The Command Post Op-Ed Page

Islam, Democratization & the Brotherhood

Over at Iraq the Model, Omar responds to Tarek Heggy’s article on Winds last week:

bq.. “The author expresses his concerns over the risks associated with what he called a hasty transformation from the current situation towards democracy and he particularly emphasized on the disastrous results that would inevitably happen when the Islamic Brotherhood reaches power in Egypt. Here’s Heggy’s full article for you to read.

Now, although I completely agree with what he said about the Islamic brotherhood’s ambitions, ideology and plans, I have some reservations about the idea in general and I’d like to summarize my observations in the following few lines….”

Good observations, with a nice Arabic aphorism to close - and 354 reader comments to read via the pop-up window! I’m glad to see bloggers like The Big Pharaoh and ITM chiming in on this issue, and fostering good debates on this subject. That’s what it’s all about, after all.

It Cannot Be Allowed to Happen

From the comments section at the BBC :

I hate to say this to Iraqis, but I pray for chaos and civil war: it’s the only way to stop Bush’s policies and show that peace can never come through force. If Iraq gets peace, Bush wins credibility. It cannot be allowed to happen.
Nina, Toronto, Canada

Hat Tip : Iraqi Expat

An Open Letter To American And European Liberals From A Red State Republican

Since George W. Bush was reelected there has been a lot of very angry talk from the left about “Red State Americans”. Since then, those of us in the red states have been called “greedy,” “sister marryin’,” “slow learners” & “fascists” who live in “Jesusland”.

Well, I’m a “Redstate Republican” from the South and I think it’s a good idea to take a few minutes to let the left, American and European, know how things appear from the other side of the looking glass. Sure, maybe this won’t faze any of the “Michael Moore is genius and conservatives are Nazis crowd,” but we can always hope, can’t we?

First of all, this may come as a shock to our condescending liberal European cousins who believe they live in the crown jewel of civilization and tend to think Americans are backwards barbarians, but many of us across the pond don’t see much worth emulating in Europe.

From our perspective, the majority of the last hundred years has been nothing but Europeans getting into trouble time and time again and Americans being called upon to pull their buns out of the fire. Think about WW1, WW2, the Marshall Plan, the Cold War, and then Serbia in the late nineties. Many liberal Europeans may believe themselves to be more sophisticated, smarter, and generally superior to Americans, but who has been calling on whom for help over and over again? But of course, when finally WE here in America asked for Europe’s help in the War on Terror, many European nations begged off, many delivered very minimal help, and almost all of Europe’s left have acted angrier with Bush and America than the terrorists we’re fighting to stop. That’s not very neighborly and I suspect at some point in the future, we will have the opportunity to remind Europe’s left of that fact when they’re asking us to save the day for them once again.

On top of that, what do we see in Europe where liberalism has largely taken over? We see secular welfare states, strangling in red tape, featuring mediocre militaries & sluggish economies. Furthermore, today’s Europe has adopted the appeasement mentality that Neville Chamberlain was much derided for, they don’t like America very much, and birthrates have dropped so far, so fast, that much of the continent seems to be in a death spiral. Is that something we here in America should aspire to? Not bloody likely….

Now, on to America. Many liberals here tend to assume that conservatives hate them or think they’re stupid. Personally, that’s not true for me. However, I do think liberals tend to be hopelessly naive about human nature, are borderline suicidal when it comes to their views on national security, and they tend to be titanically arrogant about how right they are and their capabilities given the paucity of what they’ve accomplished in…oh, say the last 30 years or so at least.

I’d also note that liberalism these days often (but of course, not always) seems to be largely synonymous with “blaming America first,” extreme hostility to religion and American businesses, and a willingness to entertain bizarre conspiracy theories. Likewise, liberals tend to assume that opposition to their ideas in of itself is base: that it’s based on greed, racism, homophobia, and dare I say it…just plain, old, eevvvviiil.

Well again, I don’t want to shock anybody, but conservatives genuinely believe that the whole country, rich or poor, men or women, minorities or majorities, are not only better served by conservative policies, but that liberal policies hurt the country. Yes, we think a small government is better than a big one, that low taxes for everyone, including the rich, are good for the country, & that the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” portion of the First Amendment is just as important as the, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” section.

Additionally, when conservatives wave the flag, it’s because we like doing it. When conservatives say “we support the troops,” it’s not some kind of dodge; we realize what a tough job they have and believe we should look out for them because of it. When we listen to Rush Limbaugh, it’s not because we think he makes up great lies about liberals; it’s because we believe he’s telling the truth.

Liberals, American and European, probably won’t buy into what I’m saying because it’s much easier to just paint conservatives as gap toothed, fundamentalist, bigots and homophobes who dream of locking liberals in camps and running some sort of one party theocratic state. Believe that if you will, but it will not make it into reality, nor will it change the ugly face of modern day liberalism into something that will appeal to most Americans.

Giving Props

Your humble SSG has been a veteran of many a campaign on both sides of the aisle. When it came to federal and national races, I had always worked for the right. For local races, for lack of a choice it was often for a Southern/Blue Dog Democrat. This duality of political experience made the jump for me to Gen. Clark’s campaign an easy one. I was dismayed with the growth of government, the erosion of civil liberties, and a number of other things with the Bush administration. Gen. Clark was a fellow Army veteran, a Southern Democrat, and a Little Rock native. It was easy to move over to his camp for the primaries. Many of my Southern friends and Republican friends agreed that he was the only person they would consider as an alternative to the President.

The Marine and his wife I mentioned here may well have crossed over and voted for the General had he have been the nominee. I first heard Mike say what he was quoted saying when I spoke with him last January and shared what I had learned about Kerry’s post Vietnam activities. Yep, all this stuff the Swift Boat Vets are sharing know, we knew then. I was a Veteran’s Outreach coordinator in two states and you can bet that more than a few vets were in New Hampshire and New York knew about this last January and February.

One of the things I have always prided myself on in my campaign experiences has been my tendency to stay friendly with the opposition from the candidate down to their lowliest campaign volunteers. I’ll never forget one time when I was having drinks with some other Arkansas GOP hacks and some ladies from former Oklahoma First Lady Cathy Keating ® after a day of campaign events. They expressed wonder at how paranoid my Arkansas colleagues were about their Democratic counterparts. I had often wondered the same thing. They explained that they might fight like h#ll at the Capitol in Oklahoma City, but at the end of the day they could all go get drinks together and socialize.

I suppose, for me, it goes back to sports or speech tournaments. Sure, I wanted to win and did my absolute best to wipe the competition away, but I never got anywhere by being afraid or avoiding them. I studied them, I picked up on some of their tactics and techniques, adapted to use as my own, picked their brains, tried to figure out how they thought and why they thought it. By embracing my competitors, it was easier to understand them and thereby defeat them. If someone was a skilled operator, I acknowledged it and gave them the respect they deserved.

The same trait carried over into the campaigns I worked. If I saw someone who was a skilled operator, I tried to learn from them, even, nay, especially, if they were on the other side. Love or hate him, Bill Clinton was about as skilled a campaigner as this country has ever seen. Watching how he worked, you can easily learn a lifetime of lessons on successful candidates. Growing up in Arkansas, I watched him for as long as I can remember. The guy is good and there is no denying it. The same thoughts carried over to his campaign team.

One of my first campaign heroes was not a Republican at all. I was hired as a field director for a scrappy Republican candidate that had nearly knocked off the incumbent in 1994. The incumbent stepped down for family reasons and we know had an open seat with plenty of name recognition and a promise to be a NRCC targeted race. Our campaign manager’s first raining tool for our staff might shock you. We all gathered at one of our houses and watched “The War Room.” If you want to see how a successful campaign was run in the early to late nineties, this is a must see documentary.

In that movie, I found my first campaign hero. And he was from the other side. So imagine how I felt when February of this year, we had our big New Hampshire Veterans for Clark rollout event in the picturesque little town of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. In a small VFW building, we packed the room with veterans of all stripes on a small riser and had standing room only for the veterans in attendance. We actually had to clear room to let in all of the media who had come to watch our public salvo in the fight for veterans against Kerry in New Hampshire. At the time, veterans were all the rage because the media had attributed Kerry’s Iowa comeback as due in large part to his support among Iowa veterans.

This entire event had been my show for the New Hampshire campaign and I was overwhelmed with not only the quantity but the intensity of our support among New Hampshire veterans. At the momen,t I knew we were set to roll with the presser, I stepped back to catch my breath.

I looked to the door and the most curious man in a full spandex body suit, shorts and t-shirt walked in the room. He had these small sunglasses on, was skinny as a twig, and bald. My first political hero had just walked in the door to observe my event. It was James Carville, in his bony flesh.

It took a second, if that long, but I walked over and welcomed and thanked him for coming. His Crossfire colleague, Tucker Carlson, had come in right behind him. Seeing as it was a Democrat event, Tucker didn’t have many fans, but folks were flocking to Carville. I had a few minutes with Carville and we chatted about Southern politics, the current primary, and we agreed that John Edwards was a better stump speaker than Bill Clinton. Of course, given my role with the campaign, it would have been inappropriate to ask for his autograph. I didn’t, but I’ll carry that meeting with me for a long time. This was a politico whom I had worked against and admired at the same time.

Now, I am more and more identified as a Democrat. It is always my custom to clarify that as a Southern and/or Blue Dog Democrat. The best known of those kind of Democrats right now is Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia.

I’m not registered as either major party. Even when I was active in GOP campaigns and GOP party politics, I had an independent streak a mile wide. This both helps and hurts a person like me because the current parties are so skewed away from each other and to the extremes that I don’t fit with the party faithful of either side. Still, as a labeled Democrat (Ahem, Southern and/or Blue Dog Democrat), I am as always compelled to give credit where credit is due.

About a week after the CBS Memogate affair had come to the top of the blogosphere’s shared consciousness, I was on the phone with one of my best friend’s from the Clark campaign. He now works for the Kerry campaign. I mentioned the affair and can you guess what Kerry HQ in DC had already been speculating? Rove. It must be Rove. To be honest, I know of a handful of national Democrat operatives I feel might have been capable of such a trick. However, as more and more unraveled, I ruled them out—much too sloppy for their work. Yet, I had said to my mother the day before, “I can’t rule out Rove. He learned from one of the best and he’s just genius enough to pull something like this off.” I doubt he did. It looks more and more like that some over anxious Texas Democrats with a freak streak made it past the usual safeguards, probably because of Rather’s and Mapes’s zeal to get a story-any story-that might counter the Swift Vets information.

Sunday morning I missed a call from my friend Jim who recently returned to blogging. He described what would make an excellent Flash presentation. And, then he blogged it. I have to agree, it would make a good Flash presentation and it would refer to another campaign hero of mine. I bet he would love it when they call him Big Poppa.

(Does anyone know the folks at Jibjab?)

Making Comrade Kim smile

Observed at the Peace Protests in Melbourne on Saturday -

Tom Paine of Silent Running describes the festivities here.

"The Future of the Moslem Mind": Full Series

Winds of Change.NET Cairo correspondent Tarek Heggy (see his article archive, and read his book “Culture, Civilization and Humanity”) is back with a new series. I have some issues with his analysis, especially when it comes to his take on American culture. Nevertheless, his articles are always thought provoking and so we’re always happy to present them here.

Here’s the complete series:

1. The Big Change in Islamic Societies
2. Muslims & The Clash of Civilizations
3. The Mentality of Violence… and the Games Nations Play!
4. A Movement Bred in the Isolation of the Desert
5. The Fall of the Oppressors and the Emergence of the Sword
6. The Crisis Facing Non-Wahabbi Islam

If you start at the beginning, you’ll also find links at the bottom of each post, leading you on to the next inthe series.

Egypt's Tarek Heggy: Why I Write

On the eve of Sept. 11, 2003, Winds of Change.NET Cairo correspondent Tarek Heggy (A Culture of Compromise | The Institutions of Democracy are More Important Than Democracy | Islam: Between Copying and Thinking | Tolerant and Intolerant Islam | Conspiracy & Response | Egypt & Democracy) explains why he writes these articles.

Why Do I Write?
by Tarek Heggy

I have been writing for a quarter of a century in order to instill in the Egyptian mind that we are, first and foremost, Egyptians. Our identity is shaped by our geographical location on the southern shores of the Mediterranean. We have Muslim, Christian, Arab and African ties, but none of them can replace our only identity as Egyptians.

I write in order to instill in the Egyptian mind the fact that although the outside world will harbour animosities towards us at times, and will work to further its own interests most of the time, our problems, in their entirety, originate inside our country and can only be solved internally. We alone are responsible for those problems and for the fact that they remain unsolved. The excessive belief in the conspiracy theory is a confession of our impotence and an admission of the supremacy of others in the face of our ineffectiveness.

I write in order to instill in the Egyptian mind the values of liberalism, democracy, general freedoms and human rights as the most noble, sublime and civilized achievements of mankind...

read the rest! »

Islam: Between Copying & Thinking

Winds of Change.NET's Egyptian correspondent Tarek Heggy offers us a whirlwind tour or Islamic thought - and especially the 2 models of thinking that he sees within Islam. Our guest blogger also asks some hard questions, and says it's time for both the West and Muslims to acknowledge their past failings and their responsibilities.

Islam: Between Copying and Thinking. An excerpt:

"When I compare some of the works of Al-Ghazali (Algazel)... which are distinctly lacking in rationality, with the writings of Ibn Rushd, in which rationality reigns supreme, I am amazed that the battle waged between the exponents of these two distinct schools ten centuries ago should have ended up in a clear victory for Al-Ghazali and a crushing defeat for Ibn Rushd. Nowhere is the difference in the approach of the two men more evident than in their defining works: Al-Ghazali’s "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" and Ibn Rushd’s "The Incoherence of the Incoherence".... Why were Al-Ghazali’s ideas so readily accepted while Ibn Rushd’s were rejected?

I believe the answer to this paradox can be summed up in one word: despotism."

A battle that still has important echoes and consequences today. Gotta love Ibn Rushd's (a.k.a. Averoess) book title, too. That guy would have made a great blogger - reasoned arguments, well expressed, and he already seems to understand the principles of a good Fisking.

Baghdad Blogger: Agent 00-Salam?

Here's my response to this controversy about Baghdad blogger "Salam Pax" being a Ba'athist agent, sparked by a David Warren column that also makes some good points about Pax's moral myopia.

I buy the family connections, the moral myopia, and the narcissist streak. I also think there's a kind of mentality at work that likes to be seen as a "bad boy" out there "on the edge," whether he is or not in real life (personal bet? Not). But an Iraqi intelligence officer? I'm not exactly naive about intelligence matters, so I understand the theoretical possibility. What I don't see here is the point of the op. A real intelligence op should try to accomplish concrete things, and Pax was too all over the map to fit that profile for any intelligence organization I can think of. He actually undermined the Iraqi story in important ways, and a trained agent wouldn't accidentally reveal the things David Warren cites re: his family connections. Cover is an agent's priority one, and Salam Pax has done a less than stellar job of that throughout.

No, my point of view corresponds to Occasional Reader's instead, not to mention Mike G's. When Saddam's agents wanted to shape opinion, they bought it.

As for the claims that Salam didn't post anything critical of Saddam et. al. before the war, I suggest doing one's research first:

[Dec. 25, 2002] Uday may or may not have been liked by the Tikritis, but crossing him is extremely unsafe... q.v. Lahib Nouman's story. (Hat Tip: Diana Moon)

[Jan. 6, 2003] Criticizing Saddam's speeches directly, in a way that mocks his hayba (aura of indomitable authority). This is very serious, the sort of thing that could definitely get one's tongue cut out.

[Jan. 21, 2003] Says the weapons inspection interviews are a farce. Exactly how this helps Saddam is lost on me.

[Feb. 21, 2003] Criticizing the human shields. Again, this helps how?

[March 02, 2003] Says the oil fires are a repetition of and symbolic form of national shame for Iraq's past actions. Reads like criticism of Iraq's Kuwaiti invasion to me. Wasn't that kind of taboo?Sigh. Now I'll probably hear from some loon claiming all this proves Salam Pax was a CIA agent instead....

--- UPDATES ---

Roger Simon and I continue the debate in his blog and comments section.

Kathy K. has some more worthy quotes for y'all from Salam, and links to the Jeff Jarvis preview of tomorrow's Salam Pax interview.

Posted by Winds of Change at 08:19 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

from the Zayed Center

Damian Penny analyses some of the recent publications from the Zayed Center. They include such ditties as The Zionist Movement and its Animosity to Jews, A Study on Jews Role in shaping negative image of Arabs in the West, and Zionist Literature and Holocaust Industry. The Center obviously strives to increase the positive links between Muslims, Christians and the Jews. The Center has even been praised by ex-President and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Jimmy Carter.

A Matter of Contrast

The contrast between Iraqis celebrating in Baghdad and some Arabs mourning in their own lands is amazing. I was going to write an essay on the contrast, but decided this is a situation where a picture is worth a thousand words.

Iraq

some Arab countries

The Vision of the Arab News

John Bradley, managing editor of the Arab News (noticed in an interesting WaPo piece), says of America's victory over Hussein:

"The pride the Arabs felt in the initial stages of the invasion, before those legendary 'pockets of resistance' halting the advance of the world's only superpower were revealed as a myth, has been replaced by immense shame and humiliation. The images of US soldiers taking a picnic in the heart of Baghdad will haunt the Arab psyche for generations to come "

As they should. Those images should be burned into the mind of every Arab who thinks the way to greatness is through Martyrdom and Wahhabism instead of modernization.

He adds:

"America now rules the world, either directly or by proxy; and there is nothing anyone can do about it,"

You're right, there is nothing you can do about America's power - so stop trying to fight it. Learn from America's power. Give your people freedom, instill actual rule of law, and stop sending your best and brightest off to Islamist indoctrination camps.

Remember, America really does want you to join us in the 21st century.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like the elite, at least immediately, are understanding the lessons of Iraq. Bradley concludes the previous thought:

"Nothing, that is, but wait for history to take its course, for Fortune's wheel to turn as it inexorably does, crushing underneath those who once danced on top of it."

No. America and the Arab world are not where they are due to the unknowable fates of history. We are where we are today because of very real choices made throughout each of our respective pasts. But the paths we've taken are not permanent, and the Arab world, presented with the rejoicing of the Iraqi people, can choose to make a future that ensures the next hundred years are not wasted as was the 20th century. Yet reading Bradley's delusions, I'm afraid of the choice that will be made.

Iranian famous photographer was killed by landmines in northern Iraq

On Wednesday 2 April, BBC cameraman Kaveh Golestan (Iranian famous photographer) was killed and producer Stuart Hughes injured by landmines near Kifri in northern Iraq. BBC correspondent Jim Muir, who was with them, sent this account of the incident.(BBC)

"Slaughtered by the Dozens"

In an article today comparing the Western and Arab media's take on the war in today's St. Petersburg times, Susan Martin writes:

"On Al-Jazeera and other Arab stations, meanwhile, cameras dwell on dead and wounded civilians, wailing relatives and frantic rescue workers, clawing through the rubble of ruined homes and stores. The impression is of innocent people being slaughtered by the dozens."

Now her point is to emphasize how this perspective has helped shape Arab opinion of America:

"To most Arab viewers, the difference in TV coverage has only reinforced a widespread perception: that the United States and Britain are ruthless aggressors trying to control the entire Arab world."

Yet it's demonstrative of both America's compassion and her military skill that, in a passage explaining the horrors the Arab world is viewing, she refers to Iraqis "being slaughtered by the dozens." Dozens. The two night firebombing of Dresden killed 25,000 and wounded 30,000.

I suspect most Arabs, despite official reaction to the Al-Jazeera footage, know the difference between what America is doing and what America could do. Yet the biggest dividends will come after the conflict from Iraqis who will see that most of their city has been spared destruction.

Arab News: War = Recruitment for Bin Laden

According to this post yesterday, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) believes the war has "created an untold number of Osama Bin Ladens." Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, quoted today in this Arab News article, echoes that sentiment (but ventures a more specific estimate):

“Terrorism will be aggravated. Terrorist organizations will be united. Instead of one Bin Laden there will be 100 Bin Ladens. Everything will be insecure,” he said.

Read further for the story's money quote:

Mohamed, 30, a volunteer interviewed by Reuters in Algiers, said he was itching to die in a “jihad” (holy struggle) operation against Americans.

“I’m convinced that the Americans are fighting Islam.

They declared that they are engaged in a crusade against Islam. Going to fight them in Iraq is my opportunity to avenge Muslims,” he said as he waited for his visa at the Iraqi Embassy.

"French political party says war illegal, illegitimate"

From this:

Paris, March 31, IRNA -- Spokesman for French center right party Union pour la Democratic Francais (UDF) Francois Brown said here Monday that US and British attack on Iraq is totally illegitimate and illegal... In an interview with IRNA in Paris, he added that French policy was to prevent the war and continuation of mandate by the UN Security Council inspection in Iraq.
"Now that the war has started, France regards it as being illegal," he added... He said that although France is in favor of ridding Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and calls for quick end to the hostilities, "at the same time it does not favor victory for one of the protagonists in the war." UDF has a majority in the French National Assembly and backs President Jacques Chirac and government of Jean Pierre Raffarin.

I'd like to see exactly what he said. Perhaps that should read "it does not favor victory for [either] one of the protagonists in the war."

Save the dolphins...and sod the people.

Re: Animal abuse
Date: 31 March 2003

Sir -The use of dolphins and sea lions by the American military in the war with Iraq must be unreservedly condemned. Dolphins are highly intelligent and sensitive animals. Using them in a war zone is deplorable.

When the United States used dolphins in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war, it was reported that Iranian patrol boats would machine gun any dolphin they saw, fearing it might be laying mines.

Former trainers have alleged that dolphins are trained by withholding food (a common training method for captive dolphins) and physical beatings, and that electrodes are implanted to enable the military control room to stimulate the dolphins to attack.

There have even been claims, following the beaching of 22 dolphins in France five years ago with holes in their necks, that military-trained dolphins were fitted with a small explosive charge which was set off by radio-control if they "deserted".

Animals have been used as combatants and weapons for centuries. Footage of remote-controlled equipment that searches for mines in the oceans has been shown during television coverage of the war against Iraq. Why does the military feel the need to use a living creature, when they have another option that does the same job, without endangering either human or dolphin welfare?

From:
Craig Redmond, Captive Animals' Protection Society, Liz Sandeman, The Marine Connection, and Alan Cooper, Cetacea Defence

MORE

Imploding strategy?

Hani Shukrallah writes in Egyptian English language weekly Al-Ahrahm that after a week it is the Pentagon planners who are in shock and awe:

The US/British invasion of Iraq, now in its seventh day, has proved, if anything, even more "unpredictable" than American military officials promised it would be, and this in ways they could not have imagined a week ago. The invasion was to be conducted with "breathtaking" speed. The world was to be given a demonstration of new smart weapons, so precise they would flush the Iraqi leadership out of its deepest bunkers. Shi'ites in the south would rise up in rebellion, welcoming their liberators on the streets of Basra, in scenes reminiscent of the "liberation" of Kabul. Saddam Hussein's regime would crumble. Iraqi military commanders, with whom "coalition" military chiefs hinted they were in secret communication, would disband their forces and disappear quietly rather than face trial as war criminals -- as US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seemed to threaten in the early hours of the invasion, when he warned all those who fought beside Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that they would face the same fate as Iraq's president if they fought back. The duration of the war would be counted in hours rather than days.

It did not quite work out that way. By day seven the only urban centre the coalition forces can claim to have seized is the tiny port of Umm Al-Qasr, straddling the Iraq-Kuwait border. This, after six days of fierce fighting.

[...]

Things had been going wrong even before the coalition forces missed their window of opportunity -- apparently by a long shot -- and were unable to kill Saddam on the first day of the war. The US and Britain, despite fierce efforts and intense pressure, failed to win a majority of nine at the Security Council sanctioning a military attack on Iraq. In terms of international law this renders the invasion a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter, i.e. the very same transgression committed by Saddam in his invasion of Kuwait in 1991. A majority of the world's states have declared their opposition to the war and, on 15 February, the anti-war movement was able to mobilise more than 30 million people in anti-war demonstrations across the globe. This may well have stayed the hands of the US military from unleashing the full force of its "Shock and Awe" strategy, in order to avoid the massive civilian casualties such a course would have resulted in.

While American and British officials have dismissed the loss of a northern front due to opposition in the Turkish parliament as unimportant to the conduct of the invasion there are military analysts who disagree. Speaking to CNN on Tuesday night retired US Army General Wesley Clark, a CNN analyst and former NATO supreme allied commander, asserted that Turkey's "failure to permit the 4th Infantry Division to go through was a significant problem, not an insignificant problem." Neither could the coalition count on its erstwhile Kurdish allies who, increasingly more worried about Turkey than Baghdad, decided to stay out of the fight.

Clark also asserted that the scenario of a quick coalition victory in Iraq is "not going to happen". The simple fact, he pointed out, "is that the liberation didn't quite occur. They didn't uprise."

I guess from Egypt it looks like Saddam is winning. I wonder what she'll be saying a month from now.

Sharkblog fisks Fischer

What a coincidence! Stefan Sharkansky of the excellent Sharkblog, who frequently links to and translates German media, has some comments on the Der Spiegel interview with Joschka Fischer.

Antiwar Response to Iraqi Executions of US POWs

How does the antiwar crowd respond to Iraq's public executions and mistreatment of captured U.S. POWs?

By calling for the "killing" of the Geneva Conventions. Says "Daily KOS": "it's time to acknowledge that neither side gives them much heed. The latest US violation is the bombing of Iraqi television in an attempt to stiffle [sic] Saddam's propaganda efforts."

So not only does Saddam deserve freedom of the press, we should provide his x-rated content.

In a feeble attempt to acknowledge concerns about torture of POWs if we indeed dumped Geneva, KOS claims POWs would still be protected by the UN Convention Against Torture. "Violating these rules are Crimes Against Humanity, and can be fully enforced post-conflict."

Uh-oh #1: KOS didn't notice that Iraq has never signed said UN Convention (the US has, although Congress hasn't ratified it--which is understandable, considering our justifiable suspicion of UN effectiveness and governance. Iraq would probably chair the committee.)

Uh-oh #2: Enforcement by the UN?

Uh-oh #3: Reliance on post-conflict enforcement presumes the violator will still exist.

More moral relativity.

from the Daily TelegraphLetters Page

Sir - The sickening spectacle of American prisoners of war being paraded on Iraqi television should remind America of the dangers of setting a bad example to the rest of the world. I write as the solicitor for the families of three British detainees in Guantánamo Bay.

George W Bush says those responsible for mistreating American prisoners should be treated as war criminals. America has consistently refused to sign up to the International Criminal Court for fear of its officials being prosecuted. If it had done so, its own treatment might have been scrutinised of more than 600 young men being held in Guantánamo Bay without trial, in cells of 8ft by 6ft 6in, allowed out only twice a week, for 15 minutes each time.

On their original arrest, these detainees, too, were humiliated and paraded on television manacled, shackled and hooded. There are now nine British citizens in Guantánamo, including two recently transferred from the American airbase at Bagram, where there have been credible reports of torture.

America says that they were detained while fighting in Afghanistan and are "senior Taliban and al-Qa'eda members", therefore not prisoners of war but "unlawful combatants" - a term that appears nowhere in the Geneva Conventions.

Most lawyers would agree that, if they are Taliban, they should have been treated as prisoners of war, while, if they are al-Qa'eda, they should be put on trial for a criminal offence. The Geneva Conventions provide that, if there is any doubt, the matter should be put to a tribunal, not decided by the detaining power.

Both the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the UN working party on arbitrary detention have called on the American government to convene such a tribunal. Fifteen months after the initial detentions, this has not happened.

Our own government is silent in the face of fundamental assaults on the rights of British citizens. In our courts, there is a well known concept of "clean hands" - the courts will refuse to protect those who complain when they themselves have done wrong. Our Government's complicity in breaches of international law by America not only undermines the rule of law but also gives comfort to Saddam Hussein's torturers.

From:
Louise Christian, senior partner, Christian Khan, London

Arab pride more important than right or wrong

At least, that's the message of this op/ed in the Arab News:

What Bush and Blair failed to realize is that their actions has consolidated Saddam’s position both at home and abroad. Whatever political opposition Saddam had evaporated when the invasion commenced. Bush failed to understand Arab pride. It was not question of Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial regime, but the pride and honor of Arabs which was being defaced and defied by America and its partner. No Arab could ever tolerate foreign forces on their land.

No mention of the fact that "Arab forces" on our land was a significant part of what finally brought Allied forces into Iraq. Or that strong and unambivalent efforts on the part of the Arab nations to excise terrorism from their own countries and region would have ended this without an Allied shot being fired. I don't bear ill-will toward Arabs generally, just as I didn't toward Russians generally during the Cold War. But the posturing of Arab governments and their state-run media, putting Arab pride before American lives, actually brings precisely the opposite reaction than what they're probably looking for.

Pride in self doesn't - and shouldn't - trigger respect in others; respect is earned. And standing pride above principled action isn't the way to earn it. That's a lesson this op/ed writer clearly has yet to learn.