Without a Doubt”, a ten-screen discussion of Bush and how his faith motivates his decisions. It’s from Ron Suskind, the author of “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill”. Suskind was the senior national-affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal from 1993 to 2000.
Some will denounce this as a liberal NYT hit piece. Others - those wouldn’t mind seeing, say, Pat Robertson as president - will find comfort in parts of the article. And others will find partial confirmation for what they already suspected.
Excerpts:
”Just in the past few months,” [Bruce] Bartlett said, ”I think a light has gone off for people who’ve spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he’s always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.” Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush’s governance, went on to say: ”This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can’t be persuaded, that they’re extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he’s just like them. . . .”This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,” Bartlett went on to say. ”He truly believes he’s on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.” Bartlett paused, then said, ”But you can’t run the world on faith.”
…
”When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,” [Jim Wallis of the Sojourners] says now. ”What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year — a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn’t want to hear from anyone who doubts him.”
…Every few months, a report surfaces of the president using strikingly Messianic language, only to be dismissed by the White House. Three months ago, for instance, in a private meeting with Amish farmers in Lancaster County, Pa., Bush was reported to have said, ”I trust God speaks through me.” In this ongoing game of winks and nods, a White House spokesman denied the president had specifically spoken those words, but noted that ”his faith helps him in his service to people.”
…Talk of the faith-based initiative, [Joseph Gildenhorn, a top contributor] said, makes him ”a little uneasy.” Many conservative evangelicals ”feel they have a direct line from God,” he said, and feel Bush is divinely chosen.”I think he’s religious, I think he’s a born-again, I don’t think, though, that he feels that he’s been ordained by God to serve the country.” Gildenhorn paused, then said, ”But you know, I really haven’t discussed it with him.”
A regent I spoke to later and who asked not to be identified told me: ”I’m happy he’s certain of victory and that he’s ready to burst forth into his second term, but it all makes me a little nervous. There are a lot of big things that he’s planning to do domestically, and who knows what countries we might invade or what might happen in Iraq. But when it gets complex, he seems to turn to prayer or God rather than digging in and thinking things through. What’s that line? — the devil’s in the details. If you don’t go after that devil, he’ll come after you.”
…Can the unfinished American experiment in self-governance — sputtering on the watery fuel of illusion and assertion — deal with something as nuanced as the subtleties of one man’s faith? What, after all, is the nature of the particular conversation the president feels he has with God — a colloquy upon which the world now precariously turns?
That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That’s impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House.
”Faith can cut in so many ways,” he said. ”If you’re penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it’s designed to certify our righteousness — that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There’s no reflection.
”Where people often get lost is on this very point,” he said after a moment of thought. ”Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not — not ever — to the thing we as humans so very much want.”
And what is that?
”Easy certainty.”
October 01, 2004
Have you heard about the Global Test yet?
As expected, misconstruing John Kerry’s remark from the 9/30 debate about a “Global Test” is the main GOP talking point. Here’s what Kerry said last night:
Kerry: No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations…Bush: …I’m not exactly sure what you mean, passes the global test, you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure…
So, Kerry is saying that if we preemptively strike, we need to first make sure that we can justify our strike to the world.
Does that mean that Kerry would not preemptively strike if France were opposed to the strike? No, he says specifically that he would not.
He’s saying that we shouldn’t preemptively strike if we can’t prove that it was the right thing to do, and gives Colin Powell having to apologize for his speech as a counterexample.
Is that really so hard for Bush to understand? Shouldn’t we care about world opinion and our own credibility? Or, does Bush not care if America’s credibility around the world is reduced? Should America be known as the country that fibs?
Bush misrepresents Kerry’s point in today’s speech in Allentown, PA:
“One other point I want to make about the debate last night. Senator Kerry last night said that America has to pass some sort of global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. He wants our national security decisions subject to the approval of a foreign government. Listen, I’ll continue to work with our allies and the international community, but I will never submit America’s national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The president’s job is not to take an international poll. The president’s job is to defend America.”
The president has many jobs, two of which are defending America and making sure that we look good around the world.
From March 19, 2004, here’s something that caring about America’s credibility could have prevented:
WARSAW President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland said Thursday that he had been “deceived” by information on weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war and that Poland might pull some troops out of Iraq earlier than planned…
UPDATE: A related lesson could be learned from the NYT’s “How the White House Embraced Disputed Iraqi Arms Intelligence”:
In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program…Ms. Rice’s alarming description on CNN was in keeping with the administration’s overall treatment of the tubes. Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America’s leading nuclear scientists, The Times found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of their own experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public…
“It is most disturbing that Winpac is essentially directing foreign policy in this matter,” one Energy Department official wrote in an e-mail message. “There are some very strong points to be made in respect to Iraq’s arrogant noncompliance with U.N. sanctions. However, when individuals attempt to convert those ‘strong statements’ into the ‘knock out’ punch, the Administration will ultimately look foolish - i.e., the tubes and Niger!”
July 09, 2004
The Importance Of Morocco
Yesterday, King Mohammed VI of Morocco visited the White House for a meeting with US President Bush. The importance the Bush administration gives to Morocco is shown by the recent Free Trade Agreement the US government signed with Morocco, the inclusion of the Moroccan armed forces in the upcoming NATO excercises MEDSHARK-Majestic Eagle ‘04 off the coast of Cap Draa, and finally but probably most importantly, the diplomatic support the US is lending Morocco in its dispute with Algeria over Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony until 1975, located between Morocco and Mauretania.
The Algerian-backed separation movement called Polisario calls for an independent state, and Algeria supports them, perhaps as ‘change’ for the resolvement of other standing conflicts with Morocco, perhaps out of fear of a bigger neighbor, even though since a cease fire between Polisario and Morocco in 1991, Western Sahara has been administered by Morocco. Since 1991 several attempts have been made to resolve the dispute, but conferences and decisions have been postponed throughout the nineties, until recently the region has been the focus of diplomacy again.
The reason for this of course is the War on Terror. Western Sahara counts about a quarter of a million inhabitants, mostly nomad farmers. An independent Western Sahara would be an ideal candidate for ‘failed state’ status, and would almost inmediately attract the attention of terrorist networks like Al Qaeda or their regional affiliate the GSPC. Morocco themselves have a big fight on their hands with the Al Qaeda-linked Moroccan Combatant Islamic Group, responsible for the 2003 Casablanca bombings, and suspected of involvement in the March 11 Madrid attacks, and these groups too could benefit from a new hiding place right under Morocco’s nose.
Recently, former Secretary of State James Baker resigned as the United Nation’s mediator in the Western Sahara dispute. I believe his stepping aside, perhaps under pressure of the Bush administration -but that’s just me thinking out loud, favors the Moroccans in their stance that Western Sahara is part of Morocco. Baker’s plans were continuously opposed by Rabat. It may also be possible that with the US’ renewed interest in Morocco, Baker felt he had to step aside to avoid a possible future conflict of interest, being a loyal Bush supporter. In any case, he cited health reasons.
In any case, this seems very solvable to me. Times have changed, and both Algeria and Morocco find themselves in hard fights with domestic and international terrorism. Both nations should be explained that like it or not, they’re on the same side of the fence, and need to accept the fact that an independent Western Sahara will bring the prospect of terrorist bases on either country’s borders. Of course, Morocco will have to accept that the indigenous people need their worries met too, so a federalist state seems the best solution, with local government ensuring own rule, but within the confines of a greater Morocco.
Viewing all this from Spain, one cannot but note the slightly bitter aftertaste all this is causing. Though officially the socialist government seems pleased with Morocco’s FTA-status with the US, it was mainly responding to opposition party PP’s comments that this was yet another sign that Spain was more and more being isolated by the US. But then again, the socialists seem happy to tag along France and Germany. As to Western Sahara, inmediately after Franco’s death in 1975, the new government of Spain pulled out of then-called Spanish Sahara, and left it to Mauretania and Morocco to occupy (does this sound familiar?) Its stance seems neutral as to the future of the territory, and it hasn’t shown the same involvement in its ex-colony as say Portugal with Timor. To me, it is more seen as an opportunity though to play the part of mediator, adding to its ‘special relationship’ with Northern Africa, which is useful within the EU.
One final piece of the puzzle will be the US naval station at Rota, in Southern Spain. As we will see in the coming years of the Zapatero government, indeed, we have seen it already with Spain’s refusal to send NATO’s newly formed rapid reaction force to Afghanistan, aping France’s position, his socialist government may become more and more anti-NATO, even though for now this is on hold because Zapatero feels compelled to support it because it is one of those ‘international institutions’ he so very much likes to prop up.
My suggestion to the Pentagon would be to make it easy on him, and move the Rota Naval station to Morocco, but in Western Sahara. Not only will this provide security to the local Saharians under Moroccan rule, it will also prove to the world that Western Sahara is part of Morocco. I’d hate to see them leave, but they’re a lot closer over there to the front in the War on Terror and states like Sudan, Congo and Ivory Coast. At the same time, Donald Rumsfeld can use the transfer as part of his ongoing efforts to restructure the military, building instead a new base more fit to confront the challenges ahead.
First published on Southern Watch
May 26, 2004
The End Of The Beginning
The political silly season is upon us and even partisans such as I are fed up…for a while. Kerry is too easy a target to be satisfying. So today’s effort is a few of my thoughts about what happens next. I think we all realize that whoever is elected in November much of our policy will not change as it is being driven by outside events. However it is worth considering what comes after, when ideology begins to drive the agenda again, will it be pragmatism, isolationism or idealism? Or a combination?
As we approach the 60th anniversary of D-Day, Americans have bugun a serious internal debate over our role in the world, what we want or expect from it in the near term and the future. Since 9/11 the “debate” over a pre-emptive foreign policy has become increasing polarized and vicious as the hate America crowd gleefully predicts our decline and ultimate withdrawal as the world’s police.
I think they’re partially right, America is ideologically split, half wish to create a utopian world government, and the other half is fed up with spilling blood and wasting treasure on ingrates. The upshot is that we will incrementally retreat from the world political stage. We will soon invent and adapt our way out of fossil fuel dependency, we agree on the necessity to do so as quickly as possible. Our technological lead and the world-wide brain drain will continue fuel our economic expansion, intellectual and global financial influence. America is still dynamic; we are replacing our population, by a steady native birth rate and immigration, at a sustainable rate.
Europe is not; birth rates have fallen below a sustainable rate and by mid-century Europe will not be able to sustain production and social programs. Europe’s current comity will devolve into the old hatreds and grudges. Russia will ascend to a dominant position, having lost the cold war, Russia’s hard liners will settle for governing the EU and the Mediterranean rim. NATO will be disbanded by common consent and an American unwillingness to fund it, replaced with an EU defense force. There will never be another Normandy or Kosovo. I think that is the one policy area Americans now agree upon.
Once we withdraw economically and strategically from the Middle-East, Israel will resolve its dilemma, if it has not done so by that time. However, that doesn’t mean that Islamic theocracies will rise to fill a power vacuum in the Middle East. Once the West no longer requires oil, the Arabic world will have little income and will fall further into poverty, anarchy and further behind the technology curve. Ironically, our decline of influence in the region magnifies theirs a hundredfold.
One only needs to look to whom the French are sucking up to in order to see where the next power rises: in the East. It’s too soon to predict how America fits into that scenario, but adaptation is one of our strengths, however rigid theocracies will not survive a “clash of civilizations” with China.
The latter part of the 21st century and perhaps most of the next will be dominated by the sheer weight of China’s population, economic engine and the blind ambition of its government.
Hate America? Can’t wait for you to meet China.
May 01, 2004
The End
I love irony, don’t you? Today, May 1st, The EU officially welcomed the former Soviet states of Eastern Europe into the fold of free nations.
Hundreds of thousands of Hungarians celebrated their former communist country’s entry into the European Union with midnight parties in the streets of Budapest as the EU welcomed 10 new states on Saturday.Fireworks lit up the sky above Heroes’ Square in the Hungarian capital as the national anthem was played, followed by Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, which is the EU’s anthem.
“Hungary has returned to Europe and the values which Hungary has held dear for more than 1,000 years,” Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy said as a gigantic eight-meter (25-foot) hourglass was turned over to begin marking the nation’s time in the EU.
Hungarians had kicked off celebrations with the tolling of a flower-shaped bell at noon Friday and then took to the streets for evening parties.
“We are finally triumphing over our misfortunes,” Medgyessy said at the bell ceremony. “Our integration (into the EU) can be a historic turning point.”
“We were the gates of Europe already but now we will be that from the inside,” he said.
Indeed.
As I read and watch the reports of European celebration arrive on the wires, TV and subscription services, I smile and recall Churchill’s remarks in 1942 after Alexander and Montgomery turned back Rommel’s forces at El Alamein and the war turned.
“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. ”
Little did we know at the time that another forty-seven years of American fortitude was required before the walls Churchill aptly dubbed “The Iron Curtain” lifted from Eastern Europe, the Baltic and the CCCP.
A job well done America.
Of course, no one will speak our name today in the EU love fest as the Hungarians, and others join the EU, rightly so, however, it is their choice and they make it freely. That’s payment enough in my book, all we can hope to achieve. We spend our treasure, sacrifice our lives and then quietly walk away, satisfied. This celebration today is our best reply to the naysayers and accusers that we are an imperialistic power.
One can’t help but point out that John Kerry and the Dems were on the wrong side of history in defeating the Soviets, just as they are now wrong in the war on terror. If Kerry were President today, not only would Saddam Hussein still be digging mass graves and paying off the UN and our “friends”, but had Jimmy Carter defeated Ronald Reagan, Hungary might well still be occupied by the Soviets.
In the current war on terrorism, we must draw on our Cold War experiences with the Soviet Union; we must now take a hard-line against militant Islam and terrorist states, while nurturing democratization and alliances within the Islamic world. We can best defend ourselves by fuelling the liberalization of repressive Islamic and despotic Arabic societies. We have unleashed the information genie from its bottle in the Middle East; it will destroy those who seek to suppress it, just as it did in the Soviet Union. Once people see and hear how others live, that others have choices; the pressure from within cannot be withstood. It would be extremely foolhardy for us to disengage now. It will not be easy, but we face the same choice that we did in 1948 in Berlin.
We must look beyond the partisan rhetoric of the political season, and the self-serving and narrowly focused media obsession with appeasement and retreat, for we now face the greatest threat to our existence since an aggressive, nuclear-armed Soviet Union held much of Europe in its iron grip.
Should the war on terror take forty-five years to win, chances are that I will not be here to witness the celebrations across the Arab world, just as much of my parent’s generation are not here to witness the end of what they began in 1941. But our children and grandchildren will benefit or suffer by what we do now, that is an inescapable fact.
April 30, 2004
Praising Tony Blair, and thoughts on the torture story
[Cross-posted at The Irish Trojan’s blog]
Damn, I wish I could vote for Tony Blair for president:
People in the West ask: why don’t they speak up, these standard-bearers of the new Iraq? Why don’t the Shia clerics denounce al-Sadr more strongly? I understand why the question is asked. But the answer is simple: they are worried. They remember 1991, when the West left them to their fate. They know their own street, unused to democratic debate, rife with every rumour, and know its volatility. They read the Western papers and hear its media. And they ask, as the terrorists do: have we the stomach to see it through?I believe we do. And the rest of the world must hope that we do. None of this is to say we do not have to learn and listen. There is an agenda that could unite the majority of the world. It would be about pursuing terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and actively remedying the causes around which they flourish on the other: the Palestinian issue; poverty and development; democracy in the Middle East; dialogue between main religions.
I have come firmly to believe the only ultimate security lies in our values. The more people are free, the more tolerant they are of others; the more prosperous, the less inclined they are to squander that prosperity on pointless feuding and war.
But our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is our complacency. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic extremism to Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on 11 September 2001? When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists, to say nothing of what it would do to the Iraqis?
Or if we scorned our American allies and told them to go and fight on their own, that somehow we would be spared? If we withdraw from Iraq, they will tell us to withdraw from Afghanistan and, after that, to withdraw from the Middle East completely and, after that, who knows? But one thing is for sure: they have faith in our weakness just as they have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us.
Unlike Bush & co., Blair understands that the Left, for all its flaws, is onto something when it talks about the “root causes” of terrorism. He understands that force alone cannot defeat Islamic extremism, and that we must not let our fear of “letting the terrorists win” prevent us from addressing the legitimate grievances and injustices in the world — problems that we should seek to remedy anyway, because it’s the right thing to do, not because terrorists want us to. (It’s a false choice anyway, because terrorists don’t want us to fix the problems they complain about. They are just using those complaints as a means to a very different end. What they want is a clash of civilizations — a scenario which depends on our showing arrogant disregard for “root causes.”)
But unlike so many liberals — quite possibly including, in his heart of hearts, John Kerry — Blair also understands that force, while not the sum total of the solution, is an inescapable and enormous part of the solution. He understands that we must show the terrorists absolutely no mercy, even as we simultaneously show great mercy and compassion for the innocent people whom the terrorists purport to speak for. We must make the Arab world understand that we are on their side, whereas the terrorists are not.
This is an extremely difficult task — it may even be impossible — but attempting it is our only option, and Tony Blair understands that. Bush doesn’t fully understand the first part, and I fear Kerry doesn’t fully understand the second part. Our choice in November is between two sides of the same coin, neither of which is correct without its flip side. Blair gets both sides, but unfortunately, we’re calling the shots instead of him. (And, just as unfortunately, most of the people in Blair’s own country don’t get it, which seriously imperils his ability to pull off what’s trying to pull off.)
Anyway, read the whole thing.
On a related note, this business of U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqis is a very, very bad thing. It will inevitably reinforce all the negative stereotypes and misconceptions of America and our use of military power, on the anti-war left but also, much more importantly, in the Arab world. Although Bush & co. are certainly right that the actions of these few soldiers do not represent the military or the nation at large, it will be extremely difficult to repair the P.R. damage that this will do.
At the same time, though, I think our reaction to this issue also shows something very good about us, if only people would bother to notice. Here we are, the world’s unchallenged superpower, with the physical ability to do pretty much whatever the hell we want, wherever the hell we want, to whomever the hell we want, damn the consequences — and yet, when we discover wrongdoing by our own people, we own up to it, we apologize profusely for it, and we promise to bring the perpetrators to justice. And it isn’t just about scapegoating the little guy: the general in charge of the prison has been suspended, and will probably be courtmartialed. And rightfully so — that’s what accountability is all about.
Our president has expressed “deep disgust” over what occurred — again, rightfully so. None of this goes above and beyond the call of duty; it is exactly what we should do. But for those who claim that we are unaccountable, unilateral thugs out to oppress and conquer, it ought to be a pleasant surprise. Although they will probably focus on the initial misdeeds and draw vindication from them (e.g. Craig Stern’s statement, “Brilliant. Our troops are dumbasses”), they should instead pay more attention to our reaction. If we were an imperial power bent on world domination, we would not be holding ourselves accountable in this way. As ugly and abhorrent as this incident was, our reaction to it proves once again that America is, at core, a fundamentally good nation with fundamentally good intentions. And that is a very, very good thing.
March 19, 2004
Reality Check: George W. Bush Has Liberated More People Than Any Leader In The History Of The World: 50 million
This is an historic accomplishment which makes Bush one of the greatest world leaders in history. Bush’s accomplishments for the advancement of world peace, freedom, and democracy, dwarf anything done by anyone who has ever won a Nobel Peace Prize.
The Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns were just military campaigns without peer. The U.S. and its Coalition partners liberated 50 million people from the brutal dictatorships of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
This feat was accomplished in 24 months - at a cost, to date, of approximately 500 U.S. soliders.
Let’s be clear. This was a military campaign stunning in its: (1) swift success, (2) unvarnished good result for the benefit of 50 million people, the region, and the world, and (3) remarkably low loss of life on all sides of the conflict, both military and civilian.
This is the military campaign against which all future military campaigns toppling dictatorships must be judged and compared.
Compared to this campaign, the military campaigns undertaken by Democrat Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and FDR seem barbaric and grotesque. And, of course, these former military campaigns were all justified and just.
For good measure, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt (and Bill Clinton in Kosovo, for that matter) were all ‘chicken-hawks’: the left’s current slur du jour.
For any American - for any citizen of a democracy - to not be proud and grateful for the military success of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns of the Bush Administration borders on a wish for a decline of freedom and democracy in the world. In this regard, critics of the Bush Administration’s stunning success in these two military campaigns are fairly called unpatriotic, anti-freedom, and anti-democracy.
Of course, critics of these Bush Administration military campaigns have every right under the First Amendment to espouse their views. As do I.
For critics of these two military campaigns to criticize such unparalleled success - the freeing of millions of oppressed peoples - places them firmly on the side of history’s losers: Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the USSR, Communist Eastern Europe, Communist Cuba, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein.
The only wonder is that anyone criticizing the Bush Administration’s stunning military successes - for the great good of millions of formerly brutalized Arabs and Muslims - is not immediately labeled as anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-democracy, and anti-freedom.
Here’s hoping for the continued success of the forces for democracy and freedom.
The above link is via Instapundit - who linked to the original piece by Victor Davis Hanson in National Review Online.
See, also, the background material on the Iraq military campaign, and post-war Iraq, at the Whitehouse’s site, “Renewal in Iraq.”
The young boy with Lance Corporal Langley above will now grow up in freedom - and not under Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship. This may be beside-the-point to John Kerry. It is most assuredly not beside-the-point to this young boy or his family. Neither is it beside-the-point to the security of the Middle East, the United States, or the world.
We should give Corporal Langley - and the Bush Administration for its stunningly successful and just military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq - the praise they deserve.
This is a duplicate of the original post at the nikita demosthenes website.
November 28, 2003
Hungary's U.S. Ambassador: Rocking for the Free World
This is a very special series for Winds of Change.NET. Thanks to the cooperation of András Bacsi and the Hungarian Embassy in Washington, Hungarian Ambassador Andras Simonyi's speech at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is being featured here on Winds of Change.NET as a Guest Blog.
Ambassador Simonyi's speech tells a very personal story of music and freedom, and the enduring relationship between the two. It's a story that remains relevant today, and touches on topics we've addresed in articles like "G-d Gave Rock N' Roll To You..." and "Keep On Rocking for the Free World." Initiatives like Radio Sawa are proving every day that Rock n' Roll isn't just cultural fluff. In a very deep way, it has been - and remains - the essence of America's story.
Jeff "Skunk" Baxter played for The Doobie Brothers and Steely Dan. He now works as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, and added some fine stories of his own in yesterday's introductory remarks. Today, we feature the Ambassador himself...
"Rocking for the Free World: How Rock Music Helped to Bring Down the Iron Curtain"
(Transcript of Hungarian Ambassador Andras Simonyi's speech at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland on November 8, 2003)
Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. Hey, hey, that's not good enough. Good evening! That's great. I used to play in a rock band when I was younger and we used to do this stuff so I can tell when it's quality. The second one was OK. Let me ask the first question. How many of you have not played air guitar, ever? Once more, please. That's better. I like people being honest. This whole thing we're talking about is about honesty.
Preparing for this lecture, the funniest question I got – this was yesterday – they've asked me five times, "What tie are you going to be wearing? Are you going to be wearing a rock and roll tie?" And I said no, I'm not going to be wearing a rock and roll tie because I'm not here to pretend that I'm a rock artist. I'm here to tell you that I'm an ambassador of a country that is closely tied together with the United States today. We work hard to maintain our relationship. And there is a pillar that has been so important to me all my life when I was a kid, when I grew older, and now, which I think is one of the real ties between us.
I want to make sure you understand that I'm not doing it because I want to pretend that I'm Skunk. I am not Skunk. I wish I was Skunk. And I think his next target is to be ambassador in Budapest. (Laughter.)
November 26, 2003
Winning the War of Ideas
I'm always on the lookout for sharp new blogging talent, and Darren Kaplan's blog fits the bill. This guest article is timely in light of our recent discussions about Dialogue. It will become even more timely when you read Hungarian Ambassador Simonyi's excellent Guest Blog later this week!
The War of Ideas
by Darren Kaplan
Far too many well-informed and otherwise intelligent people have confused the "war of ideas" we are fighting in conjunction with the War on Terror with the question of whether or not the populations of Arab and Muslim countries have favorable opinions of the United States. Since survey after survey repeatedly shows that people in Arab and Muslim countries have exceedingly poor opinions of the United States, the corresponding but flawed assumption is that we must be losing the "war of ideas."
Case in point: this piece in Slate by Daniel Benjamin. Benjamin correctly identifies the problem:
bq. "Rumsfeld observes that we have no "metrics" for judging how well we are doing in the larger war on terror. Surely a key issue is whose ideas are gaining ground."
November 23, 2003
November 06, 2003
"The Age of Liberty"
President Bush gave an eloquent speech today, at the National Endowment of Democracy, on the advance of freedom and democracy throughout the world.
Excerpts:
* * *
The roots of our democracy can be traced to England and to its Parliament and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed precisely because it did not respect its own people, their creativity, their genius and their rights.
President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum that would not be halted.
He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago. It is equally important today.
* * *
A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the president, according to one editorial at the time. It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan.
(LAUGHTER)
Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive and even dangerous.
In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct.
(APPLAUSE)
The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well under way.
In the early 1970s there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon, there were new democracies in Latin America and free institutions were spreading in Korea and Taiwan and in East Asia.
This very week, in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America had collapsed.
Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country, ascending like Walesa and Havel from prisoner of state to head of state.
As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world, and I can assure you more are on the way.
* * *
There are, however, essential principles common to every successful society in every culture.
Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military so that governments respond to the will of the people and not the will of the elite.
Successful societies protect freedom, with a consistent impartial rule of law, instead of selectively applying the law to punish political opponents.
Successful societies allow room for healthy civic institutions, for political parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media.
Successful societies guarantee religious liberty; the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution.
Successful societies privatize their economies and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women.
And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people.
(APPLAUSE)
These vital principles are being applied in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
* * *
With all the tests and all the challenges of our age, this is, above all, the age of liberty. Each of you at this endowment is fully engaged in the great cause of liberty, and I thank you.
May God bless your work, and may God continue to bless America.
(APPLAUSE)
* * *
A great speech. The Age of Liberty indeed.
August 21, 2003
The shaky Philippine front
How effective really is the Philippines as a member of the U.S.-led global war against terrorism in light of recent events in Manila - the escape of Jemaah Islamiah terrorist Al-Ghozi from police custody and the failed mutiny of "disgruntled" soldiers - that once more exposed the enduring instability of government made even worse by pervasive charges of rampant corruption in the police force and in the military?
Political writer/analyst Robert Tagorda, in his essay posted over at the Tech Central Station and referenced in his weblog, asks how should the U.S. address the Philippine situation:
"...although the Philippines has shown willingness to contribute to the war on terror, its vehicles for meaningful contributions have, at the very least, brought disappointment. A quandary also exists: American and Australian assistance provides essential resources, but the Philippine government is so internally crippled that it cannot do much with them. Its own institutional problems hamper regional initiatives.Read the rest of Tagorda's essay.
How should the United States address this issue? The Washington Times suggests that the Bush administration should apply diplomatic pressure by postponing an October visit to the Philippines: "The message needs to be clear that Mrs. Arroyo must get a grip on the chaos." Indeed, reform must come from within, but as Karl Jackson, Director of the Southeast Asia Program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, says, "self-help without resources always fails." Both the PNP and the AFP need to be professionalized. In the Southern Philippines, frontline troops receive combat pay of only 250 pesos a month and meal allowance of only 60 pesos a day. If Arroyo limits corruption, she can increase funding for basic military and law enforcement needs. Because the Philippines plays a strategic role in the war on terror, the United States should perhaps give additional funds."
June 26, 2003
George W. Bush: A real-life Ender Wiggin.
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.
May 13, 2003
Korean Games and Interesting Times
While the media’s attention has primary been focused on Iraq, some fascinating events have been occurring in both North and South Korea. While the story just broke this week, it appears that North Korean soldiers fired Chinese-made anti-personnel lasers at US helicopter pilots. This occurred in March. The pilots were patrolling the Demilitarized Zone and were not injured.
This increased North Korean aggression may be one of the reasons why the South Koreans are increasingly worried that the US may pull out of the DMZ, and perhaps South Korea itself. In a lesson in being careful for what you wish for, South Korean leaders seem almost panicked that the US is considering leaving the defense of South Korea in the hands of the South Koreans. It is hard to imagine that just months ago, there were South Korean protestors demanding that the US leave.
President Bush’s war on terror is still in its early days. The days ahead will be full of surprises. But when all is said and done, I suspect the US will have a much smaller presence in South Korea, Germany, and Saudi Arabia and will establish closer ties with countries that desire our presence such as Poland and Qatar. These closer ties will include the creation or strengthening of military bases. These longer-term policies depend upon a lot and may be partially contingent upon Bush winning reelection in 2004. I suspect we will see many leaders that have opposed US interests (such as Chirac and Schroeder) come out in support of whoever wins the Democratic primary. As the Chinese curse and American blessing would have it, we do indeed live in interesting times.
May 07, 2003
Lessons from Durban
The UN World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban SA right before before the attack on the World Trade Towers, turned into a festival of Israel-bashing and outright anti-semitism of the type which many of us became better acquainted with as we learned more about the politics and news media of the Arab world, and indeed of many of the Western organizations that went on to oppose US intervention in Iraq.
US Rep. Tom Lantos, who helped plan the conference and was part of the US delegation, believes there are lessons to be learned from the conference about fighting terrorism. He places much of the responsibility for letting the conference get off-track on UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson. He holds the Bush administration responsible for the previous six months of unilateralist US foreign policy that made it difficult to rally support from our allies at the conference. Most of all, he blames several of the Arab nations for deliberately hijacking the conference in the first place.
Lantos' main thesis is that if the US wants liberal democratic societies to replace terrorist-supporting despots, we can't afford to be isolationist or unilateral in our foreign policy. If we do not stay engaged in world leadership, other nations will step into the vacuum. He describes in detail how this happened at Durban.
Among the interesting bits of information in this essay: There were five preperatory regional conferences prior to the global one. All of them went well until the Asian conference, held in Tehran, Iran, when Israeli, Jewish, Kurdish, and Bahai groups were barred from attending. (Remember this is a UN-sponsored conference.) Robinson did not insist the conference be moved to a different host nation that would not act in such a discriminatory manner. Although at the previous three conferences she exhorted the delegates about human rights abuses in their regions, at the Tehran conference she did not criticize Arab violations of human rights. Her avoidance of confronting the Islamic states set the tone for the conference itself, where she repeatedly refused to speak out against the debasement of rhetorical language, the demonization of one country, and the elevation of a regional territorial dispute to a major theme of a conference on racism.
Lantos also describes Jesse Jackson's unsuccessful grandstanding, Yasir Arafat's demagoguery, the parallel NGO conference infested with proto-Nazi imagery to depict Israel, and the "feverish" negotiations that went on in an effort to save the original purpose of the conference.
Although it was quickly overshadowed by the 9-11 attacks, the Durban conference is a useful case study in how international forums can be manipulated to foment the kind of hatred and bigotry that results in terrorism.
April 27, 2003
A new attitude
David Warren notices
something fairly big is happening, fairly quietly, in Washington. It amounts to a new diplomatic strategy, post-Iraq -- of the kind which, given American power, generates in and of itself a "new world order".David calls it the "we don't care" policy, and notes that its purpose is to call bluffs of Anti-American intimidation.
It consists of responding to major rhetorical and diplomatic challenges, including organized campaigns against U.S. interests choreographed through the United Nations, with something like total indifference. . . . The U.S. will take note of the opposition, and act to defeat it, but without publicly arguing with it. Actual discussion on matters of significance is reserved to allies.Then he gives a number of examples. Intriguing.
April 07, 2003
Saddam's regime is a European import
Bernard Lewis argues that Saddam's totalitarian regime owes more to the traditions of Europe than to Islam or Arab customs.
In 1940, the French government accepted defeat and signed a separate peace with the Third Reich. The French colonies in Syria and Lebanon remained under Vichy control, and were therefore open to the Nazis to do what they wished. They became major bases for Nazi propaganda and activity in the Middle East. The Nazis extended their operations from Syria and Lebanon, with some success, to Iraq and other places. That was the time when the Baath Party was founded, as a kind of clone of the Nazi and Fascist parties, using very similar methods and adapting a very similar ideology, and operating in the same way -- as part of an apparatus of surveillance that exists under a one-party state . . .Lewis contends that government under traditional Islam, although autocratic, is limited by Islamic law and custom.
The idea of absolute rule is totally alien to Islamic practice until, sad to say, modernization made it possible. What the process of modernization did was to strengthen the sovereign power, and place at the disposal of the sovereign power the whole modern apparatus of control and repression.
April 06, 2003
Powell at the AIPAC conference.
The Jews Colin Powell faced at AIPAC last week were not mollified by his fluency in Yiddish.
Powell was cheered when he demanded an end to Palestinian violence, but there were audible hisses and boos when he turned his focus on Israel, saying that “settlement activity is simply inconsistent with President Bush’s two-state vision. As the president has said, ‘as progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the Occupied Territories must end.’ ”(This sounds like typical Bush strategy to me: insist you are all for peace, love, democracy, self-rule, or whatever the other side wants to hear, and then attach a condition. Bush is for a Palestinian state, if it's democratic. Bush wants settlements to cease, if the Pals demonstrate a changed attitude. I'm not worried about Bush's intentions, or even Powell's. I'm worried about Blair and Straw, and their obligations to the EU.)
On the plus side:
There were an unusual number of Defense Department officials at the gathering, reflecting heightened interest in U.S.-Israeli military cooperation. The most daring attendee: the French ambassador. The least surprising incident of the evening: he was booed.
April 05, 2003
Danger and Insanity in Araby
Humiliation seems to trump logical thinking every time. This is certainly the case in the Arab world today. The following quote from an article in The Telegraph makes that clear.
`The fact that Saddam has survived for 12 days is seen as a colossal success. Before the conflict, his star was falling in the Arab world, with few takers for his propaganda that he intended to liberate Palestine.
"But we are so desperate for an Arab hero after all our defeats on the battlefield and 50 years of humiliation that we will even turn that old criminal Saddam into a legend," said an Arab banker.
Abdel-Bari Atwan, the often provocative editor of the London Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi, said the Iraqi campaign had had an effect on the Arab world similar to the September 11 attacks.
The Americans had been surprised to find that the presence of foreign troops had awakened a sense of "patriotism and honour" among the Arabs. "They think that they can humiliate the Arabs all the time, and no one will answer back," he said."'
More...
This bodes ill for the west, but is hardly surprising. Rather than a 9-11 effect, I think the battle for Iraq has been akin to lancing the boil that is Araby and letting out the pus of self-loathing and anti-western hatred.
The Arabs have achieved very little in the last several hundred years, while the Western nations (and even Russia) have surged past them in every way. Almost every weapon they use was produced in a foreign country, usually the pathetic Soviet Union. Their technology is stolen or purchased from successful societies.
Their militaries have been pitiful. The Israelis, always outnumbered vastly, have demonstrated that time and again. The United States has done the same thing when necessary, starting with the Marine attacks on Tripoly in the 18th century.
Their economies are third-rate. Even some of the oil-rich Arab countries have significant poverty, massive unemployment (largely among those of an age most susceptible to arguments about pride and humiliation), and super-rich dictatorial leaders. They have no high-technology or service industries. The products are largely agricultural, ethnic trinkets and oil.
This massive record of failure does not come from a lack of smart and capable people. Nor does it come from poor circumstances - a number of oil countries, especially Iraq, have squandered vast amounts of oil wealth, oil which they only produce with infrastructure initially stolen and to some extent later purchased from more successful societies. All Arab countries are close to European markets for goods and labor.
The Arab societies fail because their culture does not work in modern circumstances. The tribal nature of their societies leads to corruption. Their traditions and religion have prevented democracy in every Arab country. Most interpretations of Islam prevent the establishment of secular governments or even religious societies that function. Their suppression of women deprives them of 50% of their labor supply. Corruption is rampant.
Some nearby non-Arab muslim countries have been more successful. Turkey itself used to rule much of Araby, and while having troubles is far more successful than the Arab countries. Iran (the former Persia), was a sophisticated and successful society, although militarily they were only an even match for the pathetic military of Iraq.
How the Arabs deal with the Iraq issue will be of significant import. Increased terrorism against the West is likely, simply because of the frustration and humiliation of young Arab men.
Hopefully the War Against Terrorism will preclude the provision of weapons of mass destruction to these individuals. The crushing of Iraq should cause Syria and Iran to reduce or end their support for terrorism, and the coalition should make it clear to both countries that our armies in Iraq could quickly replace their regimes also should it become necessary.
Arabs should reform their societies. They should stop listening to the religious "leaders" who make damaging statements and start listening to the ones who are more reasonable. They should encourage democratic societies.
We need to institute a mass information effort. Arabs need to understand that we achieved our superiority by the nature of our societies and the hard work of our people. Today, they act as if these weapons just materialized into our possession, and our soldiers win by magic, not training and technology! Arabs need to understand the nature of our societies.
Anti-western media outlets need to be reoriented. If they will not do so voluntarily , we should use our massive economic and even military power to change them.
Al Jazeera is not an example of a free press - it is an example of an extremely biased propaganda organ operated for profit! It should not be allowed to continue without moderating its stance.
Our society can affort alternative news sources, including strongly biased ones, because we have a plurality of choices. The Arabs cannot, and it is strongly in our interests to stop these efforts to incite people to kill our citizens.
The conclusion of the Battle of Iraq will not signal an end to the war. We are still at war with terrorism. We must defend ourselves preemptively from those who would provide aid, support and weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, be they North Koreans, Iranians, Syrians or Sudanese. And we likewise must fight against those who create terrorists by biased anti-American reporting, painting us as evil and glorifying suicide terrorists who kill women and children.
9-11 was a vicious attack upon our people. We cannot rest in any theatre of combat until the guilty have been destroyed and the threat minimized.
[Note: I put this same article on my Useful Fools blog]