The Daily Demarche

Don't Call it a Comeback (sorry, couldn't resist).

2008-04-29T20:13:00.009-04:00

Thanks for the kind notes, everyone. It is good to be back, but I do want to say upfront that I am not committing to any kind of regular schedule this time. I'll post things as I can and look forward to your comments and e-mails.

Today's topic- two articles that caught my attention recently. The first, "No Coyote Needed- U.S. Visas Still an Easy Ticket in Developing Countries" by David Seminara, has been kicking up a bit of a storm in the halls of the Foreign Service lately. The second article is from Foreign Policy magazine and is entitled "Meet the New Face of Al Qaeda" (no author listed). This article has not, to my knowledge caused much of a stir and no one in the FS (or anywhere else in the U.S. government that I am aware of) seems to be connecting the two pieces.

Seminara's article deals with the fact that while most Americans think of illegal immigrants as "desperate migrants sneaking across the Mexican border... a 2006 Pew Hispanic Center study [found] nearly half of the 12 million-plus illegal aliens in America arrived legally with temporary, non-immigrant visas." The Foreign Policy piece details four "new faces" of al Qaeda- at least one of whom was a so-called "'clean-skin' operative" due to the fact that he had never been identified as a terror threat and never had an encounter with law enforcement. To me the connection leaped off the pages: it appears that way too many people are getting visas who probably should not and that al Qaeda is now deploying people we don't know about who very well might "qualify" for visas under the best of circumstances- which Seminara makes clear do not exist in the field.

Oh, and least two of the four could have made it into the U.S. on the visa waiver program. The woman detailed was Belgian and one of the men was British. What is with the past tense in these cases? Three of the four have already carried out suicide missions, and one is in custody after attempting to do so, which is the only reason we know about them. Here are some excerpts from the FP article:

Shehzad Tanweer -British-Suicide bombing in London - epitomizes the threat of “clean-skin” operatives, authorities say. He was an A-student and a gifted athlete with many friends. Tanweer had no history of violence or run-ins with police. His family described him as “proud to be British.”

Muriel Degauque- Belgian, born Catholic-suicide bombing in Baquba, Iraq-Terrorism experts believe Degauque was the first European Muslim woman to execute a suicide attack. European women who marry Muslim men are now the largest source of religious conversions in Europe, and European counter terrorism officials are increasingly concerned that female converts represent a small but potentially deadly element of the terrorist threat in Europe.

Ahmed Said Ahmed al-Ghamdi- Saudi Arabian (son of a Saudi diplomat)- Suicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq - Ghamdi’s radicalization is notable because he was smart, well-connected in Riyadh, and had excellent career prospects. Raised within the Saudi upper class, he represents the higher end of the intelligence scale among Middle Eastern youth, a group not traditionally thought of as a hotbed for terrorist recruiting.

Kafeel Ahmed- Indian- Attempted suicide bombing in Scotland- Ahmed’s case shows how new technologies are helping to recruit the next generation of terrorists. Authorities believe he was radicalized in Islamist chatrooms, where he followed events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine closely. He was fond of downloading speeches delivered by Osama bin Laden, yet he showed little interest in Islamist causes in India. It was also on jihadist Internet sites that Ahmed downloaded hundreds of bomb designs.

In his piece Seminara draws on an impressive collection of data and his own experiences working on the visa line in Macedonia and Bulgaria to explain why he feels that there are serious problems in the visitor visa adjudication process. While some of what he recalls is no longer 100% accurate (things have changed a bit since he left) the errors are minor and in no way reflect the overall impact of the piece- for example there have been fee increases, and supervisors do now review some visa issuances (but not all). Seminara offers a laundry list of the reasons he believes are behind this problem, here are a few of my favorites:

• Foreign service officers tend to have a diplomatic rather than a law enforcement mindset.

• Developing countries place great importance on visas in bilateral discussions.

• There is a lack of accountability and emphasis on adherence to the law as a promotion criterion.

• Consular officers’ tend to value applicants’ purpose of travel over their legal qualifications for the visa.

• DHS has failed to implement meaningful exit controls or to share entry/exit data with consular officials overseas, leaving officers without adequate information on visa renewal applicants.

• The lack of feedback to consular officers on visa overstays leads many to underestimate how serious the overstay problem is.

• Officers evaluate how well-off visa candidates are by the standards of their home country, rather than by U.S. standards, and often fail to understand how a school teacher in Romania might prefer to be a cab driver in Chicago, or why a nurse from Ecuador would wash dishes at a restaurant in New York.

• Refused applicants, their relatives, and members of Congress place pressure on consular officials to overturn visa refusals, and sometimes manage to “wear down” consular officers.

• The simple reality that it is far easier to say “yes” to applicants than to shatter their dreams by telling them that they don’t qualify to come to America.

This is not the whole list, but you get the idea. I remember well looking out of my visa window and seeing the more than 2,000 cases we averaged per day (I spent my first 2 years as an FSO in a "visa mill") as well as the pressure to go faster and the seemingly never ending faxes/letters/calls/e-mails from Congressional offices wondering why some constituents cousin/friend/lover/co-worker had been denied a visa. I have very little doubt that had any of the four individuals profiled in FP appeared at my window they most likely would have gotten a visa from me, and that if they had applied recently to come to the U.S. the decision would have been the same.

Seminara does an excellent job describing the "culture of issuance" that pervades many consular sections, and describes in detail why visa interviewing is an "art, not a science" and the simple fact that it is quite hard to look another person in the face and say "no" to their visa request. I am not quite convinced that he has arrived at the correct conclusions, however- his number one recommendation is to take visa issuance away from State and give it to DHS. It is my understanding that DHS ever so briefly considered this when the agency was formed and that they basically said "no, thank you." He also calls for supervisors to review "all" issuances, which I don't think is even remotely realistic. Even if they had the time, they would not have the totality of the interview to review- primarily the applicant would be gone, so what would they be checking? Two points I agree with wholeheartedly, however, are:

• Refocus visa adjudication away from giving applicants the “benefit of the doubt” and toward strict adherence to the law.

• Allow consular officers access to entry/exit data to increase the quality of decision-making by preventing chronic visa abusers from renewing their visas.

Of course for the second point we'd actually have to have an idea who is leaving the country.

The reality is that we don't seem to be moving in that direction, and in fact may be regressing by offering visa free travel to South Korea, Czech Republic and more EU countries. Foreign born terrorists are not the only threat to national security, to be sure. But stopping them should at least be a pillar of our national security strategy. Hamstringing our officers in the field by not collecting valid data (entry/exit) and not sharing what data we do collect while expanding the visa waiver program strikes me as a recipe for trouble. I highly reccomend reading the entire Seminara piece, it is well worth the time.

Now if only I could a few folks at Foggy Bottom and on the Hill to read these two articles together...

Is anyone still reading this thing?

2008-04-27T16:19:00.001-04:00

I am kicking around the idea of starting up again, having finally found a few spare minutes in the day, and feeling inspired by the return of The Diplomad. I guess the only question is: is anybody out there?

Change of Address

2005-11-25T20:22:00.000-05:00

Friends:

It is with very mixed emotions that I sit down to write this post. This will be my last posting at The Daily Demarche, as I move into semi-retirement from blogging. Recent life events and work, and a few other factors, have not allowed me to dedicate the time and attention to this blog that it and you deserve. I have not been able to meet the "daily" portion of the title for some time, and do not see that changing anytime soon.

I am not, however, throwing in the towel completely. I plan to continue to write and post, but no longer on this blog. As the title of this post suggests I am relocating- I will primarily be blogging at American Future with Marc Schulman, who has generously agreed to allow me to hang my shingle with his, at one of the best blogs on the 'net. My plan is to post there at least once a week, more frequently as time allows- or as world events inspire me to forgo sleep in order to post. I am sure that nearly all of you are familiar with Marc's outstanding blog, and know for a fact that many of you visit here from there. From time to time I will also post at The Intelligence Summit Blog, although I would not venture to guess with what frequency. Consul at Arms now bears the burden of being the last of the Foreign Service blogs, although I imagine New Sisyphus will still have something to say about foreign policy from time to time.

The reaction to this blog has wildly exceeded my expectations, with an average of well over a thousand hits per day in the last year, thanks in part to several "instalaunches" from the likes of Instapundit, Austin Bay and Michelle Malkin, but even more so the readers who have spread our name by word of mouth, and an established group of commenters who have kept me on my toes with excellent debate and ruthless spell and fact checking. I hope that you will check in frequently at American Future; if at all possible I will try to establish a regular day to post there- although once you start to read Marc's posts you might forget all about looking for me! I owe a debt of gratitude to many people and blogs, and hope I can remember to mention them all here- I apologize in advance if I leave anyone out.

First I have to thank Mrs. Dr. D who tolerated all the time I spent in front of the keyboard and the occasional late night outburst as I surfed the net news. I can only hope that all of you have or find a mate like her. Next comes The Diplomad who inspired me to start this blog- and who nine months after his last posting still generates traffic for The Daily Demarche- if you are out there reading this, we miss you, and thanks. I also have to thank Smiley, who believed in the project early on and wrote some of the best posts on this blog-including this one. I've missed him here but can't say I fault him in the least for not being around as much.

I also want to thank A Guy in Pajamas who helped to spread the word early on about us, as did Toni from Bear Creek Ledger (formerly The View From Tonka) and my all time favorite member of the loyal opposition Eric Martin at Total Information Awareness. Blogs like Expat Yank and Barcepundit kept me informed on events in far away places, and The Atlantic Review restored (somewhat) my faith in our public diplomacy efforts.

Every blogger who participated in our "What if We Never Invaded Iraq" and "China Syndrome" blog projects reinforced my belief that the finest minds in policy analysis and imaginative thinking are not necessarily to be found in the press, or think tanks or the government. Every blog on the blogroll to the right- and many that I am ashamed to say I never got around to adding- played a part in the happiness I found writing this blog, as did every person who ever left a comment or sent me an e-mail (even the hate mail!), and all of you contributed to my sense that our democracy is alive, well, and in good hands.

I will continue to use the same e-mail address dr.demarche AT gmail.com, and look forward to reading your comments at American Future. If all goes well I hope to have my first post ready for Marc to publish by Tuesday, at the latest. And so, it is not farewell, but see you later.

Thanks again to all of you,

Dr. Demarche

(End of post.)

Happy Thanksgiving.

2005-11-24T08:49:00.000-05:00

There are two holidays that mean more to me when I am far from home, the first, July 4th, probably goes without saying. The second is Thanksgiving. I was surprised at how forcefully my first Thanksgiving in a foreign country struck me. At home the day had always meant football, turkey, mom's pumpkin roll, family and friends- to be sure those are all things to be missed, and I still do miss them every year. But none of them accounted for the deep rooted sense of missing America on that last Thursday in November. Gradually, however, it came to me that in addition to the food and family, the football and friends, what I was missing was the sense of tradition. America, writ large, is not a land bound by many traditions, and these two holidays are in a large part what define our common cause for celebration.

So today, though I am far from home and not likely to see any football, I am thankful for the friends and family I have with me here. I am thankful for the efforts that we all will make today as we gather together here, in an effort to have a traditional thanksgiving (I've been hoarding a few cans of whole cranberries for months just for today!).

Beyond that I am thankful for the accident of birth that allows me to call myself an American. I am thankful for the brave men and women in our armed services, for those among us that struggle to protect us all from those who would do us harm. I am thankful for our allies in this struggle against our enemies, no matter how the left and MSM belittle them. I am thankful for purple stained fingers proudly thrust in front of the media's cameras.

I am thankful for you, for reading this, and hope that you too can celebrate this American holiday with thanks, wherever you are.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Dr. Demarche

(end of post)

Is he, or isn't he?

2005-11-21T18:40:00.000-05:00

As I write this, speculation abounds as to whether or not Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is still alive. Iraqi and U.S. forces took a house in Mosul on Saturday, and some of the occupants blew themselves up to avoid capture. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari earlier today stated:

"In my view, I would say there must have been some key leaders of the insurgency, especially the fundamentalists -- al Qaeda type of people -- so I would not be surprised if he could be one of those who blew himself up."

"We know that American and Iraqi forces ... surrounded a house where there was fierce resistance and when the American and Iraqi forces jointly tried to storm the building the occupants blew themselves up, they committed suicide," Zebari added.

"They believe there must have been some key leaders from the terrorists, from the fundamentalists who committed suicide instead of handing themselves up."

Now I am not certain that I agree with that sentiment- a great many non-key members of al Qaeda have blown themselves up, and let us not forget how Saddam himself, a key leader if there ever was one, was dragged from a hole in the ground with no fight whatsoever. Reports from within our government indicate scepticism that al-Zarqawi was in the house, although we may be closing in on him. Of course allied forces will continue to check to see if he was killed in the raid, but-I have to ask, does it really matter if al-Zarqawi is dead? (Although, if he really is, I'll gladly eat 72 raisins to mark his passing.)

Al-Zarqawi has recently become a bit of a pariah in the middle east, or at least in parts of it, after his group claimed responsibility for three bombings in Jordan (several good video clips embedded in that piece). One of these bombings targeted a wedding party- killing the fathers of both the bride and groom, and several other relatives and party guests. His killing of, or sponsorship of the killing of, non-Muslims was not enough to invoke the ire of the "religion of peace", but this time by striking close to home, he may have gone too far. Having crossed the line, he may be more valuable to al-Qaeda dead than alive.

One of the constant problems with the "war on terror" is the very nature of the enemy- amorphous, difficult to pinpoint or identify. While "men" such as Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi put a face to the enemy, it is the ideology, not these men, who we fight. It is the ability of such men to convince others to strap on explosive belts and decimate a wedding, or to fly airliners into skyscrapers that makes them dangerous, but it is the continuing supply of willing volunteers that ensures the battle will continue.

We have seen proof that volunteers exist from all walks of life and all parts of the world; and it is no secret that Terror, Inc. makes great use of the internet. Now MEMRI reports that

"Until December 13, 2005, supporters can sign an oath of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Mullah Muhammad Omar, and Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi online".

The oath reads, in part, as follows:

"I invite you to the first day of the month of the great swearing of an oath of loyalty to the commander of the Muslim armies, Sheikh Osama bin Laden, and to the commanders of the global jihad: Sheikh Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Emir of the Believers Mullah Muhammad Omar, and Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, and to all the jihad fighters.

"Oh God, you need this oath of loyalty, the oath of death for Allah that will terrorize the infidels and earn the jihad fighters in particular, and the Muslims in general, reward in the world to come...

"Moreover, for this oath of loyalty to death it is not necessary for you to die now - but in the near future, the very near future, Allah willing, we must all join this blessed convoy, particularly since we have sworn an oath of loyalty.

"This [signing of this] oath of loyalty will continue for one month, and will be posted in all the forums so that the number of oath-takers will be [as] great [as possible], and so that Osama bin Laden will have an army in Afghanistan, an army in Iraq, and a massive army in the waiting list on the Internet pages.

"This is the Internet that Allah operates in the service of jihad and of the mujahedoun, and that has become [a tool in service of] your interest - such that half the mujahedoun's battle is waged on the pages of the Internet, which is the only outlet for passing announcements to the mujahedoun.

"Anyone who has already sworn an oath of loyalty is asked not to do so again, because at the end of the month there will be a count of all those who took the oath..."

"We swear loyalty to Sheikh Osama bin Laden, may Allah preserve him, and to the commanders of the global jihad, Sheikh Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Emir of the Believers Mullah Muhammad Omar, and Sheikh Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, and all the Jihad fighters. [This is] an oath of death for Allah.

Al-Zarqawi was elevated to the unholy pantheon of al-Qaeda with the beheading of Nicholas Berg. His death, at his own hands to avoid capture, would only ensure his place there. We should not get overly excited if really is dead. The men and women who brought about his death, if indeed they have, deserve a "well done", but for the time being we can be sure that there is another scoundrel prepared, to take his place, and if there isn't you can bet that OBL is running his own version of The Apprentice to find the next one- only his unsuccessful contestants aren't fired, they are handed an explosive belt and sent out to wreak havoc. Web sites such as the above indicate there is no shortage of willing participants.

This is a war of attrition, plain and simple. There will be no Paris accords this time (just ask Paris), no dividing of a country at some arbitrary parallel. We- the non-Muslim (and incresingly non-jihadist version of Islam) will either win this war by stamping out all of the "al-Zarqawis" out there, or we will lose it and Islamofascism will win the day.

To answer my own question, then, it doesn't really matter if he is dead, because the ideology that spawned him is not, and those who chose to follow him will carry on. The death of one man, al-Zarqawi or even bin-Laden, will not end this epic struggle. It would, and should, boost morale for us and our allies, but the fight is far from over. So let us not focus entirely on al-Zarqawi. He is a small piece of a large problem, the face of the enemy, but not the hands that pull the trigger. We will not mourn his passing when that day comes, but neither will we celebrate to the point that we lose focus. Al-Qaeda and Islamofascism predate al-Zarqawi, and they will continue to be a threat once he is gone. Let us not elevate his importance any further by celebrating his death. Once less murdering thug plotting to kill innocent people is a good thing, but there is no need for us to reinforce his myth.

Save the celebrations for the day the war is over.

This is it.

2005-11-18T21:29:00.000-05:00

There is no better ideology on Earth than democratic, small "L" liberalism- and there are no better people on the planet than those in our armed forces- and I am claiming all the forces of all countries who love freedom here.

Need proof? Watch this from our British allies (click "orignal size" in "View Size" drop down box for best resolution). Turn on the speakers, work safe.

I mean, compare that to this.

Okay, couldn't resist that. Here is the real deal. Seriously chilling stuff.

Mug tip to Cathy for the first clip- God bless your son and his comrades in arms.

OBL Inc., take note- love of freedom and a sense of humor cannot be defeated.

Dr. D

(end of post)

Venezuelans to take long way to el norte?

2005-11-16T20:40:00.000-05:00

Apparently while the rest of Latin America was busy protesting the presence and policies of President Bush in Argentina a few weeks ago, President Vincente Fox of Mexico and President Fidel Castro, er, Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela were working themselves up to see who is the big enchilada.

Chavez has set out to derail the Free Trade Area of the Americas, primarily because Castro's Cuba would not be included, and when Fox backed the plan Chavez called him a "puppy" of the United States, and it just went downhill from there.

For the most part the U.S. has stayed out of this, it really is none of our business, but United States Ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield did make a brief statement today, as reported by the excelent blog Venezuela News And Views, self described as "...the diary of Venezuela slow decent into authoritarianism, the slow erosion of our liberties, the takeover of the country by a military caste, the surrendering of our soul to the Cuban dictator... ( Note: the comments in brackets in the following quote are by the host of that blog, I am assuming he also made the translation as the comments were in Spanish):

[The US has been accused of being behind] of the presidential assassination attempt, coup d’etat, promoting Venezuelan voter abstention, internal divisions within Chavez party, campaign of the opposition, Vargas floods [in February because Bush did not sign Kyoto] bombs in the CNE office of Carabobo, killing a prosecutor [CIA involvement in the Anderson case, at least not alone there], complot to terrorize Venezuelan kids at Halloween, Colombia’s DAS declarations, decreasing PDVSA production, the International Trasnparency campaign [where Venezuela was revealed as one of the most corrupt countries], international negative media campaign, campaign against the Aves island [a tiny island in the Northern Caribbean that some island state would like to take away from Venezuela, something totally unfounded for this blogger who would suggest to trade it for the Guyana portion stolen from Venezuela by the Brits, but I digress]

How can I sleep with so many conspiracies and intrigues? The truth is that in this world there are some things that have nothing to do with the US, and this is one of them [the Venezuela Mexico spat]

It is not often that you get to hear a U.S. Ambassador say something like that!

The spat between the two leaders has escalted, and both countries have recalled their Ambassadors (although to be fair Fox threatended to declare the Venezuelan Ambo persona non-grata if Chavez did not apologize). The Guardian reported yesterday that Chavez sent Fox a message when he recalled his Ambo: "Don't mess with me."

I haven't seen Fox's reply yet, but with Venezuela poised to become a Castro-ite satellite state I would bet that a good number of the Venezuelan population hopes things cool off betwen the two leaders soon- after all the may have to cross Mexico to get to the border of the U.S.

(End of post)

"IN THE TRENCHES DOING DOG'S WORK."

2005-11-15T22:20:00.000-05:00

Former Ambassador J. Anthony Holmes, head of the American Foreign Service Association (our "union") set off a firestorm last week when he described Consular work, specifically non-immigrant visa interviewing, as "dog's work." Several readers e-mailed me after the interview came out to express a range of emotions- some were clearly outraged by Holmes' words, others thought it was about time that someone on the seventh floor (executive level) of the State Department spoke the truth when it comes to the visa work done primarily by entry level officers.

The timing on this, for me, was amazing. While on my travels last week I read two books pertaining to immigration in the United States. The first was On the Line: Inside the U.S. Border Patrol by Erich Krauss and the second was Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores by Michelle Malkin (travel, like Internet service and everything else involving electricity and/or a motor here can be trying, so I always travel well prepared for delays).

"On the Line" covers a lot of ground in a short read, ranging from the earliest days of the Border Patrol (the first BP agent was commissioned to stop Chinese coming in from Mexico) to the amazing armed incursions into America- with shots fired- made in the last decade by the Mexican army. The author details the rigorous training Border Patrolmen go though and takes the reader into the world of BP special ops from Elian Gonzales to road blocks in Bolivia in the war on drugs. When he writes about how open the northern border is, and how little political will there is to stop illegal immigration or to pursue illegal aliens already in the U.S. it is enough to make your blood boil and give you the chills at the same time.

"Invasion" takes this theme a step further and provides vivid details about crimes that have been committed by illegal aliens in the U.S. , such as Angel Maturino Resendez, "The Railroad Killer" and Edward Nathaniel Bell who shot and killed Sgt. Ricky Timbrook of Winchester, Va. Both Resendez and Bell had multiple contacts with INS, and yet they were able to either remain in or to re-enter the United States. (Click here to read the NRO review of this book, and to learn more about the failures of our immigration system.) I wish I had read this book when it first came out. While much has changed since then, at least cosmetically, much still remains terribly the same.

Whereas the Border Patrol is charged with protecting "the line" of our nation's borders, there is another "line" of defense against those who would not only break our immigration laws, but also do us intentional and massive harm. This is the "visa line", the first contact many would-be visitors and immigrants have with the government of the United States. The State Department took a lot of heat over the "Visa Express" program that allowed many of the September 11th hijackers to breeze through the visa system, and as result many things have changed, such as more and better shared information from law enforcement, and increased use of technology to catch impostors and criminals.

One thing, though, has not changed. The officers charged with manning the line are almost entirely entry level, and most are not Consular officers. The State Department, in order to meet the demand for visa services, mandates that all entry level officers spend at least one of their first four years on a visa line, and most spend at least two years doing Consular work. Training for these officers, while better in recent years, is by no means intensive, and the convoluted immigration laws and policies of the U.S. don't help. Neither does attempting to apply these laws in a foreign language. In a "visa mill", a post that exists largely to feed the visa beast, such as Manila or Bogota, officers may "interview" over 100 applicants a day. This is down somewhat from the pre-9/11 days, I can clearly remember "interviewing" upwards of 250 a day on my first tour at one of the top 5 visa mills' but it is still too many. At the most an officer will have 4 minutes with each applicant, but processing of the cases and administrative work cuts that down to more like two minutes per case.

So when Holmes says the following in regards to entry level officer and "transformational diplomacy" he is not at all off the mark:

"probably 80 percent of them go for their first assignment to a visa mill, where they interview 50 to 75 to 100 visa applicants every day. And that isn't transformational. I mean, that is -- you're in the trenches doing dog's work."

Unfortunately, Holmes has been forced to backpeddle from his statement:

The point I was making is that working on the NIV line at many posts is particularly challenging and stressful, full of pressure and stress, and sometimes thankless. These new officers are truly "in the trenches," on US diplomacy's front lines, and this tough duty is the bread and butter of the Foreign Service.

[snip]

As this work is what most new officers do before they get assignments doing "transformational diplomacy," I was trying to convey that it will take time before the bulk of the DRI new hires start doing what the focus of the NPR piece was all about. My broader point was the need to get the resources necessary to do the job.

This release by AFSA was followed by an "all hands" e-mail from Asst. Secretary of State Maura Harty sharing a copy of a letter she sent to Holmes and AFSA, that read in part:

Foreign Service Officers embarking on their initial tours are engaged in activities that are both critical to our nation's security and central to our government's sacred responsibility to protect American citizens abroad. Our officers serve on the front lines of the global war on terror and put their own names on the line every single time they decide whether a foreign national is eligible to visit the United States. They must exercise good judgment and have a mastery of complex substantive material - namely U.S. immigration law and consular regulations - to protect the United States and its citizens. Their first Foreign Service tours give them an invaluable opportunity to develop language and interpersonal skills and management ability, while acquiring a sophisticated understanding of the societies in which they live - all to the benefit of the Foreign Service.

The real problem in all of this is that both Holmes and Harty are right- it is dog's work and it is critical to our national security. My question, then, is why is this work left to our most junior officers who in most cases are merely marking time and "paying their dues" on a visa line. Why do we not have a corps of professional visa adjudicators, well versed in law and policy who speak the local language at a high level? To borrow an example from the military, why are we staffing the front lines with lieutenants right from OCS, who are replaced every year or two? Where are the NCO's with twenty years experience? Frankly, I don't want the people in the visa section in my Embassy to be developing language and interpersonal skills and gaining management experience. I want them to be implementing the law and making informed decisions on who is, and is not, to be granted the privilege of visiting the United States. I want them to be holding the line further from the border.

Holmes deserves to be praised for his honest assesment of the facts in the "new" State Department, and those in the trenches deserve our thanks. Beyond that, though, we should be aiming at making our borders ever more secure, and perhaps making the trenches a little less trench like.

Internet Access in the 3rd World

2005-11-14T17:47:00.000-05:00

Like everything else here, access to the Internet is spotty at best- I had a good run there for a while, but now have no access at home. For obvious reasons I can't post at work.

I'm dashing this off at a "cafe" on the way home- hopefully I'll have access tomorrow, which is what they told me yesterday. Of course, here "tomorrow" just means some point in the future.

In the meantime please visit our frinds in the blogroll, or post a comment about your current favorite international affairs event.

Stay tuned, hope to be back soon.

Cheers,
Dr. D

(End of post)

Happy Birthday, USMC!

2005-11-09T21:48:00.000-05:00

Every morning, as I make my way in to work, the first American I see is the Marine Security Guard on Post One (or "in the box"). These men, and increasingly, women who watch over our diplomatic missions abroad not only greet and protect me and my colleagues everyday- they also make a statement. Visitors to the Embassy are always visibly impressed by the sight of the Marine on duty. They clearly get the message (perhaps an unintentional one) that despite the polite diplomatic phrasing of whatever meeting is about to take place, there is an iron fist in the velvet glove. After all, there are not many people who do not know the storied history of the United States Marine Corps. The famous Marine Corps Hymn offers a glimpse of that history:

From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli,
We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea.
First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title of United States Marine.

Tomorrow marks the 230th anniversary of the founding of the Marine Corps. Perhaps most famous for the "island hopping" defeat of the Japanese Imperial Army , Marines have fought in every major conflict in the nation's history. They continue to serve with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan (I HIGHLY recommend reading 25 Lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan on this site), and they continue to protect our embassies.

Duty at an embassy is not all greeting striped pants diplo-wheenies like me and intimidating visitors, though. Earlier this year I detailed how the Marine Security Guards at the Consulate in Jeddah repelled a terrorist attack and saved countless American and Saudi lives. If you have not read it, you may find it here. Here is an excerpt:

Ambassador Oberwetter: ...the marines were performing heroically just as you would expect them to do. There are many other stories of heroism about the events of yesterday. Heroism by our locally employed staff. Heroism by the marines, and by other American citizens, and heroism by the Saudis who were guarding our gates and took casualties in doing so.

Another loud explosion occurred and over the radio in the Safehaven, we heard Post One say, "Three at the front!" The terrorists let out a spray of bullets against the glass doors, yet unable to get in, they tried to attach an explosive. Post One came back on the radio "terrorist are attaching device to the front door permission to GAS!" The RSO yelled, "GAS, GAS, GAS NOW!" over the radio. Post One activated the gas and the C/S fell right on top of the terrorists who then ran from the front doors. They ran around the chancery shooting into our office windows making it appear they were INSIDE and moving down the hall towards us! At that point, I was ordered to secure the vault door.

The acting commander of the small force of Marines that repelled the attack on our Consulate was awarded a Bronze Star:

Staff Sgt. Michael L. Young, an EA-6B Prowler mechanic staff noncommissioned officer-in-charge with Marine Electronic Warfare Squadron 1, was awarded the Bronze Star with combat distinguishing device, Nov. 1, at Al Asad, Iraq, for his actions Dec. 6, 2004, when he and the three Marines under his command defended the consulate and killed al-Qaeda terrorists.

So, as Marines around the world celebrate the birthday of the Corps tomorrow, please spare a moment to think of them. If you know a Marine, still serving today or long retired, please give him or her my thanks; and should you be so inclined, please include our men and women serving in the Marines (and all of our armed forces) in your prayers this evening.

If you are a Marine, thank you. We might not always acknowledge it, but I damn glad to have you "in the box" when I come in every morning.

Happy Birthday, USMC. Semper Fi.

(Note: I'll be away for the next few days, duty calls. Should be able to post over the weekend. Dr. D)

The Day America Quit

2005-11-07T23:10:00.000-05:00

Note: This is my response to my own blog project/challenge. Responses from other bloggers can be found in the post below this one.

From the 2025 edition of Encyclopedia Online, entered under "The New Caliphate"

The September 11th al Quaeda attacks on The United States were widely hailed as world changing events in their immediate aftermath, but with the distance provided by nearly a quarter century of internecine warfare between the Western, liberal societies and the jihadists bent on establishment of a new Caliphate those attacks are now viewed as part of a larger history.

Most historians agree that war was declared with the taking of the US Embassy in Tehran, in 1979, and that the war escalated with the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut, the suicide bombing of Marine Barracks in Beirut, and the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, all in 1983. The weak response of the United States and the rest of the Western world to these events allowed the Muslim leaders to grow rapidly in power and influence, unmolested.

The 1980's saw a rapid increase in Islamic terrorism: the bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex near Beirut, the hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221 and of TWA Flight 847, and the hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro. This last event led to the murder of Leon Klinghofer, a 69-year-old disabled American tourist. It is believed that the footage of his murder, shown repeatedly, sparked the Islamic jihadist love affair with the media, and vice versa. The bombings continued with the Rome and Vienna airports and the La Belle Discotheque in Berlin. Note for the first time the U.S retaliated after the Berlin bombing, targeting Libya and her leader Muammar el-Qadaffi. As a result of this counter-attack terrorists affiliated with Abu Nidal murdered three American University of Beirut professors.

Such activities continued in the 1990's with al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden moving to the forefront of the terrorist ranks. Major Al-Qaeda attacks began with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. In 1996 Osama bin Laden formally declared war on America and the West, and al Qaeda bombed a U.S. housing complex in Saudi Arabia. This was followed by the 1998 African Embassy bombings, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Then came the 2001 September 11th attacks on U.S. soil. These were followed by the 2002 attacks in Bali and Kenya, among others, and in 2003 attacks in Casablanca and Istanbul. Al Qaeda struck in Madrid in 2004, as well as attacking the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah that same year. In 2005 London became the latest target for OBL and his minions (to view a Flash presentation of al-Qaeda attacks click here).

Throughout much of the time after September 11th U.S. and allied forces pursued al-Qaeda, killing or capturing many of the top echelon leaders, but never managing to capture or verify the death of bin Laden. As a result of having harbored bin Laden and his followers the Islamofascist Taliban government of Afghanistan was toppled and democracy took root in the devastated country, but the War on Terror seemed destined to be long and difficult.

On another front, the US invasion of Iraq, viewed by many as a distraction in the War On Terror, undoubtedly consumed resources that could have been used to hunt bin Laden. The startling swiftness with which Saddam Hussein was toppled after years of taunting the world and flaunting the U.N. sanctions against him, and his ignominious capture, however, boosted the idea that democracy could take hold in the Middle East. This joy was to prove short lived, though. Shortly after Husseins capture the rise of the jihadist insurgency in Iraq, now known to be fueled by Syria and Iran, severely dampened the optimism many Americans felt for the future of Iraq. Anti-war coverage dominated Western media at the time; elections and the subsequent adoption of a Constitution in Iraq were not seen as the marks of progress that they are now recognized to be. The anti-war movement in the United States, driven by the far left but attracting adherents from across the spectrum of American society, fueled by the intensely anti-George Bush media and fronted by various demagogues, was relentless in it's call to "bring the troops home."

As President Bush entered the middle of his second term, political pressure to do just that mounted drastically and the President was forced by members of both political parties, especially a powerful few in his own party seeking to boost their profile in an election year, to do just that. On Christmas Day, 2005 the President announced that the "coalition of the willing" would immediately begin to withdraw from Iraq, with full turnover to be completed by Easter 2006, despite protestations from the Iraqi government that they were not yet strong enough to defend their democracy against Islamic jihad. While many on the American Right and several allies, including Australia, agreed that Iraq was not yet safe from the threat posed by the terrorist insurgents the American Left and the media were ecstatic in their "victory" over the President. Several high ranking military leaders and at least two mid-ranking diplomats resigned over the withdrawal, but the plan was put into action immediately.

These events took place against the backdrop of the Muslim uprising in Europe, which began in France and spread across the EU as Fall turned into Winter in 2005. At the time these uprising, termed "riots" were not recognized for what they were- a clear indication that Islam was on the march in Europe again, after having been defeated over seven centuries before.

With U.S. troops no longer in Iraq al-Qaeda was able to use the relatively open society of the still fragile democracy to infiltrate more would be jihadis, reestablishing training camps, targeting police and elected officials for assassination, and freeing trained terrorists for their next move- the envelopment of Europe.

Turkey, having long been rejected by the EU, experienced a sudden, massively violent return to militant Islam. Many young Turks, stung by failure of the EU to accept their nation and encouraged by the lack or response to the "riots" in France, Denmark, Belgium and other countries, flocked to the Islamofascist crescent, and the land in which the last Caliphate met it's end became the cradle of the next. The Turkish Republic was destroyed, and a new Islamic Republic declared, this time on Continental Europe. Many moderate or Westernized Turkish Muslims were imprisoned, tortured or simply executed as the radical progeny of the Taliban took control of the nation. A lucky few were able to flee, ironically to Israel as no Muslim nation would accept them.

Muslims across Europe were called to arms once again, and the "riots" of 2005 paled by comparison to the wave of terrorism that swept Europe in mid 2006. European nations declared martial law in rapid succession, but it was too late. The Muslim insurgents were already to well embedded into the fabric of the EU nations, and generations of gun control law left the citizenry of every nation apart from Switzerland (where the insurgency was rapidly crushed) unarmed and unable to defend itself.

European leaders turned to the U.N. and the United States for military aid, but the United States, still stung by the tragic failure of Iraq after coming so close to bringing freedom to the Iraqi people, deferred to the U.N. A resolution to send peace keeping troops into the EU was vetoed by permanent security council member China, supported by Argentina.

While there are still flare ups of violence along the tense borders of the Muslim city-states that now exist within Europe, peace has once again settled over the EU. France is reported to have shipped al of her nuclear weapons to Quebec, Canada for safekeeping, although Muslim unrest in that nation and the recent adoption of Sharia principles into public law lead many to believe that the weapons will not be safe for long, if indeed they are there.

Former President George W. Bush has remarked, publicly, that the early withdrawal from Iraq was the catalyst for the events that have transpired in Europe, and the Middle East, and that he views the Christmas decision the greatest failure of his Presidency. A former Secretary of State is rumored to have referred to Christmas 2005 as "the day America quit."

The New Caliphate, now based in Baghdad, has continued to issue veiled threats to the existence of Israel, all the while maintaining that Islam truly is the religion of peace.

Bring the troops home now!

2005-11-07T18:52:00.000-05:00

How many times have you heard that refrain? Probably more than I have- being outside the U.S. does have certain advantages at times, and being far from Moonbat Central is one of them. What if President Bush decided, tomorrow, to give those who oppose the war exactly what they wanted, and he ordered our troops out of Iraq tomorrow. What would happen, what would be the consequences? That is the question I asked in my blogiversary project/challenge, and while I may have fallen behind in preparing my own answer (I'm going to try to post it later tonight) the same cannot be said of those who I invited to take up the question.

- Toni, over at The View From Tonka was the first to answer the call- she starts off strong and keeps on going- don't miss this one:

We've all seen what has been occurring in France over the last 12 days. Doesn't look pretty does it. Did France's anti-war stance help them at all with the Muslim citizens of it's country? I don't think so, pandering to a specific ethnic group accomplishes nothing for a politician.

This is what the anti-war left wants, to pander to Islamic Facists under the the guise of being either anti-war or their other mantra is to support the troops by bringing them home. Knowing that the anti-war left is mostly comprised of Socialist and Communist party members this slogan is absurd. What the anti-war left does support are murdering dictators and totalitarian regimes. The protesting of Code-Pink outside of Walter Reed Hospital demonstrates the shameful behavior of this group. All these groups want to do is use our Troops to advance their own causes.

- Marc Schulman at American Future has once again hit one out of the park with Iraq: Thrill of Victory, Agony of Defeat in which he envisions the President announcing our withdrawal in the State of the Union Address. The course he plots is chilling for the ease with whixh it could come to pass:

Faced with this clamor and fearful of losing control of Congress, Bush used his January 2006 State of the Union address to announce a change of course:

We have achieved our goals in Iraq. Last month, more than ten million Iraqis refused to be intimidated by the terrorists. Because of their bravery, Iraq now has a democratically-elected permanent government that will serve as a beacon of light for the oppressed peoples of the Middle East.

We have always said that our military would not stay in Iraq a day longer than necessary. With the establishment of a permanent government, that day has arrived. Before entering this Chamber, I signed an Executive Order establishing September 30 of this year as the last day that the United States will have military forces in Iraq.

(Standing ovation)

- We have a new entrant into this project- Gollios (a frequent contributor of e-mail info for me) who has sent me the following to be posted. Like Toni he draws a Vietnam comparison, but in contrast to Marc he predicts more casualties, not fewer, if we announce a withdrawal, and he expands the circle of nations influenced by a coalition withdrawal to include China. This is a long post, so I am hosting it at My Blog is Your Blog. Here is a great excerpt (please leave comments on this blog, not MBIB :

...Despite good-faith efforts by elements of the coalition-trained Iraqi army & central government, the regions would start to unravel. The Kurds, knowing that they can neither count on our support or respect restraints imposed by the US, would accelerate ethnic cleansing efforts aimed at eventual secession. Iran would be emboldened to act in the South, which possibly could lead to a Shia-Shia schism, making that area of the country progressively less governable. Some like to think of the Shia as monolithic--however the Arab/Persian divide would once again be thrust to the forefront, as would divisions between Sadrist and Al-Sistani backed militias. The big losers in some ways would be the Sunni. Without engagement by the U.S., Shia and Kurdish forces would not have to act with restraint...and quickly the Sunni-nationalists would find themselves overrun--and often slaughtered by their erstwhile Jihadist 'allies.'

- There is more to come on this topic, including a post by yours truly. Feel free to offer up your scenario, on your own blog, at My Blog is Your Blog or by e-mail to me- and don't forget the comments! All you readers of the Beltway Traffic Jam- I'm talking to you!

Dr. D

(End of post, for now.)

"It's like Baghdad here! It's the Apocalypse!"

2005-11-06T18:04:00.000-05:00

I was going to post my "What If We Withdrew From Iraq Today" essay this afternoon, but in light of the continuing situation in France I am still working on that particular post. While not directly related, I can see some parallels between the two, and am still trying to tease them out, so hopefully that post will come tomorrow. I am not the only one making these connections, either- at least some of the rioters in France are fully aware of the similarities.

Despite my cheap shot at the French government (below), this is no laughing matter. After how many days does rioting become civil war? At what point do the French people say "enough is enough" and either demand action from the government in the form of reactive violence, or simply take to the streets themselves in search of justice? Mark Steyn (see the link above) has, as usual captured the essence of this situation perfectly:

Battles are very straightforward: Side A wins, Side B loses. But the French government is way beyond anything so clarifying. Today, a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman. They're in Brussels, where Belgian police officers are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan, and in Malmo, where Swedish ambulance drivers will not go without police escort. It's way too late to rerun the Battle of Poitiers. In the no-go suburbs, even before these current riots, 9,000 police cars had been stoned by ''French youths'' since the beginning of the year; some three dozen cars are set alight even on a quiet night. ''There's a civil war under way in Clichy-sous-Bois at the moment,'' said Michel Thooris of the gendarmes' trade union Action Police CFTC. ''We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.''

The response of the French government, lead by Jacques Chirac has been weak, at best. Finally, after 11 days, Chirac has made a public statement:

"The law must have the last word," Chirac said in his first public address on the violence. Those sowing "violence or fear" will be "arrested, judged and punished."

What Chirac seems to have failed to understand is that it is too late to make threats of arrest and punishment. The liberal left, the appeasers on both sides and the media have all been careful to tread lightly around this situation, but the discovery of a bomb factory and the spread of violence into rural France seems to indicate that the "angry youths" have no intention of ending their rampage anytime soon.

What are we to take away from this? France has done much to ingratiate itself to Muslims- they opposed the Iraq invasion, and have largely distanced themselves from the war on terror. Large numbers of immigrants have been welcomed into the country- many of them Muslim (France is home to the largest Muslim population in Europe), and yet clearly the French are not immune to Muslim rage. I am not claiming that 100% of the rioters are Muslim, but consider the reports of rioters shouting "God is Great" in Arabic and that 80% of the population of Clichy, where the riots began, is Muslim.

Until today the riots had largely been about the destruction of property and symbols of the state, with the notable exception of a woman on crutches who was doused with gasoline and set afire. French news is now reporting, however, that 30 police officers in Grigny have been injured in clashes with rioters, including two with serious gunshot wounds. How long will it be before these clashes become more frequent, or before the disaffected gangs turn their ire towards the French people themselves? How long before one torched building is found to be full of bodies? And when this does happen, what will the reaction be?

Faced with these questions I have to ask myself, what do the rioters want, really? Is this really about racism, or unemployment? Why is it that these same folks, recent immigrants to a large extent, did not rise up in their home lands? Why did they not agitate for change in the places they fled? This pattern of flee from a homeland without promise to a liberal Western land, and then demand that this land accept you and your ways without compromise, has repeated itself across Europe in recent decades.

Francis Fukuyama touched on this last week in his op-ed A Year of Living Dangerously: Remember Theo van Gogh, and shudder for the future:

The real challenge for democracy lies in Europe, where the problem is an internal one of integrating large numbers of angry young Muslims and doing so in a way that does not provoke an even angrier backlash from right-wing populists. Two things need to happen: First, countries like Holland and Britain need to reverse the counterproductive multiculturalist policies that sheltered radicalism, and crack down on extremists. But second, they also need to reformulate their definitions of national identity to be more accepting of people from non-Western backgrounds.

I find this passage profoundly disturbing. Who in their right mind wants to integrate "large numbers of angry young Muslims" into their community? To what end? Fukuyama fears a backlash from the right, but does not fear "large numbers of angry young Muslims"? I see no reason why any nation should alter its sense of national identity to accommodate recent immigrants. Equal treatment under the law for all is a given. From that base it is up to each society to choose what to adopt and what to marginalize. Any culture that chooses to transplant itself into the center of another must prove that what it has to offer is worthwhile, if it wishes to be accepted by the greater majority. The simple fact is that all cultures are not equal. Just because something is considered to have cultural value in one place does not mean it is valid in another.

If there really is a vast silent majority of peaceful Muslims in Europe then it is time for them to rise up as well. It is time for those who have "integrated" to drown out the violence and the voices of those who refuse to do so. It is time for France and the rest of the E.U. to worry less about the threat posed to their cultures by Hollywood and for them to worry more about the threat posed by their own policies, and the radical elements within their borders.

These riots may yet be put down without serious loss of life, but they are a glimpse of the future that awaits Europe. The youth who shouted out the phrase that is the title of this piece is sorely mistaken. Baghdad is on its way to recovery- Europe is on the slippery path to suicide by appeasement.

My blogiversary project.

2005-11-04T19:36:00.000-05:00

It is almost our one year blogiversary here at The Daily Demarche, and I figured what better way to celebrate than with another group blog project. You may recall that we first organized one on the topic of "What if We Had Never Invaded Iraq" and then another called "The China Syndrome: 2015 and beyond" (that one ran to several editions).

Well, it is time to put on your speculating caps again, ladies and gentlemen. This time I propose another Iraq related topic: what if we brought the troops home tomorrow, as those who oppose the war clamor for? What would the future of Iraq, the Middle East and the United States look like?

I sent invites out to those bloggers who have participated in the past (those I have good e-mail addresses for, anyway), and any others who send us e-mail and are now on "the list." I am now tossing it out to all of you, too. I'll be glad to host guest pieces for the non-bloggers who want to contribute, and My Blog is Your Blog (a project of mine that never really took off) is always at your disposal.

I am aiming for a Sunday/Monday post date for my offering, to allow time to work on it and to coordinate with any others who are interested, but any post any time after Sunday is welcome. Feel free to twist or run with the theme- the more variations the better. Let me know if you are interested, and if you do post on this theme be sure to send me an e-mail or a trackback so I can link to you.

Cheers, Dr. D

Oh, to be a fly on the wall.

2005-11-04T19:10:00.000-05:00

This might be wrong, but man can I just hear this in my head:

Ring, ring, ring.

Good evening, White House switch board.

(insert French accent) 'ello? Kin I spek wit Jeorge?

I am sorry sir, who are you trying to reach?

Jeorge, Jeorge Bush! The President.

I am sorry sir, he is not available, would like you like to leave a message?

This is Jacques Chirac, I am the President of la Republique Francaise, and I demand to spek to the President!

Um, sir, he really is not available- he is in Argentina.

Sacre bleu! Hokay, I will spek wit Sheney.

Please hold, sir.

(pleasant music)

Um, sir, he said he has nothing to say to you.

But, but, ee must spek wit me! I want eem to send the soldjers, again. Paree, she is burning.

Please hold, sir.

(pleasant music)

Sir, he told me to tell you that you will have to get the UN's permission to send troops in, and that you are exaggerating- Paris is not burning, the suburbs of Paris are burning, and the United States will not commit troops based on your faulty information.

But, but, ...

Thank you for calling the White House, sir. Good Night.

Click.

(end of my Ally McBeal moment)

"The City of Lights"- did they mean burning cars?

2005-11-03T22:12:00.000-05:00

Foks, I had a bad day today. That means I need to let off some steam. Lucky for me, we'll always have Paris. The phrase "the city of lights" has taken on a new meaning as riots in the heavily immigrant populated suburbs of Paris continue this week- burning cars expose the truth behind the reality of immigration in Europe. Now, I know this supposedly started with the tragic deaths of two young men, and my heart goes out to their families. But seven, seven! days of riots? One would hope, at least, that there is a lesson in all of this.

Of course there is: Muslims are discriminated against. The Beeb has a nice piece out titled French Muslims face job discrimination. Here is my favorite part:

Sadek recently quit his job delivering groceries near Saint-Denis, just north of Paris. He was tired of climbing stairs with heavy bags.

Sadek, 31, has a secondary school education and aspires to something better. But he knows his options are limited: "With a name like mine, I can't have a sales job."

Okay- he had a job. It was hard. He didn't like it. He quit. Now he is unemployed. No, now he is unemployed- and we should feel sorry for him. I am going to type this next part slowly so that everyone can follow along:

He had a job. He quit. Now he is unemployed.

That is not discrimination. It is stupidity, it is laziness, it is weak and shallow. He is playing the race card, period. Lots of people have tough jobs. Work, save, learn and get a better job. That is the fundamental key around the world to success. The article complains about integration and what it means to be French. I almost hate to do this- it seems to easy, but here it is:

Sadek has learned how to be French. He is the perfect Frenchman. The path ahead is tough- and he quit. Fight the Nazis? Non, too hard. Carry groceries up stairs? Merde! J'ai stoppé!

Even better- later in the same article the Beep waxes philosphic regarding access to education:

Of course, youths from poor suburbs need more than an education - they need jobs.

Um, Sadek had a job. He quit, remember?

More from the Beeb: Headscarf defeat riles French Muslims . Now, I think the whole headscarf ban in asinine, but again, it's the French. I grew up in an area with early summer temperatures in the high 90's and humidity to match. Girls could wear skirts or skorts to school- boys had to wear long pants. Why? Beats me, to this day. We were pissed, I can tell you! It was really unfair. So we rioted for 7 days and burned 177 cars. Actually, two guys wore skirts to school, got three Saturday detentions and the rest us just sweat into our Levis. But as our British journalist pals put it:

French Muslims marched against a move that many condemned as intolerant.

You might recall that thousands of of French Muslims condemned September 11th, packingthe Champs Elysee. Or that they thronged to the Eifel Tower when the Bali bombings occured. Or maybe you remember the moving footage of the tiny paper lanterns the Muslims of France floated down the River Seine after the Madrid bombings. Oh, you don't recall that? Sorry, I forgot- those things never happened. See, they only want to be tolerated, not to tolerate others.

So what is the French government going to do about it? I'll give you three guesses.

Ministers are hoping that a mix of factors - worsening weather, the return to classes after half term and the end of Ramadan - will combine soon to bring the wave of copy-cat riots to a halt, but there is deep pessimism about the future. The banlieues have been the scene of regular outbreaks of riots for more than 15 years now - and though each peters out eventually, the next round is always worse.

Right! They are going to hope it rains and that classes start again soon and the kids will get bored, besides a week of rioting with nothing to eat during the day really takes a toll on one. That oughtta work.

But take heart, there are some cool heads out there- this might be the best quote I have seen regarding immigration and the riots:

...local human rights organizations - rather than condemning the rioters as autonomous individuals who made bad choices - instead blame the French government for the riots, saying that an official's rhetoric about ridding the suburbs of crime "provoked" them. (Such explanations are never offered when white people engage in violence, quite rightly).

The unmistakable implication is that political rhetoric can easily provoke violence and mayhem from immigrants. If true, that seems an argument for ending immigration, not for accommodating every whim of a group that might erupt into violence otherwise. In fact, however, even outraged immigrants are perfectly capable of reining in their emotions and using their logic to formulate a civilized response even to legitimate injustices.

Of course in the days that follow we will be bombarded with talk of the "root causes" of the riots, the Interior Minister will be blamed, it will all be because France did not integrate its immigrant population. But rest assured, it won't have anything to do with "The "M" Word."

Meanwhile, the EU will have to brace to ask itself the tough question: is The future of Europe: Islamophobia? Funny, I always thought a phobia was some sort of baseless or irrational fear. Just keep telling yourselves, Europe, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Oh, and Muslim extremism.

RoP Linkfest.

2005-11-02T19:30:00.000-05:00

Our readers frequently send us a "heads up" on some of the breaking news out there, for which we are very thankful. There is so much going on in hte world, however, that we simply can't cover it all- family, work and other demands on our time restrict the amount of news we can cover. So I asked on of our regulars, Ron, if he would put together a linkfest on a topic that he covers very well- the so-called "Religion of Peace." Here is what he came up with on short notice, plus a few others that he has sent in lately- and her promised more to come.

1. When a kid gets caught stealing bread, the Glory of Shari'a is invoked. (Note: the text is in German and the photos are a bit disturbing, no blood, but it ain't pretty.)

2. The Religion of Peace, Tolerance & Diversity loves its children so much, they strap bombs to 10 year-olds.

3. None dare 'insult' Islam.

4. Royal airhead to plead Islam's cause to Dubya: (and explain how 7/7 was just a figment of everyone's imagination?).

5. G'day, mate! We must respect wife-beating and 'honor' killings.

6. Church-state debate revived by call for mosque funding.

7. Dutch Liberals block ban on glorifying terror.

8. Saudi bonus for former Gitmo inmates.

9. Terror groupstarget SharonQassam rockets aimed at ranch,'every Jew' must leave 'Palestine'.

10. Palestinian TV: Jews murder Arab brides in cold blood.

11. War in France, War in Denmark.

12. Jews and Freemasons controlled war on Iraq, says No 10 adviser.

and to make it a bakerss dozen:

13. Piggy banks 'offend UK Muslims'

Thanks for keeping us up to date, Ron, and for taking the time to put this together.

Got a topic that you are passionate about, and that we haven't covered, or that we missed an angle on? Send us a linkfest!

(End of post.)

Iraq is a quagmire, Kosovo is messy?

2005-11-01T21:52:00.000-05:00

Sorry one and all for that brief unannounced absence, last minute travel is occasionally part of the gig. Here are a few things that I did not have a chance to post on:

First, I am very disheartened to write about the apparent demise of New Sisyphus. It appears that the evil insurgents of the internet, spammers, have rendered his site inoperable. I say "apparent demise" because a few tech options have been offered to him, and he is of course always welcome to post with us. Let's hope this works out for the best, I'd hate to see him go.

The "Paper of Record", late last week, ran an editorial entitled "Kosovo, Still Messy After All These Years" lamenting the failure of the U.N. efforts there to produce a lasting peace with real results. What I love about this piece is that when the U.N. is involved and six years have passed and there is nothing to show for it the results are "messy." When George Bush frees Iraq, successful elections are held and a constitution is overwhelmingly approved (and underwhelmigly reported) in a fraction of that time, the result is a "quagmire." Just for giggles I searched for "quagmire+Iraq" on the times web site and got 271 hits. "Kosovo+quagmire" returned 42 hits, at least seven of which also contained the word Iraq. I stopped counting after that. Why beat a dead horse?

It's not all bad news from that region, though- in Macedonia's Journey Vlado Buckovski, prime minister of that country, one finds words that are few and far apart these days:

While Macedonians deserve the credit for the difficult reforms we have undertaken, we would not have come so far or so fast were it not for the support of the United States. In our part of Europe, we know first hand the value of American leadership and the necessity of backing diplomacy with military power. We appreciate American support for our process of reconciliation and reform.

The Prime Minister also says:

We are proud to stand side by side with America and its coalition partners in Iraq and with NATO in Afghanistan as part of our commitment to face the new threats of the 21st century with our allies.

To which I say: we are proud to have you stand beside us, sir. May your country and it's brave people continue to prosper.

Speaking of good news, National Review Online opens the month with Progress Reports: Balancing some of the Iraq-news scales. One rarely hears any good news from Iraq, such is the MSM fetish with all things negative. I had access to the Armed Forces Network, the military satellite TV system. This group of channels has no paid advertising, and features many "soldiers on the spot" type reports. Our family and friends who visited were always astonished to see footage of soldiers and Marines handing out toys, aiding women and children, building schools and hospitals or just speaking with Iraqis who did not cower in fear or try to kill the hated Americans on site. They simply had no idea that for most troops, most of the time, violence was a rare thing. NRO plans to continue reporting the good news all week. I say, why stop then? Why aren't we demanding the truth from our media, or at least some semblance thereof? As Capt. Todd Lindner put it in response to the question "are we getting it right" (the media coverage) when he appeared on CNN:

LINDNER: ..we did watch the news when we were back in Baghdad, and we had AFN, and we were able to watch CNN, but I don't know that they always had it right, and I don't know that it's anybody's fault, but for us, we understood our purpose for being there, and we just wanted to make a difference and have an impact, and we definitely did that. But it is kind of disheartening sometimes to see everything focused on just the, the death and destruction and the IED strikes and not focused on how well the U.S. and coalition forces are doing building up the Iraqi police services and the Iraqi army. It really is a tremendous effort being put into that infrastructure and building a self-sufficient government over there. And they're absolutely making progress.

For more on Captain Lindner see here, and to see why the feminist left ought to love him for this quote "Capt. Todd Lindner, who commands the 617th Military Police Company, which includes Raven 42, said Hester and Pullen "shouldn't be held up as showpieces for why there should be women in combat. They should be held up as examples of why it's irrelevant." see here (some, at least, have noticed).

Captain Lindner, thank you. Fear not, for your efforts have not gone unnoticed, just unreported by the MSM. Even in the heart of the liberal left, people know. As evidence I offer you this quote, from the Colorado State student newspaper:

Other fronts in the war on terror include the ever-controversial Operation Iraqi Freedom. Whether or not they were linked to 9/11, Iraq had been involved with terrorist organizations and the creation of weapons of mass destruction for decades. If you don't believe me, I have some more people you can ask, like the 5,000 or so Kurds and countless Kuwaitis who were killed by Saddam using poison gas in 1988. According to MSNBC.com Saddam showed great remorse when he referred to these Kuwaitis as "dogs" just last week in court. Oh, and if poisonous gas does not count as a weapon of mass destruction, then I don't know what does.

Outside of the removal of an evil dictator from power, Operation Iraqi Freedom has also seen the vast improvement of Iraq's infrastructure including water and electrical systems, roads, and schools. The health care budget has been increased from $16 million in 2002 under Saddam to $950 million today. Another change that has been made in Iraq, that I'm sure is dear to the heart of every employee here at the Collegian, is the establishment of free press, which had been banned for decades.

Just two weeks ago, Iraqis also voted on a new constitution, proving to the world yet again that a peaceful democratic Iraq is not too lofty of a goal. Iraq, along with Afghanistan will set an example for the rest of the tumultuous Middle East in the years to come.

Iraq and Afghanistan will set an example, as Macedonia already has, and in it's own sad way has Kosovo. And it will be thanks to men like Captain Lindner and the men and women he commanded and served with, along with the brave people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Macedonia. I only hope that the efforts of the people who fought and died in Kosovo, and who continue to struggle against the inept efforts of the occupying U.N. meet with equal success.

The old one, two combo.

2005-10-27T20:56:00.000-04:00

I feel pretty safe in saying that Americans in general tend be fairly isolationist in their thinking, that is, we just don't think about the rest of the world on a regular basis. Part of that is physical isolation- America is a huge country, and for most residents of the U.S. another country is pretty darned far away. A second reason is largely emotional- our experiences with the world have been less than ideal, as a nation. The first time massive numbers of Americans went out into the world was World War I, the second was World War II. Perhaps for a while after the second World War we thought we had made some friends out there, you know the countries we had bled and died for twice in less than thirty years, but I guess we learned the hard way not to count on those "friends in need, friends indeed."

For all that we don't get out much, however, we (as individuals) are pretty much always ready to welcome the rest of the world to visit- every bad teenage movie has a "foreign exchange student", and the idea of someone visiting from a faraway place and then taking a positive image of America home with them is an enduring one. The Fulbright Program, sponsored by the Department of State, is one of the most successful of these exchange programs:

The Fulbright U.S. Student Program is now the largest U.S. exchange program offering opportunities for students, and young professionals to undertake international graduate study, advanced research, university teaching, and teaching in elementary and secondary schools worldwide. The U.S. Student Program currently awards approximately 1,100 grants annually in all fields of study, and operates in more than 140 countries worldwide.

The foreign students who participate in the Fulbright program get an up-close and personal look at the U.S., they experience first hand the everyday "cultural diplomacy" that is only possible by complete immersion. Then they go home, and some of them apply what they have learned in America- namely, don't be shy and tell us what you really think. For an excellent example, see the group of Fulbright alum over at Atlantic Review, one of my favorite blogs from Old Europe:

...we believe that our website contributes to mutual understanding by informing our German readers of ongoing debates in the US that are not sufficiently covered in the German media and vice versa. The information in the Atlantic Review can help our readers not only to stay well informed about German, EU- and US foreign policies and transatlantic relations, but also to confront anti-American sentiments in Germany as well as Anti-German/Anti-European sentiments in the US. The Atlantic Review lays the ground for deeper understanding and insightful discussion.

Recently Joerg and Sitzpinkeln and Warmduscher (I am not sure which two they are) have been haunting the comment section on this blog, and today Sitzpinkeln threw down the gauntlet, both in the comments and in the trackbacks. He certainly knows his target audience- in one post he tracked back to he leads with this quote:

There's no serious disagreement that two major crises of our time are terrorism and global warming. And there's no disputing that America's oil consumption fosters both. Oil profits that flow to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries finance both terrorist acts and the spread of dangerously fanatical forms of Islam. The burning of fossil fuels creates greenhouse emissions that provoke climate change. All the while, oil dependency increases the likelihood of further military entanglements, and threatens the economy with inflation, high interest rates and risky foreign indebtedness.

Umm, I am pretty certain there is a lot of serious disagreement on those two issues, and I would think anyone reading this page would interpret "America's oil consumption fosters both" as "so there, you had it coming." Oh, that quote, by the way, if from the NY Times owned International Herald Tribune.

While the above passage seems fine tuned in order to drive folks who think like me nuts, the second trackback finds common ground- the threat posed by Saudi funded Wahhabism. He even goes so far as to drag our friend Marc Schulman over at American Future into it:

dozens of mosques in major cities across America are distributing documents, bearing the seal of the government of Saudi Arabia, that incite Muslims to acts of violence and promote hatred of Jews and Christians.

This post on Atlantic Review is one of the best I have read when it comes to policy issues, oil dependence and terrorism, linking to a wide array of greatly varied sources.

Now Sitzpinkeln wants some feedback from the readers of The Daily Demarche. If I know anything about the frequent commenters here, it is this: no one ever backs down from a great debate, even when it gets a little heated. So go ahead and give them your best shot, after the one-two they delivered here today, I hope some of you will take them up on the challenge. If you do please paste your comments in here too, so that we can all keep up on what is happening.

Chained to a fence? Consider this:

2005-10-26T21:01:00.000-04:00

I'd like to start today's post with a promise- after today you will never read the name Cindy Sheehan on this blog again- I may be forced to allude to her from time to time, especially if she does something really asinine, but it won't be by name. In fact, I'd welcome your suggestions for a good nom- de guerre for her. In the meantime I'll just use her initials CS, which if I am not mistaken, are also the initials for a type of tear gas.

After reading the site linked to in the last sentence I have come to think that both versions of CS have a lot in common:

Tear gas that you hear about on the news, in the form of CN or CS, is often used by law enforcement when they are faced with a combative crowd. The tear gas is launched in the form of grenades or aerosol cans so that the liquid becomes an aerosol. Both CN and CS are irritants -- they irritate mucous membranes in the eyes, nose, mouth and lungs, and cause tearing, sneezing, coughing, etc.

Try it like this:

Cindy Sheehan, that you hear about on the news, in the form of CNN or CBS, is often used by the left wing when they are faced with a combative crowd. Cindy Sheehan is launched in the form of sound bites or video clips so that the message becomes airborne. Both CNN and CBS are irritants -- they irritate mucous membranes in the eyes, nose, mouth and lungs, and cause tearing, sneezing, coughing, etc.

Apparently one should deal with our pal CS in much the same one would deal with tear gas:

If possible stand upwind...
The best treatments are air, cold water and time.

Okay, I think I have carried that as far as it can go. In all honesty we on the right owe CS a round of applause today, as she has already started doing what the left had proven to do so well in recent years: attacking it's own candidates:

"I believe that any candidate who supports the war should not receive our support," Sheehan said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "It doesn't matter if they're Senator Clinton or whoever."

[snip]

"I believe Mrs. Clinton is a brilliant woman who has a lot on the ball, but to characterize her as one of the leading liberals in Congress is absolutely false," Sheehan said. "With her position as a senator she's become more `let's see which way the wind blows, and what's going to get me re-elected or elected, or how am I going to benefit from this,' instead of truly voting from her integrity."

I can't believe that she was able to say that any Clinton has become the type that is governed by "which way the wind blows"- where the hell was she the eight years Hillary was President? As for voting from her integrity- well, I won't even bother to touch that gem. Too easy.

So, thanks for that at least CS. And thanks too, I suppose for your service as the front for the anti-Bush left. William Arkin in today's WaPO, put it perfectly: Cindy Sheehan. Could there be a more ineffective anti-war voice?

My problem with Mrs. Sheehan is that as a political voice, she is disempowering, and she has no solutions. In condemning the Bush administration, Sheehan seems utterly uninterested in either their thinking or the possibility that there were genuine and unpremeditated missteps that led us to where we are today. In short, she insists on characterizing the political battle over the Iraq war as merely a battle of good (her and her anti-war forces) versus evil (Bush).

It is the same shallow approach that George Bush uses when it comes to terrorism.

I can only wish I had been a fly on the wall when CS and rabble that are shamelessly using her first heard the likening of their icon to George W. Bush. It must have been classic.

A challenge, then to CS and friends- prove to us that you are not shallow, and that you do have answers and not just slogans- answer, if you can, this question:

The question, left unasked, and unconsidered by editorial pages is whether it would have been better to wait a few years, until Iraq really did have WMD, or to actually enforce the myriad of U.N. Resolutions and carry out a previously established U.S. Policy.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer, though.

Go ahead and chain yourself to the fence of the White House, CS, enjoy the freedom you have to express your displeasure, and the liberty to oppose the government. While you are chained up, in the few moments you have between interviews, think about this:

All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn't tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen."

"This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us."

"Amer's wife didn't lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer's throat."

and this:

US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.

The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.

Still chained to that fence? Here is some more food for thought:

Official Iraqi documents recovered after the fall of Saddam regime suggest a staggering 5 million executions were made during Bath era alone. Over 10 million were also imprisoned. They were all Shias save a small percentage of Kurds. It is also very interesting to note that after the 1991 Shia uprising over 300,000 were killed or captured never to be seen again, but there were no injured. This is very odd considering the logical fact that wars result in many more injuries than deaths. Under Saddam, however, people were either killed instantly or killed in mass executions soon after. With slogans such as 'After today no more Shias' the army had advanced into the city of Karbala. The killed were killed, the captured were killed, and the injured were killed as well. No one was spared.

Finally, CS- if you still have not had your addiction "fixed" for the day and here is a little quiz you can give to your friends while you celebrate the death of another American hero. (thanks to Cold Fury for the tip.) A sample question:

Who says that corporations are “terrorists” and has said “I don’t own a single share of stock” but secretly owns shares in Pentagon contractors like Boeing, pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, and even Halliburton?
a. Barney Frank
b. Gloria Steinem
c. Michael Moore
Answer: C. Michael Moore. According to IRS records, Moore owns at least several hundred
thousands of dollars in stock and has a broker, even though he has repeatedly claimed he doesn’t “own a single share of stock.”

That has to sting too. For what it is worth, I am srry that your son was killed Cindy, and I am sorry that 1,999 other sons were killed as well, just as I am sorry that countless tens of thousands were killed under Saddam. I am not sorry, though, that we are putting an end to it.

Good bye, Cindy Sheehan, God bless.

For Cindy and Michael.

2005-10-25T19:10:00.000-04:00

Staff Sgt. George Alexander died recently of wounds suffered in Iraq, becoming the 2,000th U.S. service member to die in that conflict. To his family, friends and comrades in arms we offer our prayers and deepest sympathies.

May our friends, the loyal opposition on the American left, allow his family time to mourn before they begin to attempt to capitalize on his sacrifice. Cindy, Michael- I am talking to you.

(End of post.)

"Imagine You're a Woman"

2005-10-24T20:32:00.000-04:00

Late last month Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes waded into the thick America's struggle for hearts and minds by taking a whirlwind tour of the Middle East. Not many people judged her effort to be a success- she took a pretty sound beating in the press for everything from the groups she met with to the topics she addressed. One of the most controversial (at least in the American press) topics she chose to use to illustrate the second-class citizen status of many females in the Muslim world is the ban on women driving in the Kingdom of the House of Saud. Her audience of hundreds of Saudi women, and a few men, reacted coolly, and Hughes was accused at home and abroad of not knowing what she was talking about, and not knowing to whom she was talking.

Never mind that the women who met with Hughes were most likely not chosen at random, or representative of the general population, or that there were men in the room (even the San Francisco Gate notes how odd that it). Anyone want to bet that the men who attended were not charter members of the Saudi Men for Women's Rights club?

No, forget all of that. Because today MEMRI brings us the words of Badriyya Al-Bishr. Al-Bishr is "a lecturer in social sciences at King Saud University" who "recently published an article titled "Imagine You're a Woman" in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat" (excerpts by MEMRI):

"Imagine you're a woman. When your brother is born, people say: 'It's a boy, how wonderful,' and when you are born they say: 'How wonderful, it's a little girl' , using the diminutive form. Your arrival is welcome if [you are] the first or second girl, but it's best if there are no more than two, so that nothing undesirable happens to the mother. On the other hand, your brothers' arrivals are welcomed, the more the merrier.

"Imagine you're a woman. You always need your guardian's approval, not only regarding your first marriage, as maintained by the Islamic legal scholars, but regarding each and every matter. You cannot study without your guardian's approval, even if you reach a doctorate level. You cannot get a job and earn a living without your guardian's approval. Moreover, there are people who are not ashamed to say that a woman must have permission to work even in the private sector.

"Imagine you're a woman, and the guardian who must accompany you wherever [you go] is your 15-year-old son or your brother, who scratches his chin before giving his approval, saying: 'What do you think, guys, should I give her my permission?' Sometimes he asks for... a bribe [in return], heaven forbid! [But] your brother avoids taking such a bribe in 'cash' because his self-respect prevents him from touching a woman's money. So he prefers the bribe to be a car, a fridge, or an assurance of money that you will pay in installments [for him], until Allah gets him out of his financial straits...

"Imagine you're a woman, and you are subject to assault, beatings, or murder. When the press publishes your photo [together with] the photo of the criminals and [descriptions] of their brutality, there are people who ask: 'Was the victim covered [by a veil] or not?' If she was covered up, [the question arises:] 'Who let her go out of the house at such an hour?' In the event that your husband is the one who broke your ribs, [people will say] that no doubt there was good reason for it.

"Imagine you're a woman whose husband breaks her nose, arm, or leg, and you go to the Qadi to lodge a complaint. When the Qadi asks you about your complaint, and you say, 'He beat me,' he responds reproachfully 'That's all?!' In other words, [for the Qadi], beating is a technical situation that exists among all couples and lovers, [as the saying goes]: 'Beating the beloved is like eating raisins.'

"Imagine you're a woman, and in order to manage your affairs you must ride in a 'limousine' with an Indian or Sri Lankan driver... or that you [must] wait for a younger brother to take you to work, or that you [must] bring a man who will learn to drive in your car, and will practice at your expense... because you yourself are not permitted to drive.

"Imagine you're a woman in the 21st century, and you see fatwas [issued] by some contemporary experts in Islamic law dealing with the rules regarding taking the women of the enemy prisoner and having sexual intercourse with them. Moreover, you find someone issuing a fatwa about the rules of taking the women of the enemy prisoner even in times of peace, and you don't know to which enemy women it refers.

"Imagine you're a woman who writes in a newspaper, and every time you write about your [women's] concerns, problems, poverty, unemployment, and legal status, they say about you: 'Never mind her, it's all women's talk.'"

Not surprisingly this item has not been picked up in the mainstream press. A Google News search returned only the MEMRI article, and a Google Web Search turns up only one other article by this author- on OurJerusalem.com, also via MEMRI, of course. This earlier piece discusses the terrorist need for "family" and the mistreatment of women and children within these "families."

The reason these pieces exist on the fringes of the Internet is that the MSM and the anti-Bush left have absolutely no interest in covering these stories- they much prefer to think that women in Saudi Arabia would rather not drive, since that is what the elite who have drivers have told them, and they prefer to stick their heads in the sand over issues of abuse, unequal treatment under the law and the systematic starvation of women and children. Why would they prefer to do this? Because they really don't care about the freedom, liberty, equality and safety of the millions of who are oppresseded under Islam. They care about making George W. Bush look bad, period.

So the next time someone denounces the idea that Muslims, especially Muslim women, want to be free, or want to be treated equally, or might want to shed the burqa, and that all of the President's talk is simply warmongering, just say to them "Imagine you're a woman..."

Clear, Hold and Build- UPDATED!

2005-10-19T21:20:00.000-04:00

The original content of this post begins below. Several kind readers managed to find the article which inspired this piece (I promptly mis-filed it after reading it the first time) and so I can now call this post complete. Thank you to those who posted or sent me the link. The article is entitled America-haters turn a blind eye to the killers in Iraq- you'll find another updated reference to it below. Note this post has been cross-blogged at The Intelligence Summit and is included in the Open Posts: Weekend Edition at The California Conservative.

Secretary of State Rice once again today reinforced my belief that she is the right person, in the right place, at the right tome, for the job. Questioned by the Senate today on an "exit strategy" for Iraq, Dr. Rice put forth the idea that the goal of our strategy in Iraq is to “Clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions." She then stood her ground, and gave excellent answers to ridiculous questions. Case in point:

"I'm not looking for a date to get out of Iraq," Senator Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the panel, said. "But at what point, assuming the strategy works, do you think we'll be able to see some sign of bringing some American forces home?"

Said Dr. Rice "When the job is done, and the Iraqi people have a land cleared of terrorists, held free, and with strongly built Iraqi institutions."

OK, she didn't say that- what she said was "I don't want to hazard what I think would be a guess, even if it were an assessment, of when that might be possible." Why would she give an answer like that? Because it is the truth, she can not see into the future any more than Biden or anyone else can.

In something approaching the court room scene in A Few Good Men Senator Barbara Boxer tossed out this gem:

"Our country is sick at heart at the spin and false expectations," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told Rice. "They want the truth and they deserve it."

Dr. Rice then gave them the truth:

Rice said Iraq's police and Army forces are becoming better able to handle the country's security without U.S. help, and she repeated President Bush's warning that setting a timetable for withdrawal plays into terrorists' hands.

"The terrorists want us to get discouraged and quit," Rice said. "They believe we do not have the will to see this through."

The question is: can they handle it? Even Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind) got into the act:

"We should recognize that most Americans are focused on an exit strategy in Iraq," said Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman. "Even if withdrawal timelines are deemed unwise because they might provide a strategic advantage to the insurgency, the American people need to more fully understand the basis upon which our troops are likely to come home."

I never thought I would hear a United Sates Senator say something as asinine as this- we should set timelines EVEN IF THEY MIGHT PROVIDE A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE TO OUR ENEMY? For shame, Sen. Lugar.

I understand that people, not the American people, or the Iraqi people, but just people want peace. I also understand that politicians want to be re-elected. It is what they live for. So here is my compromise: when the politicians want to ask stupid questions and make ridiculous remarks, Madam Secretary, let them. Help them, even- provide them with the facts and the truth, and even the opinions of a Nobel Peace Prize winner- namely Jose Ramos-Horta:

From 2001:
...I oppose wars as a matter of personal conviction. But because of my own experience, I also say that sometimes the use of force is necessary to put an end to tyranny and genocide. Can anyone condemn the U.S. for having intervened during World War II, to save the Jews from total annihilation? Can we condemn the NATO countries for intervening against Milosevic in 1998? For saving the Kosovars from annihilation? And moving to Afghanistan, it is often far too simplistic for blaming the U.S. But people forget that the U.S. gave an ultimatum to the Taliban regime to turn over Osama bin Laden. Pakistani diplomats traveled to Kabul twice, to persuade the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden. Here you have a state, Afghanistan, ruled by a regime that hosted a network and boasted about it, and defied the rest of the world about it. So, what should you do? The pacifists say "bring them to justice." Sure. Tell me how to bring them to justice without using force.

From 2002:
...Iraq has waged two wars of aggression against its neighbours, first against Iran causing the death of more than 8 million people, then a war of aggression against Kuwait, causing the destruction the death of tens of thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars in destruction. Sadaam Hussein was the very first leader in the modern world to have launched an environmental war in blowing up the oilfields when he was defeated over Kuwait. The first environmental war in humanity's history. He was also the first leader to use chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s against Iranian soldiers. Again in the 1990s, biological chemical weapons were used against civilian Kurdish. 20,000 people perished under biological chemical weapons. In the 21st century, are we going to accept that there is a leader like that? Are we going to debate whether he has chemical weapons or not? Whether he has nuclear capability or not, the question we should focus on is should such an individual with such a record in this day and age be in office at all?

From 2003:
Ramos-Horta knows from terrible experience that the trouble with tyrants is that you can't vote them out. Like the leaders of the Iraqi opposition today, the East Timorese 'begged a foreign power to free us from oppression, by force if necessary,' he wrote in the New York Times last week. 'Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations, did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people?'

From 2004:
In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mr. Mandela, too, recognized the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.

Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.

(BEGIN UPDATE)

From 2005-
...those who hate the US seem to believe that every wrong committed by an American serviceman must not only be loudly condemned but portrayed as a deliberate act by the US Government, while the systematic and daily barbarities perpetrated predominantly by Sunni Muslims upon their fellow Muslims pass without comment. Such hypocrisy and unwarranted attacks increase the pressure on the US to cut and run from Iraq...

For all the present violence, in a few years Iraq could easily evolve into a peaceful and democratic country. Whether that transpires ultimately rests in the hands of the millions of Iraqis. But they cannot succeed if they are abandoned. And the brave, young American soldiers whom we today see cruising the treacherous streets of Iraq, sometimes battling the terrorists, sometimes conversing with ordinary Iraqis, will be remembered as the heroes who made this possible.

Ramos-Horta has is exactly right. It is up to the Iraqi's, but they need a little help from their friends. And right now the best friend they ahve is the American soldier (meaning all our forces). And those soldiers and their Iraqi friends and their mission need our support, for America's young men and women in Iraq represent all of us. Many too be sure are from the lower or middle class. Few are members of the "American Aristocracy"- it has been a long time since a Kennedy went to war, and is likely to be longer yet. Some went to "State" universities and some went to West Point or the other service academies- elite educational institutions of the highest caliber. They are America- they are us. But they are something more than us- they are us distilled. Ramos-Horta closes with the following:

For all the present violence, in a few years Iraq could easily evolve into a peaceful and democratic country. Whether that transpires ultimately rests in the hands of the millions of Iraqis. But they cannot succeed if they are abandoned. And the brave, young American soldiers whom we today see cruising the treacherous streets of Iraq, sometimes battling the terrorists, sometimes conversing with ordinary Iraqis, will be remembered as the heroes who made this possible. (END UPDATE)

And so we will continue to clear, hold and build. Because just like our Nobel Prize winning friend, we too understand that there are worse things than war. Iraqis want to be free, and they want peace. Our troops want to come home, and we want them to come home, alive and well. But the people of Iraq and indeed the world, depend on their mission being accomplished. The people of Iraq also want justice- perhaps justice more than anything else- and here I'll repeat Ramos-Horta's challenge to the anti-war left: tell me how to bring those who are need of being brought to justice to that justice without using force. We'd all love to see it happen.

(End of post.)

Return of "the perfect dictatorship"?

2005-10-16T21:52:00.000-04:00

Not many political parties stay in power for over seven decades- even the Soviets didn't last that long- and even fewer remain in power for so long in a "democracy." One party, however, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) (The Institutional Revolutionary Party- I love that name) managed to do just that . And they did it within spitting distance of the United States. Mexico spent more than seventy years of the last decade under a corrupt, repressive regime- and it appears that they may just be poised to vote that same party back into power this summer. I find it somewhat ironic that on the eve of yet another historic vote in Iraq to move towards democracy one of our nearest neighbor's is about to backpedal.

In 2000, when Vicente Fox's coalition party (Partido Accion Nacional- PAN- the National Action Party) defeated the PRI many saw it as the end to that party in Mexico. President Bush broke with long standing tradition and visited Mexico on his first trip outside of the U.S., and not Canada (pissed the Canucks off, too). During that visit in February of 2001 President made the following remarks:

We also talked about what we can do together to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity throughout the entire hemisphere. I told President Fox that building a hemisphere of freedom will be a fundamental commitment of my administration. We both look forward to discussing these ideas with other hemispheric leaders in Quebec in April at the Summit of the Americas.

President Fox, his government and all of Latin America were looking forward to an era of hemispheric development the likes of which had never been seen. The severely dysfunctional immigration policy of the United States seemed destined for overhaul. Democracy was indeed on the march, and prosperity for many more people a real possibility. However, reading the full text of the remarks of that day again now, I am struck by the apparent foreshadowing of a question by one of the reporters present:

What is the message that you want to send right now, what does the United States want to send to the world as a message with the new bombing of Iraq? And, above all, why, Mr. Bush, at this point, when you are establishing a dialogue with the President of Mexico? Why? Is this a beginning of a new war?

Now, I do not think that at that moment the message was that we were at the "beginning of a new war." But eight months later we were at the beginning of a new war, a war that is ongoing, and expanding. The effects of 9-11 were, and continue to be, long reaching. Our relationship with President Fox's fragile new government was one of the first foreign policy casualties of the attacks.

Suddenly Mexico's porous border became much more than a nuisance for those living along that same border, and the image of illegal aliens took a dark turn. I, for one, have taken a hard line stand when it comes to closing the border as tightly as humanly possible, if for no other reason than this- if a dirt farmer from Chiapas can slip past the border patrol how hard would it be for a team of even semi-trained terrorists to do the same?

This change in attitude towards Mexico and policies of immigration reform played a significant part in the failure of President Fox's coalition to make real change in Mexico (the remaining PRI politicians in office helped- they once even denied Fox permission to leave Mexico to visit the United Sates). Fox had been seen by many in Mexico, and indeed throughout Latin America and even the United States, as having the ear of the American President. Immigration accords between the two conservative businessmen appeared to be certain. After 9-11, Fox found himself facing a six year term with no possibility for re-election (not allowed under Mexican election law), and without the possibility of an immigration accord with the U.S. He immediately became a lame-duck president. In the last two years the PRI have made major comebacks in Mexico, particularly along the border where they now control the entire region apart form Baja California.

Why should we care, you might ask? How about this, from The World Fact Book:

Mexico has a free market economy that recently entered the trillion dollar class. It contains a mixture of modern and outmoded industry and agriculture, increasingly dominated by the private sector. Recent administrations have expanded competition in seaports, railroads, telecommunications, electricity generation, natural gas distribution, and airports. Per capita income is one-fourth that of the US; income distribution remains highly unequal. Trade with the US and Canada has tripled since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Mexico has 12 free trade agreements with over 40 countries including, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, the European Free Trade Area, and Japan, putting more than 90% of trade under free trade agreements. The government is cognizant of the need to upgrade infrastructure, modernize the tax system and labor laws, and provide incentives to invest in the energy sector, but progress is slow.

Progress, my friends, is slow. And as slow as it has been it may soon come to halt. Soon after the elections which toppled the PRI The Economist ran a piece entitled "Revolution ends, change begins" , in which they described the PRI as:

...not so much a strict father as a rich, if whimsical, uncle. It co-opted trade unions and their block votes by lavishing money and power on their leaders. It bought the peasants eternal gratitude by breaking up huge plantations and handing out millions of small tracts of land. Instead of censoring the press, it kept newspapers afloat- and loyal- with cheap newsprint, floods of government advertising, and generous gifts to journalists. It was the greatest patron of the arts. Sometimes it even funded opposition political parties, both to give its critics a little space to vent their feelings, and to make sure they stayed divided. Its rule was based on collaboration, not coercion...

Mexico thus became what Mario Vargas Llosa, a Peruvian novelist, in 1990 called a "perfect dictatorship." It looked like a democracy, headed by a president who could not be re-elected, and equipped with all the institutional bells and whistles usually found in democracies.

The very sad fact may just be that the Fox and his coalition were a flash in the pan (no pun intended) and that the revolution really has been institutionalized in Mexico. Should the PRI regain control of our neighbor to the south I have little doubt that there will soon be a return to the corrupt practices of the past. This will mean several things to the United States:

- A probable increase in illegal immigration from Mexico: the PRI had seventy years to modernize Mexico and failed. Having thwarted Fox and the PAN, what real incentive do they have to make progress now?

- An increased threat along our southern border from those who mean to do us harm: any increase in illegal aliens looking to pick fruit means stretching the border patrol ever thinner. Mix into that corrupt officials willing to look the other way as cargo moves through their region, or to offer legitimate documents in false names, and the issue become apparent.

- Democracy in our hemisphere will have suffered a blow- sure, the PRI might be legitimately voted back into power. It happens in Egypt all the time, right?

I do not blame what has happened on Mexico over the last six years solely on September 11th and our resulting shift of focus in our foreign policy; but those events certainly had something to do with the current political situation to o ur immediate south. As Mexico gears up for the July 2006 elections it will behoove us to pay attention. Regardless of the outcome, we will have to live with a few facts- we share a huge border with the Third World where we meet Mexico, millions of Mexicans live in the U.S. both legally and illegally, and when we make promises or discuss our ideology Mexicans on both sides of the border pay attention. We need to do the same.

Catching Up

2005-10-12T21:57:00.000-04:00

I have fallen behind in my blogging this week while working on the technical side of the site. I don't know why I have not learned to let well enough alone. Here are a few things I wanted to address and have not:

-First- hat tip to Geerwynn for pointing me in the direction of One Cosmos- a fascinating blog described in it's masthead as:

Exploring the Intersection of Parapolitics, Biocosmology, Developmental Psychoanalysis, Transdimensional Anthropology, World Historical Evolution, Advanced Leisure Studies, Post-Primate Theology, Overmental Mysticism, Cognitive Onanism, and the Bo Diddley Beat

With posts titled Good Girls Gone Wild: Leftists and Their Devout Amorality how can this blog go wrong? Here is a brief taste:

Morality in and of itself is neither moral nor immmoral. Sometimes--perhaps more often than not--a moral system can actually be a source of great evil. One of the things that sets human beings apart from animals is that we cannot avoid making moral distinctions. There seems to be a built in need to distinguish between right and wrong. What is more, there are very few people, no matter how evil, who actually believe they are doing wrong. Even Hitler, after all, believed he was doing a great good by ridding the world of "Jewish blood."

I'll be spending a good bit of time on this blog, I think.

-Next, Al Gore gave a pretty good speech the other day at We Media (thanks, Peter, for the tip)- he actually voiced many of the same concerns I have- he is concerned about the state of public discourse (so am I!), he is concerned about the influence non-stop media coverage of certain events has on our collective psyche (so am I!), he is concerned about the political literacy of youth today (so am I!), he is concerned no no-one will watch his new TV channel (so am ...?). Ok- It was a a pretty good speech until it became an infomercial. Oh well, it is Al Gore. What can you expect? Good luck Al, keep plugging away- something is bound to work out for you, but you are right, probably better to forget the whole being elected President thing.

-There has been much ado about U/S Karen Hughes and her tour of the Middle East. It was, it seems, a baptism by fire of sorts. One line in the reporting by the Opinion Journal really jumped out at me:

In Ankara, the U.S. embassy negligently arranged a meeting with a left-wing women's group; they blasted her with familiar blather about the supposed impossibility of exporting democracy through war and references to Cindy Sheehan.

Now I know that I have been critical of our PD efforts over the last year, but arranging a meeting with the very people we most need to show the light does not strike me as negligent. A world tour of the echo chamber would have been a waste of the tax-payers dollar. I am glad that Hughes met with those who are friendly or inclined to be friendly to us, we need to pay attention to them. But more than anything else we need to bridge the gap between the type of folks she met with in Turkey and ourselves. Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother who is most likely being used by the extreme left- but she is also a symbol of the freedom all Americans have. Maybe is it is just me, but I don't recall any news stories about Muslim women openly challenging any Muslim leader- ever.

Was that meeting tough? Sure it was. Welcome to the big leagues, Ms. Hughes.

-Do I even want to touch the "Bush hears God tell him to wage war" drivel that is out there? Not really. Mark Steyn has done it better than I could, anyway.

-Finally, and I hope you are still with me here, Heavy Handed Politics ran a piece the other day entitled EU's KISSIN' COUSIN about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Prosperity Agenda. I hope you will take the time to read his post and the document I (and Heavy Handed) have linked to on the White House web site, as well as some of the others he links to. I will be following up on this single issue with a post of it's own shortly. Mexico is headed into an election season, and you can bet that Mexicans in the U.S. are paying attention. The rest of us should be too.

-Finally, today's sign the end times are near- while watching images of the destruction and chaos in Pakistan on CNN during lunch today an ultra-liberal colleague turned to the group and said "No matter how bad it was in New Orleans at least those poor folks were in America. These people (points to TV) are still going to be in Pakistan if they can relocate." I am sure he did not mean that the way I heard it, but still, maybe he gets it, after all.

(End of linkfest.)

Comments for the below post.

2005-10-11T19:14:00.000-04:00

All:

I have made some changes behind the scenes to the template of the blog- said changes wiped out the comments left in the past. I am pasting in below the most recent comments- luckily I had that comment window open at the time. My sincere apologies to all who have left such wonderful comments previously. If it is any small consolation, when using the free Haloscan software they are not permanently archived.

Begin comments left:

I don't think there is a way to compare the fight we are in now with any that we have been in before. This is something new and the way we have to fight it is new.It is going to take a terrible resolve to win this thing, and I'm afraid that we're going to have to make most of the major wins in the next three years, because President Bush leaves the WH then and who knows who will take his place.I'm not the least bit worried about the resolve of the American people, the great majority of them have more than what it takes, I'm worried about the weak kneed politicians and the petty bureaucrats who are already spending most of their time bitting at the ankles of the man in the fight.
Tina 10.10.05 - 10:43 pm

Did liberals ever wholeheartedly 'join the fight' against Japan? They certainly started carping against the decision to drop the bomb after the fact, a campaign which continues to this day, but what about at the time?
ZF 10.11.05 - 2:04 am

With no disrespect intended, I don't know how useful it is to seek historical analogies for our present conflict unless that can give us some insight into formulating a stategy for eliminating the forces of radical Islam. To the extent that such analogies might be useful, we might consider the example of the Thugee cult in India. The British solved the problem by a policy of "identify and exterminate." To some extent we are following such a course of action, but there are a lot of people who openly praise and support the goals and tactics of radical Islam who remain untouched. Perhaps we should reconsider our aversion to covert assasinations and put that game plan into action.
tcobb 10.11.05 - 10:16 am

Dr D, the ultimate extension of your analogy is Kaaba:Islamofascism::Home Islands:Shintofascism. And 60 years later, we do not need to island-hop to get to the other side's center of gravity. Are you really implying that we need to make the Haram ash-Sharif into a glass parking lot in order to win this thing?
JMjohn mosby 10.11.05 - 2:07 pm

I see JM didn't fool around and got right to the chase. I think 2 big reasons why the administration is avoiding a comparision between Islamic fascism and Nipponese fascism is first the obvious point that the WoT is taking much longer. Applying that timeline to this war (WoT), it is Janurary '46 and we havn't won yet. In a war that is MUCH smaller in both geography and resources.

Second is that the US Japan conflict was ended by atomic bombs. The Left has attempted to rewrite history by claiming the bombs were not needed. So far a lot of claims, but all the evidence shows Japan would NOT have surrendered without the use of atomic bombs. So back to our timeline where without the Atomic bombs, the US Army would have spent Janurary of '46 fighting and dying on the kyoto plains. The butchers bill on both sides would have been in the millions. So naturally, comparing the Pacific campaign to the Battle of Iran and WW2 to the WoT leads one to the logical conclusion that Nuclear weapons are neccessary for a sucessful conclusion to the WoT.

Nobody wants to go there. Especially this administration. Iran may not give us a choice. If Hitler, Stalin or Tojo had an atomic bomb in '45, the USA would NOT have won WW2.BTW, latly I have started to agree with the POV that WW1, WW2 and the 'Cold war' are all part of the same conflict. Socialism vs Capitalism. From about 1914 to 1989. Just different areas were fought over at different times. Sort of like the 30 years war. Sir Charles Omen said that is is impossible to draw distinct lines in history, that one poeriod blends into another. I don't think that is 100% accurate, but it is more right then wrong.
Stehpinkeln 10.11.05 - 5:14 pm

ZF, yes, they did. It was the conservatives of that day who were anti-war. The USA was a socialist as it every was or ever will be. The Conservatives wanted to just let the 'furreners' kill each other.It was the blend of 'Internationalism' of the Socialists and 'isolantionism' of the Capitalists that led to Dulles's theory of containment. Remember the guys who help set up the UN considered it a first step to a World State, which would have been Socialist. Remember they were all new dealers recoiling from a horrible recession created by unrestrained capitalism. So the Cold war was born out of a desire by the American left to spread the joys of Democratic Socialism combined with the American right's unwilliness for more foreign adventures.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19912,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

A lengthy but excellent article by Charles Krauthammer. He touches on the roots of the cold war in it.Remember the Cold war was a result of Turmans reluctance to use the Atomic bomb while ONLY the USA had them. From 1946 thru 1947 there was nothing to prevent Truman from nuking Moscow and putting an end to Communism right then and there. He would also have save a few million lives by doing so, but the left has never let bloodshed come between them and their domga.
Stehpinkeln 10.11.05 - 5:29 pm

With all due respect.

2005-10-10T20:55:00.000-04:00

Being a conservative, and a member of the Republican Underground in the State Department, I frequently find myself at odds with my colleagues when it comes to the President and the policies of his two administrations. I am not, however, beholden to every idea that the President has. Now, I am nowhere near the President when it comes to my chain of command, but I would hope that he would agree with Samuel Goldwyn who once famously said "I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them their job." I seriously doubt that this post would cost me my job- but I am about to disagree with President Bush.

Last week the President gave an extremely well received speech at the National Endowment for Democracy in which he repeatedly compared the current struggle against Islamofascism to that against communism, presumably in the Cold War, although he never used that phrase. While I was heartened to hear the words "Islamic radicalism... militant Jihadism... Islamo-fascism" from the President, and also the idea that the struggle against these enemies may last a long time, I think the implied comparison to the Cold War is flawed. My preferred historical comparison is the battle against Imperial Japan.

Soon after the speech several readers wrote in to express their opinions, and I replied along the lines of the above paragraph. One of these e-mail exchanges developed into a rather long string of back and forth as we wrestled with the idea of the appropriate historical metaphor. The reader/author of these e-mails has kindly agreed to allow me use them in this post, but has asked to be left un-named, in the following exchanges I will denote hime simply as "Reader" (some of the exchanges are truncated to include the most relevant points):

Dr. D: What did you think of the multiple comparisons of the fight against Islamofascists to the Cold War? I am not so sure I agree with this one. I liken it more to Imperial Japan, I don't really think we can go decades trying to deter OBL, Inc.

Reader: The 1933-45 war between Imperial Japan and China, USSR (1940 and 1945), France (French Indochina), the Netherlands (Dutch East Indies), UK, Australia, New Zealand, and USA was a war based on the belief of racial superiority of the Japanese over all others. In their belief, their racial superiority permitted them to dominate all others and their Shinto religion (a religion specific to the racially pure Japanese). The war begin with the 1933 invasion of China.

W.W.II in Asia was a racial war or a war of nationalism not a war of ideology. It was much like the wars of the 18th to early 20th centuries.The war against Islamofacists is a WAR OF IDEOLOGY and that ideology happens to be called a religion. Most people do not call Marxism a religion, but it is best understood as a religion because it serves the same functions and has the same impact on the true believers in Marxism.

The key areas of comparison between the Cold War (Marxism attempting to conquer the world) and the War against Islamofacists are:

1. The GREAT importance of the ideology to those waging the war against us.

2. The ideology is MUCH more important in determining which side one is on that race, color, citizenship, and such. Please remember the white fellow from Marin County (we once lived there) just north of San Francisco, CA who was one of the al Qaeda warriors of Osama bin Ladden. Remember the shoe bomber on the airliner. Remember the first British citizens to die fighting in Afghanistan were fighting AGAINST our side. Remember that there are several thousand British citizens/subjects and European citizens who have been through al Qaeda training. Remember the very mixed racial/nationality mix of the terrorists who killed lots of children in the Russian high school. Remember the Filipino Muslims who just two blocks from my office in the American Embassy in Manila who were hard at work preparing to blow us up to advance their religious beliefs in the service of al Qaeda, but who by accident set fire to their apartment and were caught. Remember all of those reports of black Muslims fighting for al Qaeda far from their homelands in the Sudan/etc.

The religious wars of the 15th to the 17th centuries were also wars of ideology and one's religion determined which side they were on, not where they were born or their skin color. The wars of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century were largely wars of nationalism, of nations that viewed themselves as entitled to someone else's land or capable of ruling it better (the case for most of the UK's expansion to end slavery in Africa and the Middle East during the second half of the 19th century).

To defeat al Qaeda we must do four things:

1. We must NOT give up and go home, as almost all of the Democrat leaders want.

2. We must kill most of the leadership of al Qaeda and a large percent of their warriors.

3. We must defeat them militarily where we fight them: currently in Afghanistan and Iraq, a loss by ourside would MASSIVELY enhance their standing and power in the Muslim world.

4. We must defeat their ideology and remove or minimize the appeal of their version of Islam on the minds of young Muslim males and on the minds of rich older Muslim males, in particular rich Saudi Muslim males who provided much of the funding.

Dr. D: You don't find the Japanese racism and belief in the superiority of Shintoism to be an ideology? There is of course the rather large difference between the Islamofascists and the Japanese in that our submission to Islam will equal victory for our current enemies, whereas one could not submit and "convert" to being Japanese- but this is not what I was referring to. I meant that our current battle more resembles that of the Asian theater in WWII than the Cold War in that we have been attacked, and that containment is not an option. Your four steps to defeat Islamofascism are exactly what we did against the Japanese- and not at all what we did against the Soviets (of course we tried to fight their "ideology" in Korea and Vietnam, but never took the battle to the USSR).

Reader: To the first question, is not racism and Shintoism an ideology?, not in my view of ideologies. Rather I would call it nationalism and an extreme sense of racial superiority. To me an ideology is an idea (or system of ideas) that are not specific to one people, rather international. The Japanese expected us to submit to their rule, as the French did in Indo-China in 1940 and as the Thais did in 1941. The Chinese did this in Mancuho in the late 1930s.

As for the War against Islamofacism vs. W.W.II in the Pacific & Asia, we (UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and USA) experienced major defeats and we all concluded that the war against Japan was very secondary to the war against Germany. However, we concluded that all of the Axis countries had to be defeated before there could be peace, and the most important country to be defeated was Germany. W.W.II was not a war by sleight of hand, rather clear and obvious to all. Plus, we were fighting on the side of the USSR, we were fighting in effect to save Communism from the Nazis and that pleased the American and British Left such that after the invasion of the USSR in June 1941 orders went out from Moscow to all Communist Parties of the world to demand an IMMEDIATE second front by the "evil capitalist" countries, the UK/Canada/Australia/New Zealand/South Africa. Soon after June 1941 the British began to run convoys to the USSR to provide them with assistance. Even in the USA before 12/7/1941 (before we entered WWII), the American Communists were demanding that the USA help the USSR.

The USSR learned the lesson in W.W. II to not fight a direct war with the USA and its allies, rather to attack by remote, via various "national movements." The PRC learned the same lesion in the Korean War, do not fight directly with the USA. So all future conflicts were very confused as to the roles of the USSR and PRC so as to confuse the elite intellectuals of the UK/USA/Europe etc into thinking that the real issue was not an effort of world domination by USSR/PRC/Marixism, rather that it was just a people's liberation movement to fix long term wrongs (and other BS).

Added to this, the USSR acquired nuclear weapons in the early 1950s (thanks to some of the elite intellectuals of the USA's Manhattan Project who believed that it was "only fair" for the USSR to have nuclear weapons). The MASSIVE fear about al Qaeda is that they will get operational nuclear weapons and that would greatly impact how we deal with them.

I believe that the best comparison of what we are trying to accomplish against al Qaeda were the efforts of the Allies to defeat Communism in 1918-21. We had USA, Canadian, and Japanese troops a couple thousand miles into Russia (coming from the east) and we had troops in the north. We finally gave up and soon after the Red Army defeated the White Army (the anti Communists) and the liqudations began and continued until about 90,000,000 people had been put down and about 1/3rd of the world was under Communist rule. It took from 1921 until 1990 for the end of Communism in the USSR and for Communism to massively change in the PRC.

This reader makes several good points, and it may well be that ideologically we can compare OBL, Inc and Communism- both ideologies are driven by a system of beliefs that are not racially motivated. One may elect to join these ideologies in a way one could not "join" the Japanese. I maintain, however, that the actual battle, the struggle for ultimate victory, resembles that if the war with Japan more than the Cold War.

We suffered a stunning surprise attack at the hands of the Japanese in 1941, just as we have from al Qaeda. The Japanese believed that their religion (a divine Emperor) would provide the ultimate victory, and their kamikaze bombers destroyed themselves in attacking us in their emperor's name. Sound familiar? When we finally mobilized we took the war directly to the enemy. No surrogates, no waiting them out. We had to island hop to get to them, to be sure-there was no immediate direct frontal assault on the homeland- much as we have been forced to hunt down al Qaeda leadership and rank and file away from their "home" of Mecca. Military leaders and strategists predicted massive bloodshed when finally our troops would reach Japan- just as such predictions are made now if we declare all of Islam to be the enemy, or invade Mecca. Only the decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan spared the horror of an invasion of the home islands. Will anything spare the world the horror of taking the war against Islamofacsim to it's nest- or worse, the horror of not doing so in favor of a "wait them out" Cold War mentality?

There will be no easy, quick and clean victory over the Islamofascists. We have to face up to that. Our fathers and grandfathers knew that there would be no easy defeat of the Japanese. As our Reader says- we cannot give up. We have to hunt down their leaders and warriors in military defeat when possible. We have to remove the appeal of their ideology. All of this we did in the Pacific sixty years ago. In facing al Qaeda there can be no mutually assured destruction, because that is fine with them. There can be no spending them into the ground, they are already in, or below the ground. Containment is not a possibility- as our Reader notes, the enemy is already everywhere. We cannot afford to wait fifty years for them simply collapse under the weight of their ideology- because they wont.

I am not a warmonger, or a Chairborne Ranger- I am a realist. This is not an enemy that will simply collapse. Islamofascism is an ideology that demands our attention- and are response. Not long after America's second day of infamy President Bush said:

"When I take action," he said, "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

Last week he said:

Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

It is good to remind the American people that the struggle we face will be long, difficult and fraught with peril and pain- but let us be careful of the metaphors we choose, and let us speak directly of the path ahead. Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto, who planned and commanded the attack on Pearl Harbor is said to have remarked "I'm afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with terrible resolve." OBL actively sought to re-awaken the sleeping giant- let us, and them, not forget the terrible resolve with which are once again filled.

Make Lemonade

2005-10-06T07:03:00.000-04:00

This morning, while surfing the web for global news I came across a very interesting website, Bitter Lemons International.org As the editors explain it, this site was founded to break out of the echo-chamber mindset:

Bitterlemons-international.org is an internet forum for an array of world perspectives on the Middle East and its specific concerns. It aspires to engender greater understanding about the Middle East region and open a new common space for world thinkers and political leaders to present their viewpoints and initiatives on the region. Its audience is the interested public and policymakers.

Bitterlemons-international.org is edited by Ghassan Khatib and Yossi Alpher. Each week, bitterlemons-international editors decide on a topic and invite four writers or interviewees to discuss that subject on our pages. Bitterlemons-international is committed to presenting a range of views on the Middle East from a breadth of national interests and social concerns. No intelligent and articulate views are considered taboo.

I have not spent much time reading the articles on this site yet, but it shows promise. One article that I have perused, in particular, inspired me to share this site with you: Democracy in the Arab world: an assessment. In this piece the author proposits that we may be seeing "the beginning of the Arab world's slow transition out of the legacy of political autocracy and dominant state security rule that has defined it for the past half a century or so." He provides four main points to back up his thesis, the first two of which I have pasted in below:

First, all other mass ideologies or governance systems (including socialism, Arab nationalism, Islamism, Baathism, monarchism, and narrow state-centered chauvinism) attempted in that period have not responded to the full material and political rights of the Arab people or their basic security and development. Second, foreign pressures and inducements for political and economic reforms, especially since 9/11, have started to converge with indigenous Arab democracy activists who had long been marginalized or co-opted by their states.

This coincides with a piece I recently read on the Common Ground News Middle East pages, in which the author (who is clearly not a George Bush supporter) wonders if the President's perpetual push for global freedom and democracy is not having an effect:

The Strategic Interest: Downloading Democracy in the Middle East (With Some Help from America)

...I wonder, too, whether the American campaign for democratic reform in the Arab world also has had a positive effect on the degree of civil courage that people of good will in the Middle East are now able to muster.

When an Al Arabiya producer makes the decision to send a reporter into an Israeli settlement, or puts an Israeli on an electronic panel, is he or she that much more emboldened to take this step because Washington is so insistently preaching "freedom"? When a Lebanese professor accosts me at an informal meeting in Europe and tells me he no longer will turn down my requests that he write, is the American and French demand that Syria cease occupying his country giving him a positive sense that powerful forces are now behind him?

I'm no fan of George W. Bush, and I'm critical of many aspects of his Middle East policy. His adventure in Iraq is a disaster, and his commitment to a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians appears thus far to be largely cosmetic. But I can't help noticing that his campaign for democratic reform does have the admirable effect of empowering people in the region.

We have long seen in politics that if you tell a big enough lie enough times, it becomes the (perceived) truth. Are we finally seeing an instance in which speaking to the truth and doing the right thing- leading from the front- actually demonstrates the power of our ideals? It may be too early to tell, but articles and websites such as these give me hope.

Pass the lemonade.

(End of post)

Anchors Aweigh

2005-10-04T20:25:00.000-04:00

The last few days have seen some very intense discussion in the comments section here at The Demarche, and I want to thank you all for taking the time to write in, either in the comments or to e-mail us. Consul-At-Arms, a brother FSO blogger, and other commenters, have kindly provided a segue to continue the discussion. Regardless of what you think about illegal immigrants, their kids who are born in the states are another matter. Unless you are the child of a foreign diplomat, if you are born in the United States you are a citizen. Period. It matters not one bit if your parents broke the law in order to be in the U.S. at the time of your birth. Now I understand that is a right set forth by the Constitution- just as the right to keep my guns is guaranteed. Plenty of people want to change both those rights.

There is of course, one major difference. My guns don't get together and produce offspring that will someday be able to petition for their gun relatives to come to the U.S. The offspring of illegal aliens often do- in fact their mother's, in many cases, struggle to reach the Unites States prior to giving birth- the kids born in America are called "anchor babies", these are the kids that will eventually file immigrant visa petitions for their families. There are a great many children born into this "status" in America every year. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that:

there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (between 8.7 and 11 million).

and they do not come cheaply:

...Flor was born premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator and cost the San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, oldest daughter Lourdes married an illegal alien gave birth to a daughter, too. Her name is Esmeralda. And Felipa had yet another child, Cristian.

The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding for the family. Flor gets $600 a month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. While the Silverios earned $18,000 last year picking fruit, they picked up another $12,000 for their two "anchor babies."

These kids often grow up immersed in the culture that their parents abandoned. Their allegiance lies first with their families (and rightly so) and then more often than not with the country that failed their parents. Their parents retain some sort of romantic allegiance and pass it on to the children. It is only the patriotic thing to do. Every American Embassy in the world has a "Voting Assistance Officer" charged with helping Americans abroad exercise their franchise- we expect our expats to retain their patriotism- why shouldn't the economic flotsam of the world do the same?

I do not begrudge anyone who wants to be an American, or to live in America, to have a chance at a better life. As an American I take it as a compliment. I would hope that my rich neighbor does not begrudge me ogling his Ferrari when it goes by, and that he takes is a compliment too (note: none of my neighbors has Ferraris, I am taking license here). I do imagine he would begrudge me climbing his fence, breaking into the garage and stealing it, though. If I want a Ferrari I have to obtain it by legal means, period. Is it hubris for me to say that for many people America is the Ferrari next door?

As the President and Congress prepare to take on the immigration issue (maybe) it is imperative that we the 14th Amendment be included in the discussions. Perhaps we do need all of the illegal aliens who support our economy as has been noted by guest bloggers here and by many others. I would certainly rather see them legalized than continue to see them living and working in the shadows. If this is an issue that you feel deeply about- and I think many of you do- please exercise your rights as voter and let your representatives know.

No more immigration stuff for a while, I promise. Sometimes I just follow the blog where it takes me.

Illegal Immigration- is inaction the best course?

2005-10-02T20:40:00.000-04:00

Last weekend I posted a bit entitled Think Globally, Act Locally regarding illegal immigration. As regular readers know I invited a few of the commenters to write expanded pieces, to tell us more about what they think or how they have experienced the effects of illegal immigration first hand. So far I have received two pieces in response, and hope to receive more. This is the second of the two, the first may be found directly below this post. This post is unedited except for formatting to fit this blog.

Begin text of guest post:

Dr Demarche asked me to write a post about why I thought the United States should do nothing about the current Illegal Immigration problem. The only problem is that I don’t think we should do nothing. I think we should have some idea about who is in our boarders, and that is why I support some sort of guest worker program with a general amnesty. However politics is the art of the possible and I do not think an amnesty program is politically possible right now. So I will try to show why I think that doing nothing is better than any of the current “I would stop Illegal Immigration by…” plans currently out there.

There seems to be 3 main complaints about about Illegal Immigrants. None of them are particularly new, and have all been used against every wave of immigrants that ever entered this continent. I can imagine the first group of Hunter-Gatherers complaining about the second group using some of the same following arguments.

1. The new immigrants will take Jobs away from those who are already here. (For our imaginary group of Hunter-gatherers they probably were talking about hunting grounds instead of Jobs, but you get the idea.)

2. The new Immigrants impose enormous financial cost on our economy. (Ok you got me here, the first hunter gatherers were probably not terribly concerned about this because they really provided a very minimal social net, and didn’t really have that much of an economy. There however are numerous other examples of Americans complaining about this after money was invented.)

3. The new Immigrants will raise the crime rate. (The previously mentioned hunter-gatherers were probably concerned with the new group attacking them, and while this was not technically illegal at the time laws having not been invented yet, you must admit that it is analogous.)

I will try to address each of these and show that the reality is the opposite of conventional wisdom, or that the best way to solve the problem is something other than get rid of the illegals. To save space and reduce my research time I will concentrate on California because from the information I have found it would appear that California has the largest illegal immigrant population. If anyone would like to talk about any other states we can cover it in the comments.

Jobs

The current unemployment rate is 4.9% according to the Bureau of Labor statistics with approximately 3.5 million people unemployed because of Job loss. There were also 384000 (.4% of the legal population) discouraged workers not included in that total because they had stopped looking because they thought no jobs existed for them. The 3.5 million were apparently still optimistic, with good reason because there were 4 million of them in February.

Now a lot of the increases in employment are coming in the Construction and Hospitality industries (also Health Care, but I don’t think most of the good jobs in that field are going to illegals).

So if any of the currently unemployed want those jobs they can get them, they are out there, and they look like they will continue to grow. So why aren’t all of the unemployed legals jumping on this growth industry? Because they think that they can do better, and they are probably right. It is unlikely that we will ever get to 0% unemployment because their will always be some churn in the market. Inefficient jobs go away and new ones are created. People move from one area of the economy to another. This is an extremely good thing. 70% of the American work force was in agriculture in 1820, now 2% are. Do you think we would be as well off as we are without that change? Most of the people currently unemployed will find jobs before their benefits run out, as is shown by the relatively small number of discouraged workers so it doesn’t seem that the illegals are having a huge negative effect on the current job market. By the way the unemployment rate in the 4 southern most counties in California is 4.6%- even less than the national average.

Financial cost to our 12 Trillion Dollar economy

The most important concept to get down for the next analysis is that economics is not a zero sum game. Lets assume that there is only $20 dollars in the whole world and I got it with my paycheck. So my income is $20. Now lets assume I spend my $20 to buy food at the grocery store to feed my family. Now lets assume that the Grocer takes the money and buys a new piece of furniture for his house. The furniture salesman takes the money and buys a new dog. The pet shop owner buys a new computer, which for argument sake is what I make for a living. Now there is only $20 in the world, but in my example at least 5 people got a $20 income. The example scales up to the real world, but it gets much more complicated.

In his original post the drain on the economy caused by illegal workers concerned Dr Demarche. He quoted a $10 Billion dollar a year net drain on the Federal budget caused by the approximately 7 million illegal aliens. I read the post he linked to and it admitted that the majority of those costs were incurred by the children of the illegal immigrants born in this country. Now I would like to make a quick point here before going back to my analysis and that is that these children are not illegal aliens, but US Citizens just like you or me. For purposes of argument though I will include the $10 Billion in the total. Now there is also approximately $28 Billion in remittances to the illegal immigrants families back in the home countries also according to Dr Demarche. I found a web site claiming that California had an additional $10 Billion in state and local cost associated with illegal immigrants. We will throw in another $10 Billion for the rest of the states because they generally have less generous social services, and California has most of the illegal immigrant population according the sites I have surfed. That leads to an alleged $58 Billion Dollar drain on the economy. This is a big number, but not in relation to the economy as a whole. It represents 0.48% of our $12 TRILLION economy, or roughly ½ a cent for every dollar that is spent.

Now lets look at what the economy gets for its $58 Billion. Presumably the money comes from some sort of economic activity, and they are not all finding this money lying on the street. So they are earning this money mostly from working. Now presumably they are not sending every dollar they make home and are keeping some here to pay for products and services they need. For the purpose of our analysis we will assume they save and send back 25% of what they make. This is a really high rate of savings. The Japanese who are known for saving only save 12%. The US average saving rate is currently negative. We spend on average more than we make.

So if they send home $28 Billion, at a savings rate of 25% that means they are making 4 times that amount or $112 Billion. Now I am going to make an assumption here that they have not all found some socialist workers paradise here where every dollar the company makes goes right out to worker salaries. Therefore the companies are making more off of the illegal aliens labor than they are paying out. My company likes to make 10 times what they pay a worker, but lets assume that the small firms most of the illegals work for run a leaner operation and we will give them a multiplier of 3. So for every dollar they receive they produce three dollars in income for the company. So that would bring the total amount of economic benefit the immigrants bring to the US economy to almost $350 Billion. Most of that benefit goes to the employer of the illegals, and not the illegals themselves. Most of these firms are small businessmen or women who paradoxically are law abiding. That is because it is not illegal to hire an illegal immigrant. It is illegal to hire a worker without documentation. Documentation that is easy to forge or steal.

If you get rid of this labor, most of this economic activity goes away. We live in a really tight labor market and there are simply not enough workers to replace this unskilled labor that would not be better utilized in other higher skilled jobs. Produce either rots in the fields, or becomes so expensive that it is cheaper to import it. Construction costs go up so people make do with smaller houses, or continue renting. The Hotel industry looks very different than it does now with higher cost and lower services. We Americans will probably continue spending more than we make, but we will be getting less for our money than we do now.

Crime

This is the hardest to deal with because it quickly gets emotional. Every criminal act in the end represents some sort of personal tragedy. That being said I will try to address the most worrisome of the criminal activity that of the gangs.

The same thing that fueled the Mob in Chicago, Prohibition, fuels most of the criminal gang activity in California. The Prohibition in this case is of Drugs and not Alcohol. When I heard one of the posters on this site first complain about the illegal alien gangs I was wondering how she could tell they were illegal’s. California has approximately 2 legal Hispanic residents for every illegal, and a big history of gangs made up entirely from American citizens. But for the purpose of this analysis we will assume that if you could get rid of all the illegals there would be no more gangs, even though this is a ridiculous proposition.

If you came up with a perfect system by which legitimate employers would not hire any illegals then the only illegals that would still have jobs would be those involved in criminal activities. Many of your law abiding hard working immigrants would self deport, but others would take up the only kind of jobs they can get in this country, Drugs. So paradoxically you would end up losing the legitimate economic activity, and increasing the criminal activity. The underlying demand for the illegal product would still be there, and someone would fill it.

So there we have it, why I think that doing nothing is better than any of the options that have a chance of being acted on (Berlin Wall, National Identity card, or vigorous enforcement of existing law). Flame away.

Eddie

(End of guest post.)

Illegal Immigration- feeling the effects.

2005-09-29T22:25:00.000-04:00

Two posts in one day (see below), and I didn't write either one of them! Last weekend I posted a bit entitled Think Globally, Act Locally regarding illegal immigration. That post generated more comments than we have seen around here in a while, with a good amount of back and forth between commenters. As a follow up to some excellent points and personal stories I invited a few of the commenters to write expanded pieces, to tell us more about what they think or how they have experienced the effects of illegal immigration first hand. So far I have received one piece in response, and hope to receive more. I have lightly edited this piece, removing city names and other specific items that might compromise the anonymity of "Babs", so if it reads in a slightly stilted manner the fault is mine. Thanks for sharing this, Babs.

The following is from frequent commenter Babs:

Dear Dr. D,

I was amazed to read the "blame the victim" comment that was posted after mine regarding our family's tenure in along the border (we "did" 12 years). Unfortunately, it is not unusual to be attacked when you speak out about the real life results to a middle class family swamped by illegal immigration.

These attacks come in a couple of flavors. You either get the response that open borders are good for the economy, never mind that your schools don't work and healthcare and other public services go in the toilet; you need to suck it up. Or, I had a person on one occasion tell me that I was a "deserter" for moving away, as if my children should be sacrificed on the alter of multiculturalism. Then, the third response is that I am somehow to blame for the situation. These attacks usually start with "you want your car washed for 10 bucks and your restaurant bill to be low but you are unwilling to live with the people that make that possible. You are a racist!" But, the idea that I had it coming to me because I "chose" to travel on a particular public street and was not observant enough to see someone coming up behind me at an alarming rate of speed is really too much! BTW, I DID see the car approach and there was no where to go, I was stuck in traffic. Oh yes, I also chose to live in an urban environment (which, guess what, I did not. We moved there for a job opportunity.) All of these attacks indicate terrible ignorance.

We moved to a city not far from the border in 1985, due to a job offer that my husband received. From 1985 to 1997 I watched a concerted effort by all branches of the media to tell me that I should be ashamed of myself for resenting the flood of illegals into the region. It got so you dare not even speak of it to your close friends because even talking about the changes to the immediate society were considered racist. Once the children became school age and my oldest had a disastrous 3rd grade year, I had to go to work to pay the private school tuition. My youngest was still in nursery school.

I have a degree in Architecture and became a commercial real-property analyst. I was known as the "slum queen" of the firm because I did most of the residential income property reports. Working on portfolios for HUD, corporate lenders and various other large entities I traveled all over the border region inspecting properties and literally going into hundreds (maybe thousands) of apartments. I have been up close and personal with some of the most disgusting people on the planet. I have been in apartments in the city with feces on the floor and children living there. I traveled with a bodyguard! The bodyguard was written into the contracts. Sometimes, I also had an interpreter with me but, in other than Spanish speaking environs, it was easy to snag a school age kid to interpret for me. I would cruise neighborhoods to gather data at 5-8 AM on a Sunday morning because all the gang members were probably asleep. I thought about it many times and decided that I had no problem running someone over if I thought I was going to be car-jacked. I got a pit bull and would take her with me to enter what was supposed to be a vacant building. I have been in aparwouldn't that I wouldn't dream of letting my dog stay in for the night, let alone a child. I used to wonder why these people couldn't buy a $1 bar of soap and clean the place with an old shirt. Okay, you are poor, does that also mean you have to be filthy?

Well, the answer is no. People like to live by people that come from the same culture (contrary to what the media, the gov't and academia might tell you). I used to love to work in Korea town. These were poor people, they had almost nothing. They slept on mats in the front room and had almost no dishes in the kitchen. I used to wonder if they ate in shifts because they didn't have enough dishes. Their apartments were spotless! In fact, I remember going into one building and all the women were standing at attention outside their units waiting for me to inspect them, their shoes neatly placed next to the door. Note: always wear slip on shoes when going into Asian buildings. Well, the job requires that you inspect a "representative sample" of units in a building. As I was about to leave, the resident manager came up to me and told me that the women were upset because I didn't look in their apartments, LOL! I ended up going into every apartment just to make them happy and every single apartment was spotless.

I was contracted to value an apartment complex once. The place reminded me of a series of prison blocks. It was totally inhabited by Pacific Islanders. I asked one of the residents why she lived here, as I knew for a fact that there was a rather nice apartment complex fairly close by with a swimming pool and laundry room and covered parking that charged the same rent. She told me that she wanted to live with other Pacific Islanders so, forget it, she wasn't going to move from this hell hole. I had noticed before that various ethnicities tended to live with their own kind, but this really struck me. I had been so brainwashed to believe that it was the white man that wanted to live in isolation! BTW, the neighborhood that we lived in (comfortable suburbia) had 32 languages represented at our local elementary school. In fact, the people that lived across the street were Korean, next door were Polish, next to them Chinese and on the other side were Cubans. The Cubans held a roasted pig fest every summer that was terrific! My oldest son's cub scout den had 8 boys in it. My son and one other were the only two Caucasians in the den. So much for white exclusivity. I used to watch the Korean children across the street come home from Korean Saturday school. They would come over and show me their work books and tell me what went on that day. It was quite interesting to hear about their culture. To a kid, they all had trouble writing in Korean and would moan to me and tell me how hard it was. The moral to this story is that our neighbors were integrated into American society while still maintaining their cultural identity in their homes. The school system didn't need to do it for them, or the federal gov't. They just did it while at the same time being productive members of American society.

You might wonder why I slammed the public school in the neighborhood in the comments on The Daily Demarche while I seem to have a favorable opinion of my former neighbors. This is actually quite interesting; the school district started importing kids from neighboring towns into the school district in order to receive FEDERAL FUNDING! Yes, that's right, the Feds pay extra for non-English speaking students in addition to paying salaries for a small army of "special educators and curriculum materials". Our elementary school went from the best school in the district of ten schools to the worst over the course of a few years due to the busing in of out-of-district students. Anyone that is familiar with our southern border region will also know that the vast majority of non-English speaking residents would be Latino.

Now, I will tell you about the dark side of the job. That was going into Latino neighborhoods (this is going to make the open border people crazy). By far, the filthiest and most dangerous neighborhoods in the city were Latino. I was working on a portfolio of properties downtown and had hired an assistant. A male of about 40 years old. He was along to measure, take notes and help photograph. We got into one building whose basement was like a slave ship. There were all these Latino families living in units about the size of a small storage locker you might rent. They shared one toilet and a common kitchen. When we got upstairs it was obvious that this circa 1930's building had been chopped up into so many small units that it was like a rat's maze. My assistant literally freaked out and had to be put in the car! On the way back to the office, he quit. We watched a small child fall down a long flight of stairs and, instead of comforting the child, his father hit him. We saw syringes and drug cooking devices all over the place and no one spoke English. We went into one of the slave units and the mother was sitting on a pile of filthy clothes, which were the only thing in there, holding a grossly obese little girl who was naked. As soon as I got out of the building I called the bank that had taken it back and told them to shut the building down immediately before the medi gets wind of it and splashes it across the front page.

Now, here is the interesting thing, almost all these buildings were owned (or formerly owned) by Latinos! Yes, it is absolutely true. In fact, I had another analyst in the firm tell me that the bank should win some kind of diversity award for writing so many loans to insolvent Latinos. While I was employed in this manner a report came out that ethnic minorities were being discriminated against by the lending institutions. I guess it didn't occur to the P.C. police that these minorities might not be able to make good on a loan? Oh, that's right, it's the white man's fault! The Latino buildings I went in to were filthy and crime ridden. I can not say that about any other ethnicity that I came in contact with. I have been in units were Latino gang members were sitting in the living room in the middle of the day watching T.V. I have been in buildings that were so roach infested and fly riddled that I could hardly stand it (I used to hold my breath).

Well, what is the point of all this raving? It got so that I was having nightmares about the buildings. I couldn't stand the fact that children were living under these conditions. I really couldn't care less what an adult decides to do but, to subject a child to these filthy circumstances really got to me as I had young children at the time. I told my boss that I had to work on another property type or I would file for disability. So, I got to work on industrial buildings, which I love, while he sent a team of men out on the next residential income property portfolio. They arrived back at the office in the early afternoon, having cut short their day, because a junkie threw up on himself in front of one of the buildings in their portfolio and they were going to turn the job down. What a bunch of pussies!

Speaking of industrial buildings, man, what an interesting property type. I just loved them. Here is a little factoid for you; Did you know that the manufacture of flavor syrups is considered combustible? Anyone manufacturing flavor syrups has to comply with severe fire code standards. You might think about that the next time you buy your kids a snow cone!

I was contracted to value a proposed shopping center in one of the worst gang areas in the nation. I arrived at the site and was promptly met by the developers. We walked the site and they explained what they had in mind. What they seemed most proud of was that they had designed the center to include a police sub station with a holding cell! They thought this was a great addition. I had to agree! Based on my analysis, the loan was approved and the shopping center stands today. This center was designed for a Latino population with no cars, living on food stamps. I would just like to remind you that this is taking place in the United States of America.

BTW, the L.A. riots were really interesting for me. It was kind of like a football game. I sat in my living room watching TV tracking the action. Talk about devastation. What is really weird about it is that they destroyed their own neighborhoods. Wouldn't you think that they would have gone into Beverly Hills or something to burn stuff down? I told my husband that I was pissed with the gov't so I was going to go burn down the dry cleaner's up the street! About a year after the riots people started complaining about the fact that they didn't have any grocery stores or other services in their neighborhoods. Well, hello, you destroyed them! All those Korean grocers that you hated so much, they decided to locate elsewhere. Hence, the need for the new shopping center with the holding cell. BTW, I understand that Korea town rebuilt almost instantly...

We sold our home in 1997 and moved away from the border. Part of the reason was that I had hit the wall on the culture that surrounded me and part of the reason was that I couldn't figure out where to send the children to high school, other than boarding school at $22,000 a pop. My husband quit his job; he loved that job and had to let it go for the good of the family. He now designs and manufactures the optics for the world leader in bar code technology (making the world safe for illiterates).

When we first moved , I had someone tell me that this was a "very diverse" community. I spontaneously laughed out loud! I guess this person was referring to the few professors at the local university that are Asian! So, I was able to get my kids into an excellent public school system and now my oldest is a 1st class midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy. I guarantee you that he would not have qualified for the Academy had we stayed in the old public school system. My second son speaks 5 languages and is majoring in language at SUNY Binghamton. His language education is courtesy of the public school system and the local taxpayer (thank you very much).

I have stayed in touch with several of the women that I was friends with in our old neighborhood. After all, we raised our babies together. Last fall I met them for a 5 day vacation. I could not believe the animosity they hold for the illegals in their state. While I lived there, as I said, we never dared talk about it. Now these women, mothers, have children looking to get into college. They are enraged that people that are residing in their state illegally not only are afforded in state tuition but also, get preferential treatment in the application process. Even if they didn't get preferential treatment, they are still utilizing a finite resource that is being denied to their children. I don't blame them for their ire. After all, they worked, paid taxes and contributed to their communities for 20 years. What type of system rewards law breakers ahead of honest citizens? In our case, my son the language major was born in the state of CA. It turns out that U.C. Santa Barbara is an excellent language school. Also, you can't beat the weather (ever been there? It's a great place to live). If my son wanted to attend that school, he would have to pay out of state tuition, even though he was born in CA. What sense does it make to allow people that are residing in our country illegally pay a lesser tuition than someone that is a United States citizen and was born in that state?

So, that is our story. BTW, I had one hell of a time getting our pit bull to calm down and be a suburban house dog after we moved here.

Thanks again for sending this in Babs, I hope you don't mind the editing. Please give my best to your son and thank him for his dedication to duty and service to the United States of America. I can't wait to see the comments this generates.

Dr. D

Public Diplomacy- a reader responds.

2005-09-29T21:44:00.000-04:00

From time to time we receive e-mails that we consider to be too good to keep to ourselves. When this occurs we always ask the sender's permission before posting. The following comes from a retired FSO, regarding Public Diplomacy as he has seen it over his career and what he thinks our future efforts should be.

Begin text of e-mail to the Daily Demarche:

As a non USIS (United States Information Service) type looking at what USIS/USIA (United States Information Agency) was doing, I viewed them to be ineffectual. I personally attended a number of their cultural events and typically enjoyed them, BUT the USA taxpayers did not intend that a significant number (or all) attending USIS cultural functions be embassy Americans.

Added to this were the great difficulties getting into US Govt. buildings overseas, such that most foreigners gave up rather then suffer the humiliations at the hands of a US Marine guard and/or local contract guards while having to turn over their cellular telephone, laptop PC, etc.- maybe to be returned when they left (I assume that almost all got their property back, but for some there was likely concern).

My last two overseas posts were the Philippines and India. The impact of the USIS offices in those countries on the minds of the locals was likely less than 0.001 percent of the total impact of the various news/etc. media organizations, BBC and CNN in particular, plus Time and Newsweek. While USIS was likely effective in pushing out the USA message before satellite TV when the only other option was short wave radio, now almost everyone has access to satellite TV and the Internet. Added to this, VAST numbers of people read and understood spoken English, so that they could and still do watch English language TV, available in all countries via satellite.

In Manila, the USIS library was the best library that I knew of in that city, likely in that country. But on a typical day they had less than ten Filipino visitors and maybe five American embassy family members. They had more staff than visitors. While a USIS library was a useful way to push out a message before satellite TV and before the hyper security requirements, with the Internet and satellite TV why should someone submit to body cavity exams to get into a USIS library (or whatever it is called now)?

In the Philippines when I was there (1993-95), USIS had over 400 employees (five Americans, the rest locals) who maintained the radio transmitters for VOA (Voice of America). Then VOA was largely part of USIS, I know that has changed. I happened to chat with several of these USIS engineers often because they lived near me and rode in the same armored van to/from work. These folks had no idea if anyone in China (where their signal was directed) listened to VOA and had heard nothing from USIA Washington about results. They acknowledged that with BBC and CNN TV signals being received in the People's Republic of China (I watched them while in the PRC and Vietnam) that there was very little reason for the VOA short wave radio signal, in particular since there are estimated to be more English language speakers/readers in the PRC than in the USA and Canada. Knowing the US Govt., I assume that we still have at least 400 US Govt. employees/contractors maintaining short wave radio transmitters in the Philippines that send a signal to 17 Chinese in the PRC.

When I was in India I occasionally listened to BBC World Service radio since there was almost no radio in India (only two signals in Delhi, one AM and one FM). But I understand that there are more local signals now.

What State PD ought to be working on now is content and getting it out to opinion makers. I believe that much of this ought to be done via blogs and E-mails to specific elite intellectuals. Added to this is personal contacts with leading elite intellectuals of target countries.

What ought NOT be done are the efforts to reach out to the masses by FSOs, this is not cost effect.

In a few markets such as the Middle East we might use AM or FM radio signals to push out a local message such as radio Sawa (or something like that).

The nature of the typical PD FSO is that they are typical cultural nerds who lack people skills. What is needed are outgoing PR types who have no concerns about being propagandist and who NEVER think of themselves as cultural elitist.

The purpose of PD is to win the minds of those who hate us, not to appreciate art and music.

Also, the PD FSOs really ought to know the country, region, language, and culture of the country were they are assigned. More than anyone else in the mission they need 4-4 language skills* and they need to specialize in countries and not hop about the world from Burma to Bolivia to Botswana to Belgium to Barbados to Belize having a career specializing in countries beginning with the letter "B".

END E-mail

*Note from Dr. D This refers to the level of language ability a person posseses as tested on a scale of 0-5. Three is considered professionally competent, i.e. able to work in a given language (although with the "hard" languages such as Chinese and Arabic 2 is usually the goal), with 5 being a professional translator. It is interesting (to me at least) to note that at the 3 level you can address topics such as "global nuclear threat reduction" but have a hard time getting your hair cut.

I failed to ask how the author of this message wished to be identified, if he wishes he may address this in the comments section or e-mail me. For now I'll leave it unsigned.

(End of post).

Of indictments and Public Diplomacy

2005-09-28T21:42:00.000-04:00

First-Tom DeLay has done the honorable thing and stepped down while this indictment is investigated- Michelle Malkin has covered so thoroughly there is nothing really for me to say except this: if he is guilty, he should pay. If not there had better be a long, loud apology from those who brought the charges. What are the odds of that, though (an apology, not a "not-guilty")? I imagine this will take a while- first someone will have to explain the concept of honor to those making the accusations, it might take a while for that concept to sink in.

Now, onto new business. I recently discovered a blog about Public Diplomacy called Eccentric Star: A Public Diplomacy Weblog. Not sure how I missed this one for such a long time, but here is an excerpt from the "about me" page:

I'm a former USIA Foreign Service Officer. I was with USIA from late 1984 until mid-1998. My posts were Rome, Amman, Algiers, Colombo, and Ulaanbaatar.

I resigned from the Foreign Service in 1998, before USIA was absorbed into the State Department. I should do a post sometime on why I quit the Foreign Service. I'll stick to a short version here, which is that I loved working in public diplomacy but that my last embassy proved beyond a doubt that PD was not valued at State; and that, in any case, I was increasingly unhappy living with the cultures of embassies and expat 'bubbles.'

Check out the site when you have a chance- it shows a lot of promise.

Tying into the Public Diplomacy theme, I found an interesting report on the web last night- The Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index. You'll have to register (it's free) to download the report- but here is how the folks at Anholt-GMI describe the report:

The Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index is the first analytical ranking of the world's nation brands. Each quarter, the Index, led by nation brands expert Simon Anholt, polls consumers from the GMI worldwide five million-strong market research panel on their perceptions of the cultural, political, commercial and human assets, investment potential and tourist appeal of several countries. This adds up to a clear measurement of national brand power, and a unique barometer of global opinion.

Nation brand is an important concept in today's world. Globalization means that countries compete with each other for the attention, respect and trust of investors, tourists, consumers, donors, immigrants, the governments of other nations and the media: so a powerful and positive nation brand provides a crucial competitive advantage. it is essential for countries both rich and poor to understand how they are seen by the publics around the world; how their achievements and failures, their assets and liabilities, and their people and products are reflected in their brand image.

I find the idea of a poll designed to measure the "brand power" of nations to be very interesting. Of course, like all such polls, the design of the questions can skew the results, and of course they don't reveal exactly what all of the questions are, in fact they give precious few clues about what they ask. I was able to find a few sample questions on the web site. Would anyone be surprised to learn that the few they all go something like this:

- Do you think the severity of Hurricane Katrina is a direct result of global warming?
- Do you think the Bush administration should do more to acknowledge the impact of global warming?
- Do you think the Bush administration should do more to help persons impacted by Hurricane Katrina?
- Do you think the Bush administration should release America's strategic oil reserves to stabilize the price of gasoline and other products?

You get the idea. Other than that they do go so far as to reveal that the questions are designed to elicit opinions about the following six areas: tourism, exports, governance, investment and immigration, culture and heritage, and people.

I am sure by now you might be interested in the results of this poll, so here are the top 25 "Nation Brands" as determined by Anholt-GMI:

1. Australia
2. Canada
3. Switzerland
4. United Kingdom
5. Sweden
6. Italy
7. Germany
8. The Netherlands
9. France
10. New Zealand
11. The United States
12. Spain
13. Ireland
14. Japan
15. Brazil
16. Mexico
17. Egypt
18. India
19. Poland
20. South Korea
21. China
22. South Africa
23. Czech Republic
24. Russia
25. Turkey

The designers of this poll say that:

The implications of the NBI finding are genuinely significant for governments and their foreign services, tourist boards, investment promotion agencies, cultural institutes and exporters. It means that the individual successes and failures of each agency, ministry, company and organisation, and the content and quality of their actions and communications, are inextricably linked with those of all the other stakeholders and with the image of the country as a whole. This means that the nation brand should be measured and managed as a whole, and that treating the management or promotion of any one sector in isolation is likely to be less effective than a coordinated approach. (Emphasis added.)

Now, I am not certain if I agree with them that this poll is useful in a practical way, after all I am slightly skeptical about the questions they have asked. I'd like to see all of the questions and the demographics of those polled, but I doubt that is a possibility. For all I know the poll and the release of it's data is nothing more than a stroke of marketing genius on the behalf of Simon Anholdt, who is author of Brand America : The Mother of All Brands (Great Brand Stories series).

I am still digesting the report, I hope some of you will download it and read it as well- I plan to post more on this in the next day or so, especially on the data they share about "Brand America." I look forward to your comment and thoughts on this report.

The face we show the world.

2005-09-27T21:04:00.000-04:00

I suppose it is quite obvious that I agree with the President and his administration more often than not- this is a Republican Underground blog after all- and that I tend to not have much in common with the American left. That is not for a lack of good, or even great, ideas from the left, however, but rather because of the extreme inability of the majority of folks on the left to have a rational debate, and their dedication to presenting their ideas in the most offensive manner. I realize that the examples I am about to cite are somewhat extreme, but where is the rational voice from the left saying "Wait a minute, we have some good ideas and these moonbats are interfering with our ability to communicate effectively?"

Case in point, the first:

Nation of Islam chief Minister Louis Farrakhan has expanded on his theory that New Orleans' levees were blown up during Hurricane Katrina, announcing Friday that divers working on the levee break have found evidence of explosives.

"These explosives are from the government side," he said during a press conference in Memphis held to promote his upcoming Million Man Anniversary March.

Case in point, the second: Bill Maher: Laura Bush Like 'Hitler's Dog'

Case in point, the third:
BitchAboutBush.com (an eloquent excerpt follows)
fuck you the fucktard, you greedy gas gouging, country destroying, ignorant, lying son of a bitch! Fuck you x infinity

Case in point, the fourth through sixth (warning- female nudity):
Number Four, Number Five, Number Six

I could go on and on- but there is no need to. If you want more examples see this column by Dennis Prager (thanks for the tip, Peter).

Is it any wonder that I simply can't take the left seriously? Is it any further wonder that large chunks of the world are looking at America and saying "this is what democracy has to offer us?" (bet you didn't think was going to have a foreign relations tie in, did you?). Why is it that we can't have informed debate in this day and age, and why is that the left seems to have the larger share of loonies? Granted there were plenty of folks on the right that had it in for Clinton- but I never saw any of them take their clothes off, out an American flag on the ground after defacing it, then walk around and lie down on it. I remember a lot of speculation about Clinton lying and otherwise prevaricating, but never heard anyone blame him for all the troubles in the world.

Having said all of that, there are a number of things I take issue with when it comes to the President and the current administration. The first, and by far the largest, is the runaway spending that we have seen in recent years. I know that the present administration still plans to halve the deficit, and I'd love to see him do it. But he does not seem to be on track.

Next- the issue of the military taking the lead on natural disaster assistance. Why? Isn't the whole point of our republic that the states have all of the powers not expressly given to the federal government? When a state faces a disaster it cannot manage the leaders of that state can always call for federal help- and perhaps military personnel and equipment may be seconded to another agency to assist. I can see no reason, however, why the military should take the lead on these issues, that simply is not the purpose for which our military exists, and it smacks of the federal government imposing itself unbidden into the lives of American citizens. When we see the military of another country take the lead internally we usually start to talk about juntas, and/or a coup.

Why is it that I don't feel the urge to go berserk over these issues, and so much of the left does? Why is that the image we choose to project of ourselves to the world? Active dissent need not mean madness. Democracy is about allowing differences of opinion, it is largely about dissent, it is about the government serving the people, and the people reserving the right to change the government. I understand, and embrace the idea, that there will always be differences of opinion- that is what makes us a great country. What I don't understand is where, and when, democracy in America became defined as the right to be crude and crass, and when it became about shouting down opposing views, not debating them.

I have had many people (Americans and foreigners alike) ask me if being a diplomat under this administration is difficult, if supporting the policies of this President is somehow harder than the last, if the President is an embarrassment to me. I generally smile and tell them that I do not represent the President- I represent America and her people.

No one ever asks me if I am embarrassed by any of the people I represent.

And that is probably a good thing.

(End of post.)

Think Globally, Act Locally.

2005-09-25T22:28:00.000-04:00

Every once in a while our friends on the left come up with a good slogan. I am very fond of the one used for today's title as it relates to foreign policy. As you all know I like to comment occasionally on domestic policy, although I try to focus on foreign policy and foreign affairs. Of course there are a couple of places where these two policies collide- primarily along the borders with Canada and Mexico. Of primary interest to me today (and in the past on this blog truth be told) is the border with Mexico. There are really two reasons for this- the first is that we are being invaded from the south, not the north, and the second is that the southern invaders are not just Mexicans- they have back up all the way down to the Antarctic, more or less.

When it comes to our southern border the men & women who have the thankless task of "closing the border" and "halting illegal immigration" speak of two categories of illegal entrants: Mexicans and OTMs- Other Than Mexicans. OTM's may be Chinese or Pilipino or any other nationality- but the vast preponderance are from South of South of the Border:

Mexican citizens accounted for the largest group of apprehensions in 2003 with 956,963 (91 percent) of the over one million apprehensions. Honduran citizens accounted for the second-largest group with 16,632 apprehensions (two percent), followed by citizens of El Salvador with 11,757 (just over one percent), and citizens of Guatemala with 10,355 (just under one percent).

About nine or ten months ago I posted a piece called "The Tortilla Curtain" addressing the proposed non-amnesty to integrate illegals into American society. Not much has changed since then- except that the Iraq War is still on, gas prices are through the roof and two hurricanes have wrecked big stretches of the country.

So why is it that we are still talking about rewarding the illegal actions of millions of people? From the Financial Times last week (subscription required):

News that President George W. Bush is likely to press ahead with reform of US immigration laws is remarkable in several respects. In the poisonously partisan political climate his administration has done so much to create, the proposals command some cross-party support, while sharply dividing Republicans in Congress and in the country. Equally, as his leadership ratings plummet in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and flagship measures such as Social Security reform flounder, it is surprising Mr Bush is willing to expend political capital on an unpopular cause.

I think unpopular is a bit of an understatement. The GOP may be chasing the Latin vote, but at what cost? Illegal immigrants cost the U.S. $10,000,000,000 a year according to the Center for Immigration Studies- and that is a net figure, offset by any taxes illegal immigrant families might pay. How far would that $10 billion go in helping the hurricane struck areas recover?

Keep in mind also that the figure cited above is not counting the remittances that are sent from the United States to the various home countries. In 2001- the last year I could find solid data on- over $28,000,000,000 in remittances were sent out of the U.S. (BEGIN RANT: That same year we donated $10,884,000,000 in official "foreign" aid -not to mention the $15,600,000,000 that was donated privately by the people of America, money we NEVER get credit for on the international scene by the way- as GlobalIssues.org puts it: "the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government" - one again completely missing the point that the PEOPLE are the United States- not the government. END RANT)

What is my point, you might ask? Good question.

The United States of America has long been a "safety valve" for the poor of Latin America and their corrupt, insipid governments- and even the American Left is willing to admit it. That is a fine and noble idea- but why should we continue to absorb the results of the failed policies of our neighbors- at a cost to our own people? When your neighbor loses his job because his boss was incompetent and the business failed do you take on all of the cost of maintaining him and his family? Of course not. So why do we think it is good policy to do so for entire nations? We have been absorbing the failures of Latin America for far to long- at too great a cost. To add insult to injury many of the people and leaders of the nations we provide the most assistance to are virulently anti-American.

Within Latin America as a whole, resurgent anti-Americanism is having similar effects. It is strengthening the opponents of economic reform, fiscal responsibility, free trade and economic competitiveness. These opponents lose no opportunity to point out that the United States favors all these policies. It is giving new life to anti-democratic leaders who use anti-Americanism to generate political support or deflect public opinion from their policy failures, as in Venezuela. It is making it more difficult to take collective action against murderous guerrillas determined to overthrow the democratic government of Colombia. It is helping to undermine the political consensus in favor of fighting drugs, as in Bolivia. And at a time when most of Latin America’s presidents, including the new president of Brazil, must govern with fragmented legislatures, resurgent anti-Americanism is seriously undermining their ability to pass labor, pension, judicial and many other needed reforms.

We need to take a long hard look at our policies, both foreign and domestic, and our neighbors in the region. Illegal immigration is costing us billions of dollars, wrecking property along the border and potentially a threat to our national security. In light of the President's resurgent interest in an amnesty (call it whatever you want) and the current push for fiscal reform, I once again I propose the following "Five Step Plan" for immigration reform:

1. Establish a more secure employment document- the Social Security card does not work.
2. Punish American firms that hire illegal workers- this is the most important step.
3. Revise and expand the H2 visa category- not just for Mexicans, but for all, and require that issuance only occur in the country of origin of the alien.
4. Require legal workers to pay into Medicaid, and deny public benefits to illegal aliens found in America.
5. Reduce the amount of foreign aid granted to any country by a set or variable amount based on the costs associated with each illegal immigrant detained/treated/deported.

The question is; are we, the American people, ready to demand a change that makes sense, or is it time to take a lesson from the EU and follow in Spain's footsteps?

The Perfect Storm

2005-09-22T19:50:00.000-04:00

In the movie by the same name as today's post a confluence of storms created a deadly moment for the ill fated crew of a deep sea fishing boat. In today's political environment in the United States an odd blend of weather, rhetoric, domestic policy and foreign policy have combined to create what could well be a seminal moment in American history, and our relationship with the world. We, all Americans, have an opportunity to come together right now, to show the world what it means to be free and in control of our government.

Hurricane Katrina (and now Hurricane Rita) focused global attention on the structure and depth (or lack thereof) of American society. Our national dirty laundry was aired in a very public manner- we have poor (relatively speaking) in America. We have cowards in America. We have opportunistic criminals in America, and opportunistic pundits. (Of course, as we have always known, we produce the polar opposites of all these things as well.) The question, now, is what are we going to do about our problems? The world is watching. It is time to lead by example.

We, America and her diplomatic representatives, talk a great game about building democracy, and the rule of law. We are quick to advocate for personal freedom, and responsibility. We rail against governments that deprive their citizens of basic freedoms and (some of us) criticize those that encourage dependency on the state for well being and advancement. So how do we respond to the devastation wrought, and likely to be wrought, by these storms? Is more government the answer?

Hardly.

This is our chance to show the world what democracy can do, what people who are empowered and encouraged to be in charge of their own government can accomplish. There will be a price to pay, of course. I have seen estimates in the hundreds of billions of dollars to repair the damage done by Katrina. Some of this is rightly the responsibility of the federal government (and some is not, but that is fodder for another piece)- so where will the money come from?

How about if $37,000,000,000 comes from "restraining foreign aid?"

The Republican Study Committee yesterday proposed just such a savings yesterday in their report "Operation Offset" (note: the total amount saved over 10 years projected by this report is nearly $950 billion, but this blog deals with international issues mainly). How can we save so much, you might ask, and still maintain our place in the world? Turns out it is not so hard. Here is a slightly modified (only the 10 year savings are shown here) table from the report:

Savings from Baseline
Eliminate US Subscriptions to the European Bank $386,000,000
Reduce Economic Assistance to Egypt $1,200,000,000
Eliminate Millennium Challenge Accounts $24,352,000,000
Level Funding for Peacekeeping Operations $1,294,000,000
Eliminate International Fund for Ireland $195,000,000
Level Funding for Global AIDS Initiative $7,598,000,000
Level Funding for Inter-American Foundation $28,000,000
Level Funding for the African Development Foundation $28,000,000
Level Funding for the Peace Corps $111,000,000
Level Funding for Andean Counter-Drug Initiative $125,000,000
Reduce USAID Operating Expenses $793,000,000
Level Funding for the International Development Assoc. $1,489,000,000
Level Funding for Asian Development Bank $223,000,000
SUBTOTAL: Restraining Foreign Aid $37,822,000,000

We mean well with much of the money we spend in the hope of making a better world. But most of it is simply wasted- in this case the road to fiscal ruin is paved with good intentions, and I have the distinct feeling that these items listed above are merely the tip of the iceberg. We have been throwing good money away after bad for far too long. The time has come for us to reign in our tendency to spend indiscriminately. It is time to wean the world from the mothers milk of freely given dollars. If we want the world to embrace the American ideal of democracy it is time to demonstrate just how, and why, it can work.

The place for that demonstration is at home. Please take a look at the report referenced in this piece, and a companion piece at Taxpayers for Common Sense, then let your elected officials know what you think- after you check out what they have pledged to do to offset the costs of recovery at the Porkbusters page at the Truth Laid Bear.

Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. - Harry Truman

(End of post)

Paging Karen Hughes...

2005-09-20T20:34:00.000-04:00

Friends- no original content today, sorry. I made a rookie diplo-mistake earlier and ate something that was both uncooked and not prepared by someone I know- and I am paying the price for it. Welcome to the Third World- the food looks good, it smells good, everyone else is eating it, so why not?

Oh, right. Now I remember.

In place of my spending a rather uncomfortable time in front of the computer I offer the following from the Washington Times. I'll be back tomorrow- I hope. Gotta run.

Diplomatic strength signals
By Robert H. Spiro Jr.
Published September 18, 2005

"Peace through Strength" is a phrase that has served as a rallying cry for presidents over the last half-century and is not lost on today's "war on terrorism."

Thankfully, in the years since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, most lawmakers have understood the importance of military strength. In fact, the United States has increased its defense budget more than $200 billion since 2000, and last year only 14 representatives voted against the defense appropriations bill.

American's armed forces are maintaining freedom in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And the message from Capitol Hill is that these brave men and women must be the world's best trained, best equipped and best led. Transforming to a lighter and more mobile military is far from complete, but there have been significant steps.

The United States is now militarily strong but lacks strength in diplomacy. The American cause is misunderstood in many parts of the world, and we have not appealed to global hearts and minds. Our communication failure is ironic, because America invented both Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

Nevertheless, America has clearly failed to promote acceptance of its mission and goals overseas. Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged this when they announced the appointment of Karen Hughes as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. They also vowed a vigorous response to foreign governments and news outlets accusing the U.S. of being an evil force.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved Mrs. Hughes July 26 and she was sworn in Sept. 9. She will try to convince the world of America's "goodness and decency."

Developing public opinion obviously involves many factors. But in retrospect it now appears the Clinton administration made a mistake in 1999 when it terminated our major public arm, the United States Information Agency (USIA). USIA was merged with the State Department that year, and the post of undersecretary of state for public diplomacy was created.

Karen Hughes now confronts an extremely daunting task. Her two predecessors, Margaret Tutwiler and Charlotte Beers, lasted six and 17 months respectively, and both spoke of constant frustrations in coping with the Foreign Service bureaucracy. This is one reason the office was vacant for 25 months of the Bush administration.

According to the Heritage Foundation, "Hughes will take over a bureaucracy that is in disarray, in a department that doesn't want it. ... In 1999, State devoured and scattered USIA's personnel and bureaus. Next, senior managers created the undersecretariat as an advisory position with no significant budget and no authority over public diplomacy personnel."

America's most troublesome security problems are in predominantly Muslim countries. The United States is certainly not against the Islamic faith, and since 1990 has fought in six wars to protect Muslims. The United States liberated Kuwait, as well as 25 million people in Afghanistan and another 25 million in Iraq. America saved 250,000 people in Somalia and it stopped the "ethnic cleansing" and massive human-rights violations in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Unfortunately, this message has not been relayed to many parts of the Middle East. America does not dictate to any nation, but is keenly interested in promoting democracy, good governance, the rule of law, an independent media, religious freedom, the rights of women and strengthened institutions of civil society.

America's message is not getting across largely because there is little coordination of overall strategy. I hope Mrs. Hughes will not confine herself to the State Department corridors but act as a public diplomacy czar in coordinating many divergent programs. At present, there is too much overlap and many vital outreach efforts are ignored.

Since governor of Texas, President Bush has had great confidence in Karen Hughes. The president has now assigned her to one of his administration's most difficult tasks, and he must provide her the tools she needs. Her task is so important I believe she should be a member of the National Security Council. In addition, Clinton administration personnel decisions should be reversed.

The undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs must ensure our government always proclaims the universal values America espouses -- democracy, free markets, human rights and equal justice under law. They represent the strongest weapons in America's arsenal and are the ultimate guarantors of our freedom and national security.

She said the "way to prevail in this struggle is through the power of our ideas. I recognize that the job ahead will be difficult; perceptions do not change quickly or easily. We don't expect instant results." It is clear the president and the Senate have full confidence in her abilities to do the job.

Robert H. Spiro Jr. holds a doctorate in European history and is a former university professor, dean and president. A combat veteran of naval warfare in the Pacific in WWII, he is a rear admiral in the Naval Reserve and former undersecretary of the Army for President Carter. He is chairman of the American Security Council Foundation.

(End of post)

Scheisse!

2005-09-19T20:42:00.000-04:00

You can bet that the title of today's piece has been uttered a great many times in Germany over the last 24 hours. Germans went to the polls yesterday (some of them anyway) with the results still uncertain. I love this headline from Deutsche Welle online:

Americans Confused by German Elections

I think the headline they were actually going for was "Americans Have No Idea and Could Not Care Less That Germany is Having Elections", but we can let that go for the moment. Here is a bit from that article:

For the meantime, it's still unclear to whom President George W. Bush will send the traditional congratulations message. Once the official White House statements are on their way, Americans will have a better idea of how they should interpret the German election.

This is one of the things that drives the rest of the world mad- but it is a simple fact- most Americans don't live their lives in a constant state of preoccupation with the internal politics of other countries. I am not saying it is a good thing, or a bad thing. But does anyone on main street USA care who will lead the next inefective government in Germany? I doubt it.

Anyone who is watching the elections in Germany (at least most readers of this site) must be chortling with delight as Dresden becomes the Florida of this election. It is too close to call and results won't be in from Dresden until October 2nd, and even then the odd coalition building that occurs in the German federal government may produce odd (to say the least) results. As Der Speigel puts it:

The greatest fear of many conservative Southern German politicians may now be a reality: the outcome of German elections may be decided in the East. Specifically, by one district in the city of Dresden. Here, 219,000 voters have yet to vote and could very well bring Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's Social Democrats (SPD) into a dead heat with the opposition. In Sunday's election, the SPD chalked up a mere three parliamentary seats less than their main rivals, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU). But so far all coalition possibilities have hit snags and it remains up in the air if Schröder or his challenger Angela Merkel will end up sitting in the chancellery.

Just imagine if during the next election cycle we allowed a major voting block, say, oh I don't know- Florida, to wait a few weeks after the election to cast their votes. Imagine the chaos and gleeful trumpeting of the international press at how screwed up our election system is.

I suppose we have to be bigger than that, of course. As the premier power in the world today we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. In that light, if you are interested in the German elections and want to know more I highly recommend the excellent blog David's Medienkritik, especially this post: Davids Final Word: Pre-Election Facts, Notes and Impressions.

Whatever the eventual outcome of this electoral mess in Germany I am certain of a few things. Unemployment will still be high. The Turkish issue will not be resolved. The same nation that we had to twice go to war with in the last century and which we tried to teach democracy, and then protected from the USSR for over four decades will still continue to trade America bashing for actual policy. And not many people in America will know, or care, who heads the German government. The American people will only ask one thing, as we always have- if we need you, will you be there to stand with us? Care to guess my predicted answer to that question?

(End of Post)

Talk amongst yourselves.

2005-09-13T18:54:00.000-04:00

The federal fiscal year end is rapidly approaching, and government bureaucrats, both in the U.S. and abroad, are frantically trying to spend any money they might have left, so as to not have their budgets cut next year. FY 2005 ends on September 30th, and if we are extremely lucky we will have a new budget by the end of the calendar year- but I would not hold your breath. As "A Brief Introduction to the Federal Budget Process" (from 1996- a more up to date piece may be found here) so plainly puts it:

The federal budget process is widely regarded as a complex, time-consuming, and arcane set of activities often suffused with controversy, frustration, and delay. These characteristics of the process are attributable to various factors, including the vast scope and complexity of federal activities and the numerous types of financial transactions needed to fund them, the profusion of participants in the budget process and the wide dispersal of budgetary power, and the far-reaching economic and political consequences of budgetary decision-making.

Once we have a budget though, at least in the State Department, we go into hoard mode. We try to husband the money in case we really need it, so most funding requests are weighed, judged and grudgingly approved. Maybe. The net result is that around August there is a call to blow the wad that is left. Most of the time the things that are purchased are actually needed- but not always. Some funds have been earmarked for specific purposes and cannot be used for anything else- like travel money. This gets me to my point (finally)- for the next few days I'll be out on a "familiarization tour" with some other new arrivals. This is a good use of taxpayer money, trust me. Okay, so maybe there is a small element of boondoggle, but I'll be out there showing the flag and spreading the word.

While I am gone I'd love to have you all leave your suggestions (in the comment section please)as to what we should focus our foreign policy budget on for the next year. Iraq? Democracy in general? Iran and Lebanon? Latin America? Cut the whole thing in half and give it to New Orleans?

What do you say?

I'll be back over the weekend. Looking forward to your ideas- don't hold back.

(end of post)

Schadenfreude

2005-09-12T21:01:00.000-04:00

Slate.com today ran a piece by Richard Haass entitled Storm Warning: How the Flood Compromises U.S. Foreign Policy. Haass is an excellent source for just such a piece- he is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Director of Policy Planning for the Department of State. He can be presumed to know what he is talking about.

It is unfortunate, then, to see a piece from him that is clearly produced to garner media attention, and to reinforce the ideas it pretends to debunk. This line alone smacks of hypocrisy:

The dominant overseas reaction has been sympathy mixed with shock and horror at what was seen by many as evidence of racism and a reminder of the extreme poverty in which many Americans live.

The reaction has indeed been mixed shock and horror- at what the world has been shown by many. There has certainly been evidence of poverty; there can be no doubt of that. But there has been no evidence if racism- that charge is as hollow as the opposite sentiment which holds that all blacks are looters. Further, poverty is an extremely relative concept. While the people living in the housing projects in New Orleans are poor by American and certain Western European standards, they are far, far, from poor on global standards, and Haass knows that. As Moises Naim recently wrote in Foreign Policy:

You are not normal. If you are reading these pages, you probably belong to the minority of the world’s population that has a steady job, adequate access to social security, and enjoys substantial political freedoms. Moreover, you live on more than $2 a day, and, unlike 860 million others, you can read. The percentage of humanity that combines all of these attributes is minuscule.

According to the World Bank, about half of humanity lives on less than $2 a day, while the International Labour Organization reckons that a third of the available labor force is unemployed or underemployed, and half of the world’s population has no access to any kind of social security. Freedom House, an organization that studies countries’ political systems, categorizes 103 of the world’s 192 nations as either “not free” or “partially free,” meaning that the civil liberties and basic political rights of their citizens are limited or severely curtailed. More than 3.6 billion people, or 56 percent of the world, live in such countries.

Statistically, a “normal” human being in today’s world is poor, lives in oppressive physical, social, and political conditions, and is ruled by unresponsive and corrupt government. But normalcy is not only defined by statistics. Normal implies something that is “usual, typical, or expected.” Therefore, normal is not only what is statistically most frequent but also what others assume it to be. In this sense, the expectations of a tiny minority trump the realities of the vast majority. There is an enormous gap between what average citizens in advanced Western democracies—and the richer elites everywhere—assume is or should be normal, and the daily realities faced by the overwhelming majority of people.

Does Haass read FP? I don't know- but he has been out and about in the world. He should know better than to say things like:

In an era of 24-hour satellite television and the Internet, public diplomacy is about who Americans are and what they do, not just what they say.

Public diplomacy has always been about who we are and what we do- how what we do is presented to the world, and the spin placed on who we are by the 24 hour media and the internet pundits is what helps shape world opinion today, though. Many of the poor (again by local standards) in New Orleans are indeed black. Are all of them black? I doubt it. Are they poor because of racism? I doubt that too. But repeat it enough times to people who are looking for the worst in us, and it becomes the (relative) truth.

That is why we see the Taiwan News Online picking up columns from the Philadelphia Inquirer. What self respecting America-basher could resist a piece in which an American author in a leading daily says that the reaction of the government to the hurricane will lead the youth of the world to embrace totalitarianism?

If people abroad see our leaders failing to help poor blacks or unable to cope with domestic crises, our model of government becomes less appealing. It no longer stands as a global example for emulation. Nationalism or fundamentalism, or even Chinese authoritarianism become more attractive alternatives to the world's younger generation.

Haass does not go that far- but he sneaks up the edge and peers over with this statement:

It will be more difficult to make the case for free markets and more open societies if the results of such reforms come to be associated with the disorder seen in New Orleans.

Now, it is clear that he is not a free market kind of guy. He demonstrates this by attempting to personally prove the point in the Philadelphia Inquirer article- the one stating that the federal reaction to Katrina will lead some to embrace totalitarian socialism. He tells us:

"U.S. energy policy or, to be coldly honest, the lack of one, is another reality that Katrina exposes. "

His fix for our lack of an energy policy? He recommends that we interfere with the market and drastically increase fuel economy standards. Again, Haass has been around the block and he should know that gas in the U.S. has always been cheap compared to the rest of the First World (in many parts of Western Europe gas has long been near the $5 per gallon mark). When gas prices were low people were willing to pay the penalty for driving large, gas guzzling SUVs. In the old country, where it is far from cheap to tank up the market has produced the Smart Car, and affordable public transport is the norm. Haass and other fear mongers need not worry- the government of the United States of America need not cut fuel consumption because the real power of the nation, the people, will do it themselves.

One of the most valid points he makes is that the destruction of NOLA and the surrounding areas may cause many Americans to rethink our aid policy. He focuses solely on Iraq, of course, but as the debate over UN dues continues (note the almost subliminal use of the word "crises" in the url of that article) and South Koreans (among others) continue to protest our protecting them (see photo), we may indeed see a change in how the American people view our foreign policy- Iraq will be a part of it for some, but by no means will it be the single issue. We might just see a few billion less heading out the door in the next few years as we take care of our own (heaven forbid we see an end to budget pork within the country).

The level of destruction in New Orleans was the result of a force of nature- what happened just before and after that was a failure of leadership at the local, state and federal levels, to be sure- and in that order. Mistakes were made, and lives were lost that should not have been. The cries of racism and accusations that President neglected the people of devastated areas did absolutely nothing to aid the situation, and I can only hope that lessons will be learned from this- lessons in rapid response, the need for better organized evacuation plans and what, specifically, not to do should such a disaster occur again.

We will rebuild. This is the "who we are and what we do" that Haass alluded to. We are not the media; we are not the doomsday policy pundits. Our government will not fall over this; (as much as some would like to see it do) no one will be stood against a wall and shot. Last month NOLA was a first world city with some poor people who are relatively wealthy on the global scale. In a few years it will be much the same. When Bangledesh floods it will, at best, be rebuilt into the same Bangledesh it was before- and that, my friends is both a real shame and not our fault.

Such devastation at home can not but affect our foreign policy- but it is not the end of the world. Our immediate response to Katrina left much to be desired. Our long term response will not. Our emenies and "friends" may bask in this moment of our need, if only because such opportunities are few and far between. Our foreign policy has not been compromised- it may, however, have temporarily been pushed to the rear, and rightly so. We have been dealt a painful blow, and must look to our own for the time being.

Oddly Russian President Putin seems to be one of the few men in the world who is seeing the this disaster clearly:

"I look at this and cannot believe my eyes," Russian President Vladimir Putin said when I asked him Monday evening about Katrina's damage. "It tells us however strong and powerful we think we are, we are nothing in the eyes of nature and of God Almighty. . . . We are all vulnerable and must cooperate to help each other."

Schadenfreude is a dangerous thing when it is expressed publicly. We know who are friends are, and they know that we will recover and that they can continue to count on us. Our enemies know we will recover too, and so they do what cowards always do, and kick at us while we are down. That is to be expected. Collaboration for political gain within the country, however, is a truly heartbreaking thing.

POST SCRIPT: As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around. Thanks to an e-mail suggestion (and per the Watcher's instructions) I am submitting this post for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

D-Day + 1,460

2005-09-11T19:00:00.000-04:00

Four years after the world watched the second jet slam into the World Trade Center on live TV, four years after seeing people just like us jumping to their deaths from hundreds of feet up in the twin towers to avoid the flames, four years after hundreds of ordinary men and women displayed extraordinary courage by rushing into those towers to battle the same flames- never to emerge, and four years after the "Arab street" danced and sang in praise of the attackers- what, exactly, has changed?

Not enough, I fear. Time heals all wounds, but it also provides a convenient hole in the sand for those who wish one. Headlines across the nation on September 12th, 2005, will repeat something akin to the following:

US marks 9/11 anniversary with march, silence.

Why silence? Has the terror and rage of that day already faded from our consciousness? Are we mute with pent up hostility, unable to find the words to express our continued anguish over those lost that day? Or are we afraid to speak up, worried that we might in some way offend some special interest group? SecDef Rumsfeld said it best today:

"I wish we could say ... That this is a time for peaceful remembrance, that we were gathering today to commemorate a danger that had long since past," Rumsfeld said. "... But we cannot. The enemy, though seriously weakened and continuously under pressure, continues to plot attacks and the danger they pose to the free world is real and present."

So why silence? We have been told repeatedly that Islam is not the enemy- it is only that the enemy is Islamic. Fine. And of course the German's living outside the camps six decades ago had no idea what that awful smell was, either. We, the Allies, heaped generations of shame on the Germans- with the result that it is highly unlikely that the fringe anti-Semitic German political groups will ever gain power again. Today, however, we tiptoe around the idea that all Muslims share the responsibility to put an end to the ideals of hatred that lead to terrorist attacks. Muslims in New York, Washington, Madrid, London, Bali and on and on- are quick to assure us that none of them have any idea where that horrible smell is coming from today, and they do not seem too intersted in finding out. Why aren't we asking them-especially today of all days, to look a little harder?

Meanwhile, in our public schools our teachers struggle with how to address the September 11, 2001 attacks. As a result we have text books that say things such as:

"Bin Laden's experience in Afghanistan convinced him that super-powers could be beaten. He also believed that Western ideas had contaminated Muslim society. He was outraged when Saudi Arabia allowed American troops on Saudi soil after Iraq invaded Kuwait."

and

"High levels of poverty ignored by undemocratic and corrupt governments provided bin Laden a pool of disaffected young Muslims who saw the United States as the evil source of their misery and the supporter of Israel's oppression of Palestinian Muslims."

Folks- the "war" ain't over yet, not by a long shot. It's not history- it is an act in progress. Why are our teachers addressing this with our children? Why are parents not addressing this at home? If you want to tell Bobby or Jane that their puppy is off on a big farm now, go ahead. But if your kids are 10 or older they know about September 11th, they know about OBL- they know about Jihad. Do you?

Sounds like one of those public service announcements against drugs, or teen sex, doesn't it? So why are there no PSAs against jihad or radical Islam? Maybe I missed them, but in the few months I was home in America over the summer, I didn't see any. Why? Because we are avoiding pointing the finger, being sensitive to group identities and trying desperately not to offend. To offend is one of the greatest crimes America can commit- and we have already offended the world.

Since not too long after the attacks it has become cliche to say that the President has "squandered the good will of the world":

"Most serious of all is the goodwill that has been spent so callously by the White House. In the words of that famous French newspaper headline four years ago 'We are all Americans' ... It is difficult to imagine that sentiment being expressed today."

Saudi Arabia's Al-Watan slammed the United States for tarring all Arabs and Muslims with the terrorist brush "without differentiating between the Al-Qaeda organization - which includes Americans, Europeans and Asians within its ranks - and the Arab countries, chiefly Saudi Arabia, to which some Al-Qaeda elements belong."

It wrote: "Washington justifies this generalization by the fact that most of those who carried out the attacks held Saudi citizenship, overlooking the role Saudi Arabia played in uprooting Al-Qaeda ... from Saudi society."

Read that last line again- uprooting al Qaeda from Saudi society. Not destroying al Qaeda, not bringing its leaders to justice- just tossing it out of Saudi Arabia. Great job on that, by the way. And it is not just the Saudis:

Egyptian Researcher Zaynab Abd Al-'Aziz, Iqra TV, May 26, 2005

Abd Al-Aziz: "Yes. And how could the U.S. win legitimacy for this without anyone saying that they are perpetrating massacres and waging a Crusader war? It fabricated the 9/11 show. I call it a fabrication because much has been written on this. We are also to blame. Why do we accept a single perspective? Countless books were written, some of which were even translated into Arabic, like Thierry Meyssan's 9/11- The Big Lie and Pentagate. 'Pentagate' like Watergate. He brings documents to prove that the method used in destroying the three [sic] towers was "controlled demolition." This is an architectural engineering theory, which was invented by the Americans. They teach it in their universities. They make movies and documentaries about it. They incorporated it in movie scenarios and then carried it out in real life. Why do we accept this?"

Host: "My God, Doctor. This is unbelievable! You're saying that this destruction..."

Abd Al-Aziz: "...was a controlled demolition. The building collapsed in its place, without hitting a single building to its left or right. The three towers fell in place."

Host: "In the same method they use in movies and plays?"

Abd Al-Aziz: "Yes, Exactly like that. That is how the U.S. won international legitimacy. You could sense the [9/11] operation was pre-planned because many things were revealed in the days that followed. For example, 4,000 Jews caught influenza on that exact day. They set a timer, and all 4,000..."

Egyptian General (Ret.) Dr. Mahmoud Khalaf, Egyptian Channel 1, May 5, 2005

"It was announced that [Vice] President Dick Cheney- this was published in The Washington Post- Cheney had called the secret phone of the American president, and told him it was an 'inside job, that there were traitors within the White House. The president slammed the phone down and told his aides, 'Air Force 1 is next,' and he gave the order to land.

"They, not us, published these things, and in The Washington Post no less! On September 12 and 13 the press reported this, and the questions were asked.

"But all the questions stopped, and nothing was said about this once the American President accused [bin Laden].

"Another thing disappeared at the same time. We all know that there were anthrax letters. At the same time they accomplished the rest of the goals.

Ahmad Yousuf, Editor-in-Chief of the Washington-based Middle East Magazine, Al-Manar TV, December 30, 2004

Yousuf: "These events [9/11] were preceded by very detailed planning, conducted by strategists who wove the strands of this plot. Some people were probably recruited, and, as has been pointed out by a certain Western intellectual, Israel excels at espionage within the U.S., and is capable of disguising many operations as Islamic. In other words, Israel is capable of penetrating certain Islamic circles, of directing and running them behind the scenes, so that they will conduct operations from which Israel benefits. Anyone who considers the events of 9/11 cannot say that the Muslims gained anything. There's another dimension, which some people may have noticed. No one could have captured the pictures [of the attacks] so perfectly except for the cameras in the hands of several Mossad agents, who were near the scene of events and succeeded in filming the scene so that it will always serve Zionism to remind the world of the Arabs' and Muslims' crimes against America. These pictures were filmed very expertly, so that they would be a constant reminder to America and the Western world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to their culture, their ideals, and their values."

Note the multiple citings of Thierry Meyssan, the French conspiracy not to blame lends credence to the "poor us" mentality- and you can be sure they love the moonbats in America who believe the government of the United States was behind the events of Sept. 11th.

And so, four years after the enemy stormed our shores we remember in silence. If we wish to honor the men, women and children we lost that day we should not be silenced. We should not be afraid to call an entire religion to account for the cancer that grows within it- to be sure we cannot blame September 11th and the subsequent attacks on every Muslim- but we can blame their complacency on them. We can and should demand that the "moderate mass" of Islam inquire as to the smell they have so long ignored. We can and should make them a central part of ensuring that there are no more September 11ths. Silence is not going to accomplish that.

More Katrina- the view from a local.

2005-09-08T19:06:00.000-04:00

My apologies for no original content today- I've been working inside of Blogger on the guts of this site- something I try to do as rarely as possible as I am not really a techie. I enjoy technology, but am not terribly interested in how it works.

In lieu of any drivel I might be able to produce today I reccomend feasting your eyes on this photo essay of New Orleans. All of the photos were taken and captioned (and there are almost 200 of them) by a resident of the Big Easy with a good eye. These pictures and comments are an excellent counterpoint to the media frenzy, I have been reccomending this montage to my diplomatic colleagues all day.

And if you have not alreay done so, please take a look at "Tribes" at Eject! Eject! Eject!, sure to become a blogosphere classic.

More original content soon.

(End of post)

Hurricane Kyoto

2005-09-06T21:29:00.000-04:00

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and the extent of …[the] trend… but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. Newsweek- April 28 1975

The threat…must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. International Wildlife- July 1975

[It] has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations…If it continues and no strong measures are taken [it] will cause world famine, world chaos and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000. Lowell Ponte, 1976

The continued rapid [change] …since WWII is also in accord with increased global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and an exploding population. Global Ecology: Readings toward a Rational Strategy for Man 1971

At this point the world’s climatologists are agreed… how carefully we monitor our atmospheric pollution will have a direct affect on the arrival and nature of this weather crisis. The sooner man confronts these facts… the safer he will be. Science Digest 1973

I’ve been waiting for this- Katrina is still killing people and wreaking havoc, and of course it is all because we did not sign onto the Kyoto Accords. I knew I would not have to wait long to hear this, and today I did, at a reception chock full of diplomats from around the world, and that scourge of diplomacy, Honorary Consuls (these are generally folks with some tenuous tie to a nation too poor or disinterested to have an Embassy of their own in a given place, and so they bestow these titles, which seem to have the sole benefit of allowing the holder of the title to attend diplomatic functions and to beg for U.S. visas).

Anyhoo, there I was making my introductions and receiving the well wishes of many for the folks affected by Katrina when I caught an undercurrent of conversation. Chasing it down I found a small group, including an American or two (thus legitimizing the conversation) discussing the effects of global warming and the harm being done to the environment by the United States failure to sign Kyoto. No one came right out and said that not implementing Kyoto caused the hurricane (no diplomat takes a firm stand like that on anything) but there was plenty of innuendo that Global Warming (you can always hear the capital letters) had something to do with it, and that modern societies are to blame for the pollution that causes this warming. Further, it is all the fault of that vacation-loving scoundrel “W” that we did not sign the treaty, and that global warming continues unabated and that New Orleans is gone; never mind that Kyoto was first rejected in 1997. This was all being said in a room not two miles from workshops in which the locals burn used tires to fire thier kilns and heat their workshops. Ever smelled a burning tire, or seen the smoke those suckers throw off? Of course you haven't- you live in an industrialized society.

Being the new kid on the block I avoided the fray but took careful note of who was engaged in the conversation (not a single person was disagreeing, by the way). After all, we should have seen this coming. When foreign policy does not take into account the wrath of nature and the capricious avarice of man we are bound to reap what we have sown. The signs have been clear all along. Global warming is the current plague- prepare to bring out your dead. We have been warned by the experts for the last 30 some years.

Or have we?

Astute readers may have noticed a lot of ellipses in the quotes at the start of this piece, quotes dealing with climate change. Allow me to present those again, with the relevant items reinserted:

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and the extent of the cooling trend… but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. Newsweek- April 28 1975

The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. International Wildlife- July 1975

The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations…If it continues and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000. Lowell Ponte, 1976

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is also in accord with increased global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and an exploding population. Global Ecology: Readings toward a Rational Strategy for Man 1971

At this point the world’s climatologists are agreed that we do not have… tens of thousands of years to prepare for the next ice age and that how carefully we monitor our atmospheric pollution will have a direct affect on the arrival and nature of this weather crisis. The sooner man confronts these facts… the safer he will be. Science Digest 1973

I wish I had had these quotes at my fingertips earlier today.

Note: all quotes from All the Trouble in the World by P.J. O'Rourke.

M y rambling return to The Daily Demarche.

2005-09-05T12:42:00.000-04:00

Let me start by offering my condolences to all those who lost so much to Hurricane Katrina, all who have suffered so much are in our thoughts and prayers. I have only visited New Orleans once, but was charmed by her unique style. May her recovery be swift and certain. As an aside, the next time Hugo Chavez offers aid to the U.S. we should take it- he is playing a political game to be sure, but we have poured a lot of money into his country, let him pay some of it back in crude oil, and let the world see that we can graciously accept assistance, no matter what the motive. That goes for the rest of the world too- many countries have offered aid, some even for altruistic reasons. It may make people feel good to help us out, as often as we have helped them, and let us not forget that many countries are represented by the citizens of the Big Easy. We should strive to be humble when we can give aid as well as when we need succor.

Now, back to today’s theme. The journey here has been an adventure in and of itself- only one flight in a day on an American carrier (the Fly America Act requires us to use an American flag carrier if available, cost and convenience be damned), but it actually feels pretty good to be back in the Third World. I know that many of you were great fans of the Diplomad, and that his Turd World piece will long stand as one of his most memorable bits, but I actually prefer this over the “more advanced” posts out there. Of course after spending a few years in North-western Europe the culture shock is pretty amazing- for one thing my dollars are actually worth something here, and for another the beer is pretty lousy. Luckily the indigenous tipple isn’t too bad!

Don’t get me wrong- in no way do I want to trade my middle-class American existence to become a denizen of one of the slums of Rio, Mexico City, Mogadishu or any other hell hole. I am referring here to the nascent middle-classes of some of the third world capitals. For one thing, almost everyone I have met in one of these cities has something good to say about the U.S.; in most cases because they have a brother or uncle there who is sending money home. For another, they still see America as the land of opportunity, as a shining beacon on a hill. I think a lot of this has to do with the aforementioned money- I doubt the uncles of the third world are telling the folks at home about the back breaking jobs they have or the disdain with which they are treated by most Americans. Nope- they send them money and tell them about the 27 inch color TV and the indoor plumbing and electricity that always works. The rest of the image that most of these folks get about America comes from the movies, or exported TV, and for those who want to believe in a better life, entertainment provides the key (of course for those who want to believe we are a decadent country that flaunts all of God’s laws, the entertainment industry proves that too). In these cities capitalism is truly alive and well- whatever you want or need someone will figure out how to get it or make it. Of course this sometimes involves illegal processes, but less often than you might think. In poor countries where there is no social welfare system everyone does what he or she can to make life better- or at least almost everyone.

I have always been impressed by the people of these struggling places, and almost never impressed by their governments. Herein lies the problem. We, that is the government of the United States, deal with governments, most of which the world over (the Third World, anyway) are dysfunctional. We pour billions of dollars into these countries, and much of it ends up in the hands and pockets of the petty tyrants that rule them. The mission statement of the State Department is a pretty good one- it is concise and direct: “Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.” Unfortunately I think we lose sight of the second and third pieces in a good chunk of the world.

I have stated many, many times on this blog that I do not believe that terrorism comes from poverty- but I do believe that some crime does. Illegal immigration comes to mind for starters. Reduce the poverty at home and fewer people will flee. What you might ask, is the simplest of methods to achieve this goal? I am glad you asked. Here is my very simplified answer: free trade and the reduction or elimination of subsidies at home. This is where the Libertarian in me comes out- even more so when I travel in the Third World. I understand that we can not simply fling open our markets any more so than we can simply fling open our borders- but we can and indeed should, spend our aid dollars in such a way that will allow us over time to reduce barriers and tariffs as well as lower or end subsidies at home.

Let us use the fictional country of Upper Ickystan as an example. This impoverished country has in the last decade undergone five unscheduled changes of administration, all more or less democratically (i.e. there have been legitimate elections, but for lack of resources and will each government has been unsuccessful in accomplishing anything meaningful, with civil unrest common and the resignation of each administration soon thereafter). Now, let us also assume that we have pumped a few billion dollars into the region over the last 40 years or so, and that there is very little that this country produces that we need or want. Except for hand made rugs. A good deal of micro-credit has gone into Upper Ickystan to help families buy or repair traditional looms to make these rugs, since is the major skill in the country- most of the loans have been less than $500.00, and a good many of these small businesses are cranking out rugs. So far so good. The only problem is that there is no way to get these rugs to market. There are no decent roads, no one in the country has the skills to negotiate international purchase orders and almost everyone is too poor to qualify for a visa to the U.S. to look for potential customers- even if these rugs could get past the trade barriers (note- I don’t know if there are trade barriers on rugs- you can substitute any item you want here for this example, say, sugar). USAID workers and Embassy staff from a few countries are buying these rugs like mad, but that is about it. The few producers who have foreign clients are labeled a success, their stories are told on 20/20 and everyone else goes back to growing poppies for heroin.

So what are we to do? For starters let’s get over the idea that aid money has to be spent with American firms- that is more or less welfare, and Halliburton really does not need more of that. Let’s assume that Lower Ickystan has the resources and facilities to produce cement and macadam, and that Western Stanistan, which borders both, has excellent natural harbors with under-developed ports. Using the same amount of aid dollars that we are spending in the region now we could “encourage” Upper Ickystan to buy materials from Lower Ickystan to build roads that will lead to the ports in Western Stanistan. Our aid dollars will help to rebuild the ports there, allowing the rugs and cement of the Ickystans to get to market, while generating revenues for Stanistan. These revenues can then be used to purchase the wheat and rice we are currently paying American farmers o not grow. As these economies stabilize and tax revenues are generated the governments of these regions can gradually be assisted in providing basic services- clean water and immunizations for children, basic medical care and improved infrastructure. Simplistic, I know, but let’s not forget that the United States of America was built on cotton and tobacco- not Palm Pilots or flat screen televisions.

Okay, enough rambling for now, I just had to get that out of my system. It is good to be back, and now that I have most of my things and more or less reliable internet service (major outage yesterday) I expect to post much more frequently. Thanks for waiting for us, and fort all of the encouraging e-mails and comments.

Watch this space!

2005-08-31T20:44:00.000-04:00

Thank you all for your patience and the e-mails, I expect to be up and running again in the next few days- I was promised internet service a few days ago, which means I should have it in about a week. At least there are internet "cafes" here, so I can check e-mail and dash this off.
This one doesn't seem like the most desirable place to be in this corner of the Far Abroad, though. Anyway, stay tuned, I'll be back soon.

Cheers,
Dr. D

(end of post)

And now- intermission.

2005-08-11T20:54:00.000-04:00

Friends:

As our regular visitors will know, I am in the midst of a post-to-post transfer. My time in the U.S. is just about up, and this is very likely to be my last post for a while. I am fairly certain that it will take a bit of time for me to get internet service in my new home- a less than developed country. For obvious reasons I can't post from work, so I'll have to content myself with stockpiling ideas in the meantime. Smiley is also between posts, and so may not be able to post too frequently either. While we are off the air please be sure to visit our friends listed on this site, and check in with us from time to time, there is no telling when we'll be back. With that, here are my "intermission thoughts."

While spending time in Washington in various training classes and seminars, in speaking with colleagues and having consultations with area experts for the region to which I am heading, I have had ample time to formulate some ideas about what I would like to do, and the direction I would like to see the Department take over the course of the next few years.

The Department of State Mission Statement reads as follows:

MISSION
Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.
VALUES
Loyalty: Commitment to the United States and the American people.
Character: Maintenance of high ethical standards and integrity.
Service: Excellence in the formulation of policy and management practices with room for creative dissent. Implementation of policy and management practices, regardless of personal views.
Accountability: Responsibility for achieving United States foreign policy goals while meeting the highest performance standards.
Community: Dedication to teamwork, professionalism, and the customer perspective.

I think this is a well thought out and clearly written Mission Statement- but there is at least one thing it is missing: a commitment to outreach- both at home and abroad. I have had the opportunity to see many old friends while home, and to make a few new ones as well. One theme has been constant while home: people are interested in what the Foreign Service is, and by and large have almost no idea. The most common image they have is of the weasel faced guy in a bad suit who visits the wrongly-imprisoned beautiful girl in a foul foreign prison, or of a striped-pants, Appletini drinking effete living the high life in exotic locals (of course these images are grounded somewhat in truth, making them even more painful to me). What most people don't know is what the day to day grind is all about. For the most part it is a job like any other, full of repetition and cubicles, mediocre bosses and long hours. What makes it all worth it is the knowledge that the contacts we make and the information we gather and send to Washington plays a part in our relationship with other nations- and from time to time we are witnesses to history. Visits by the President, the Secretary of State and other high officials provide the opportunity to put those contacts to use; the agendas they cover are informed by our efforts. Making these contacts, maintaining them, and gaining insight to their thinking makes up the bulk of international diplomacy. Why is it so hard to find any information, even on the Dept. of State website, about what the Department does? This is one of the first things I'd like to see the Department do- engage in some outreach at home. The more people know about what we do, the more accountable we can be held.

Coupled with that, we need to improve and expand our Public Diplomacy efforts overseas. Every single employee in our embassies and consulates needs to have PD written into their job description. Our Ambassadors and Consuls General must have any measurement of their success tied to outreach efforts, senior performance pay and bonuses should be directly tied to the efforts made to get our message out. In addition, we need to refocus who that message is aimed at. Our top officials, and many other officers at the mid and lower levels, spend too much time with the elites of a host country- we need to get out and press the flesh, let the people see and talk to an actual American. I plan to make this a part of every position I hold, and will write it into the requirement s of those I supervise as well. We should aggressively respond to incorrect press pieces, and foster relationships that allow us to place accurate information in local media. We need a return to the days of cultural exchanges- reasonable speakers from all walks of life should be promoted abroad, even the unreasonable if presented in a balanced environment. Imagine a Michael Moore vs. Pat Buchanan debate in London- with the message being that both sides exist in America, and that is our strength.

More than anything else, we need to get over the "PC" issues that have been beaten into the Department over the last few decades. From the early 1970s through today we have suffered from the effects of Congressional meddling. The lily-white male dominated Foreign Service of the past was forced to change, and rightly so (for example if two officers were to marry the female had to resign, up until 1972), but the Service of today, based on competitive testing for entry, is an agency that quivers in fear at the idea that we might offend anyone. When Powell stated that one of the keys to leadership is "knowing when to piss people off" his message went right past a generation or two of officers who were incapable of even grasping the idea, let alone actually doing it. In speaking with a group of FSOs the other day, all of whom were busily bashing Amb. John Bolton, I tossed out the idea that Bolton might be the most effective Ambassador we have. Can anyone really doubt that when he speaks his audience knows that he has the full confidence and blessing of the President? Many of my colleagues have forgotten that our Ambassadors are the direct representative of the President to the host nation- not the other way around.

Coupled with that is the need to accept and encourage risk taking of the intellectual variety. FSOs serve in some of the worst places in the world, unarmed and exposed. Physical bravery is almost never discussed, but it is a real factor in our lifestyle. It is odd then, that our reporting is scoured for ideas that might be offensive and rewritten so as to be as bland as possible- we tiptoe around central themes in order to protect the sensibilities of our hosts- in short, we rarely, if ever, call a spade a spade. Average folks would have a very hard time deciphering the real meaning of most of our reports. It is the very directness of the Bush administration, I think, that drives many of my colleagues crazy. I won't even go into detail over how obtuse our annual evaluations are, other than to say that we operate on the principle of "damn by faint praise." My personal goal is to inject as much frank, direct language, into the service as possible. The people I work with are committed and extremely smart individuals. They just, by and large, need someone to tell them that it is okay to be direct and frank, even if that means saying some things that not everyone wants to hear.

I am saddened to once again leave this country I feel so strongly attached to, but eager to get back to work. I'll miss posting here until I am able to resume doing so, but know that I will be fully engaged every moment of every day. This blog has been a great outlet for me over the last months. The comments left and the e-mails received, the group projects written and the blog-friends made have energized me, and helped me to focus my thoughts and vision of my future in the Department. I am looking forward to the day I can begin to post regularly again, and hope that all of you will pick us up again when we get back into full swing. Please keep in mind that our foreign policy is really an extension of our domestic policy- both are aimed at preservation of the American way first and foremost, so please stay engaged. Make sure your elected officials know what you think about our foreign policy and interactions, and try to get your friends engaged as well. Until some point in the future, thanks for all the great feedback and encouragement, take care of your families and your friends, and keep an eye on things at home for me.

Cheers,
Dr. D

(End of post.)

Mixed Messages

2005-08-08T21:45:00.000-04:00

In today's news it was announced that the entire U.S mission to Saudi Arabia, our stalwart "ally" in the war on terror, is closed for today and tomorrow:

American diplomatic missions in Saudi Arabia will be closed for two days on Monday and Tuesday because of a threat against U.S. buildings, according to a statement from the U.S. embassy in Riyadh. The announcement of the closure on Sunday was followed by a quick response from the authorities in Saudi Arabia that there was no concrete information about any threat.

The statement advised American citizens in the kingdom to maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to increase security awareness.

While I am glad that we are taking proactive action to protect my friends and colleagues in the Kingdom, I have to admit that I am more than a little confused by actions that are rumored to be in the works for the U.S. mission to the House of Saud.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks on the United States, as it became clear that the preponderance (15 of 19) of the hijackers were Saudi, and that the Visa Express program in the Saudi Kingdom presented a clear and continued threat to national security, public backlash against treatment of the Saudis by the State Department was immense. Heads (Mary Ryan) rolled and the entire visa process was overhauled.

So why is it that we are hearing that now, with the situation in Saudi Arabia far, far from ideal, that we are considering EXPANDING visa operations in the Kingdom to include Dhahran? The Daily Demarche received today, from our Consular colleagues, information indicating that plans are in motion to offer expanded visa services to Saudi nationals in Dhahran. This information has not been confirmed- we can't ask about it for obvious reasons- but the word in the hallways at the Truman Building is that the Dept. of State will begin, sometime soon, to offer visa services in Dhahran for Saudis- to ease the inconvenience of travel to the capital. This means exposing American and loyal local personnel to risk in the Dhahran area despite the last travel warning in effect for the Kingdom, which reads in part:

Due to concerns about the possibility of additional terrorist activity directed against American citizens and interests, the Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens to defer non-essential travel to Saudi Arabia. The United States Mission in Saudi Arabia remains an unaccompanied post as a result of continued security concerns. Non-emergency employees and all dependents of the U.S. Embassy Riyadh and Consulates General Jeddah and Dhahran were ordered to leave the country on April 15, 2004. An armed attack on the U.S. Consulate General in Jeddah occurred on December 6, 2004, resulting in casualties among the non-American staff and damage to consulate facilities. Although counter-terrorism efforts have succeeded in diminishing terrorist capabilities in Saudi Arabia, terrorist groups continue to target housing compounds and other establishments where Westerners may be located. Saudi Government facilities are also targets. In addition to car bombs and armed assaults involving multiple gunmen against such facilities, terrorists have used ambush attacks to kidnap and/or assassinate individual Westerners.

Given what we know about Saudi Arabia, the state of Islam and the threats to Americans in the region, is this really the time to make it easier for citizens of the Kingdom to have easier access to our diplomats, loyal national employees and the United States? I for one don't think so- the Saudis have given no indicatation that they view fundamentalist Islamic terrorism as a problem in which they are partners to the solution, and making it more convenient for them to enter the U.S. seems like an odd way to respond to their reticence. Should this corridor rumor be true it will be one more dark mark in our battle against Islmofacism and those who support our enemies.

(End of post.)

The hour of courage has struck on our clock.

2005-08-05T18:23:00.000-04:00

I was trying to catch up on my blog reading today, in order to produce something for the weekend, and stopped by at The Glittering Eye. The Eye is on vacation, but a post there from a few days back regarding the latest by Juan Cole lead me on a merry chase around the blogosphere, following links to fiskings and comments galore. The gist of the Cole piece is that there is no way to wage war on terror, since we can’t be sure who, exactly, is the enemy:

The terrorists don't have an ethnicity in common. Richard Reid and Lindsey Germaine were Caribbean. Others are Arabs. Some have been Somali or Eritrean or Tanzanian. Others have been South Asia (India/Pakistan/ Bangladesh). Still others have been African-American or white Americans. They don't even have to start out Muslim. Ayman al-Zawahiri was particularly proud of an al-Qaeda operative in Afghanistan who had been an American Jew in a previous life. Ziad Jarrah, one of the September 11 hijackers, appears to have been a relatively secular young man right to the end. It isn't about religion, except insofar as religion is a basis on which the recruiter can approach his victim. Islam as a religion forbids terrorism. But then so does Christianity, and that doesn't stop there being Christian terrorists. They are a fringe in both religions.

This is an interesting passage, as it does indeed demonstrate one of the major problems we have in combating our enemies- they could literally be anyone. There is, however, one indicator in that paragraph that we can grab hold of:

They don't even have to start out Muslim.

The good Professor is 100% correct, they don’t have to start off that way. But it sure does seem that they end up that way, doesn’t it? I am not going to spend too much time fisking Cole here, it has been done many times, and much better than I can do it- check out Dean’s World for a great response to Cole, and Michael Totten’s photo-fisking of Cole as well, and be sure to peruse the comments of both blogs, lot’s of good stuff there. No, I am more concerned today with a point that Cole made in regards to the semantics of the “Global War on Terror”- Cole takes the fact that the GWOT term has fallen out of favor as a sign that we should for all intents and purposes abandon the struggle. I have long been apposed to the term GWOT, preferring to see instead a reference to the real enemy- radical Islam. The Bush administration has decided, apparently, that the term “global struggle against violent extremism" makes more sense- and it does, a little, but it is still not accurate. As we posted here last fall:

OK, I’ve said this before and I am going to say it again. There is no war against terrorism. We are not hunting down the FARC or ETA or Shining Path. We are not chasing the vestiges of the IRA. We are fighting Islamic extremism. I know this is not a ground shaking original thought, but it needs to be repeated. Islamic jihadists are the enemy, and terrorism is simply their weapon of choice.

It is imperative that we have the courage, as a nation, to shrug off the PC shackles that keep us from identifying the real enemy, and taking proactive measures to isolate and destroy those who would see the end of our very lives, as well as our way of life.

As Charles Krauthammer put it in the Wall Street Journal this week (long quote follows as it is not possible to link to the article):

The American response to tightening up after London has been reflexive and idiotic: random bag checks in the New York subways. …It recapitulates the appalling waste of effort and resources we see at airports every day when, for reasons of political correctness, 83-year-old grandmothers from Poughkeepsie are required to remove their shoes in the search for jihadists hungering for paradise.

[snip]

The fact is that jihadist terrorism has been carried out from Bali to Casablanca to Madrid to London to New York to Washington by young Muslim men of North African, Middle Eastern and South Asian origin. This is not a stereotype. It is a simple statistical fact.

… Yet we recoil from concentrating bag checks on men who might fit this description. Well, if that is impossible for us to do, then let's work backward. Eliminate classes of people who are obviously not suspects. We could start with a little age pruning -- no one under, say, 13, and no one over, say, 60. Then we could exempt whole ethnic populations, a list that could immediately start with Hispanics, Scandinavians and East Asians. Then we could have a huge saving, a 50 percent elimination of waste, by giving a pass to women, except perhaps the most fidgety, sweaty, suspicious-looking, overcoat-wearing, knapsack-bearing young woman, to be identified by the presiding officer.

You object that with these shortcuts, we might not catch everybody. True. But how many do we catch now with the billions spent patting down grandmothers from Poughkeepsie? You object that either plan -- giving special scrutiny to young Islamic men, or, more sensitively, just eliminating certain demographic categories from scrutiny -- will simply encourage the jihadists to start recruiting elderly Norwegian women. Okay. We can handle that. Let them try recruiting converts, women and non-usual suspects for suicide missions. That will require a huge new wasteful effort on their part. And, more important, by reducing the pool of possible terrorists from the hundreds of millions to, at most, the tens of thousands, we will have reduced the probability of an attack by a factor of 10,000. Those are far better odds at far less cost to us in money and effort. And infinitely less stupid.

The word “profile” has become something that we simply do not discuss- although we do it all the time. When you are walking down the street and realize that you forgot your watch and need to know what time it is who do you ask? The group of hip-hop young black men with hats on backwards and baggy pants around their hips, or the old white lady waiting for a bus with a basket on her arm? Do you ask the old lady then feel guilty all day? If you are reading this blog probably not- but I bet you know someone who does. Profiling may not have the best image in America for very real reasons- the Japanese interment camps of WWII, or the LAPD, but it is only a tool to be used for good or ill by those who practice it. In this day and age we have plenty of oversight to make sure that profiling is not carried to an extreme. It will offend Muslims, you say, and drive them to extremism? Why on earth would it do that? You must be a racist to think that. Why would it not prompt the Muslim community to police itself, to turn over those who besmirch the name of their religion and cast suspicion on all who practice it? Alas, I fear that the day will not come anytime soon where we will take a sensible stance in identifying and targeting our enemies.

“Why?” you ask. I am glad you asked. Let’s start with this:

"The bureau is against—has been and will be against—any form of profiling [of Arabs or Muslims]." —FBI Director Robert S. Mueller

Those who should know best that we need to have a good idea of who we are facing are in complete denial. The above quote is taken from the web site of Paul Sperry, author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington. (Note: I have not read the book yet, but I have ordered it). In an interview regarding the book Sperry makes some hard to swallow claims:

Director Bob Mueller is so politically correct he's cut a deal with Muslim pressure groups to never use "Islamic" and "terrorism" in the same sentence.

[snip]

(and)…the president has made the same pledge to never describe terrorism as Islamic -- you'll never hear him say "Islamic terrorism" either. Mueller's just taking his cue from the Oval Office. The tone is set from the top. The president never fails to remind us Islam is a "religion of peace" and one that we have to "respect." He even suggested at the last inaugural that the Qur’an is somehow part of our American heritage and culture.

I do not say this is hard to swallow because I do not believe it, but rather because it sticks in my craw. It leaves a bitter taste precisely because I believe it. Sperry is not a radical right-wing war monger, he doesn’t call for all out war with Islam, only for a reasonable look at who the enemy truly is. For example he asks that we listen to the words so-called Muslim moderates use when condemning terrorism:

Muslim leaders play an elaborate word game to hide the dark side of Islam to gain wider acceptance in Washington. They condemn all acts of "terrorism against innocent people," but they don't necessarily view Americans or Israelis as "innocent" or acts of violence against us as "terrorism." Many secretly view it simply as justice. You'll never hear them condemn "all acts of violence against non-Muslims."

That passage really gave me pause. Sperry has identified the Muslim extremists as “the perfect enemy”, and a worse threat than the Soviet Union ever was. This is a threat that is both internal and external, and is working it‘s way deep into the political and legal infrastructure of the nation:

It's worse than the communist threat. Bad as the Cold war threat was, the communists never attacked us. And their spies were atheists who were relatively easy to distrust, easy to bribe over to our side. But we're now dealing with religious zealots -- the Green Menace, green being the color of Islam -- who are not only passionate in their hatred for us, but are using our religious tolerance as cover to infiltrate our security agencies and steal our secrets as agents and sympathizers for the bad guys. They're using our tolerances and freedoms against us. They operate with virtual political and religious immunity, and are therefore much harder than the Red spies to ferret out. They are the perfect enemy. Washington needs to wake up to this new spy threat. It's not just about fighting terrorists anymore. It's also about fighting their spies and sympathizers.

I can’t say for certain that Sperry is correct in all his assertions, but I am certain that we are doing a great disservice to our national security by playing PC games. If the pan-Islamofascist movement adopted uniforms and a banner tomorrow that allowed us to single them out and engage in traditional warfare I would embrace the “war” analogy. Until that happens we need to demand of our leaders, and the leaders of our allied nations, that we be granted the protection of common sense. We know by and large who the soldier of choice of the enemy is- he is a young Muslim male, and that is where we need to start looking. That, Mr. Cole, is the common background.

I’ll close with a bit of the Russian poem "Courage" by Anna Akhmatova, written during the siege of Leningrad, that I find very apropos:

We know what now lies in the balance,
What is now coming to pass we know.
The hour of courage has struck on our clock
And courage will never abandon us.

Majesty, they are your "windows to the civilized world."

2005-08-02T22:28:00.000-04:00

Saudi King Fahd has succumbed to pneumonia, and King Abdullah has ascended to the throne in one of the most pivotal countries on the planet- Saudi Arabia. So what, exactly, does that mean to us? Not much. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom in turmoil, breeding terror and bleeding oil. Extremism is the order of the day- the world's number one terrorist (OBL in case you weren't paying attention) is just as pissed as the Saudis as he is at us, largely because they invited us onto sacred soil, to be sure, but still.

The Saudis, for their part, are as much in denial as the American Left is. Never mind the decline in wealth in the Kingdom over the past two decades:

Saudi Arabia's per capita income fell from over $20,900 per person in 1980 to about $12,200 per person in 2001. Saudi real (adjusted for inflation) oil export revenues, a cornerstone of the country's economy, fell more than 70% between 1980 and the 2004 forecast, while per capita real oil export revenues in 2004 were only 13% of their 1980 figure,

or the rise in extremism at home:

Even after September 11, the Wahhabi bureaucracy in Saudi Arabia continues to foster religious extremism. When bombs go off in Israel, Kenya, Indonesia, and elsewhere, Saudi Arabia is still the main source of the terrorist money. The kingdom is an unwavering nerve center of ideological indoctrination, incitement, and terrorist financing.

From time to time, the Saudi elite attempts to confuse Western opinion by claiming that it too is the target of Islamic terror, a rather hollow gesture to hide its complicity in terrorism. Saudi Arabia, being a police state, the monarchy long ago could have ridded itself of extremist elements. But the sobering reality is that international terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda are directly impelled by Saudi clerics.

The Arab News wants you to remember King Fahd as a patron of the arts and sports:

Throughout King Fahd's reign, arts and recreation flourished. Despite many demands of the state, he keenly supported the construction of recreational centers and the development of arts organizations and societies that encouraged the continuity of traditional art and culture.

OK, sure. Fahd, after all, is gone. Life is for the living, let the dead rest, yada yada yada. Abdullah is finally King (for now, he is 80 years old), but he has been de facto ruler of the nation for most of the last decade. So what can we expect from him know that he has the throne? More of the same. Abdullah is a totalitarian, he adheres to the old ways, with no sign of interest in modernizing the Kingdom or cracking down on extremists:

"We believe in the Islamic law as a constitution and in moderation as a way for improving and developing in all fields," local press Tuesday quoted Abdullah as saying.

"Anything in the country could be debated except Islamic faith and everything could be put out for discussion exception national unity, pride and security," Abdullah said during the inauguration of a development project at King Fahd Petroleum University Monday night.

He asserted that, "We will continue in the path of the religion without being affected by the extremist criminals and traitors," in an allusion to Muslim fundamentalists believed responsible for bombing attacks in the oil-rich kingdom.

The House of Saud will be busy in the coming months and years trying to establish the future successions. Their primary concern will be remaining in power. Abdallahlah has appointed a new Crown Prince and presumptive heir, Defense Minister Sultan bin Abdulaziz, who is himself on the far side of 80. He may in fact only be a place holder for his younger brother (72 years young), interior minister Prince Nayef, however. Noticing a pattern here?

Young Saudis, disenfranchised to begin with (local elections not withstanding), do not appear to have much to look forward to in the coming years. Future leaders are being identified for the strength of their connection to the past. For Saudi youth the future promises more of the same, but worse. With 60% of the population under the age of 25, and unemployment in the high teens this spells bad news for the house of Saud, and for us. Regular readers know that I do not believe that poverty causes terrorism, but combined with boredom, apathetic leadership and a steady diet of sanctioned anti-Western hate filled diatribes that pass as education, it does play a role. These kids may not be the next Mohammed Atta, but they can certainly be used as homicide bombers. Samar Fatany, that rarest of creatures, a female Saudi radio journalist has the following to say on this subject:

Schools, universities and academic institutions also are responsible for providing our youth with an education that meets the requirements of the job market and develops the potential of every student. Saudi researchers estimate that more than 50 percent of the work force is without a high school diploma, and college graduates make up less than 20 percent of the total population. Current public school graduates lack the mathematical, scientific and language skills necessary in the job market. English and an adequate knowledge of computers are mandatory today. They are our windows to the civilized world. Unfortunately, the majority of our graduates do not speak English, and they are also computer illiterate, which puts their average qualifications well below international standards.

Endless hours of boredom and wasted time in emptiness are reasons enough to make them seek adventure that can divert young people from healthy lives and destroy their chances for happiness and success. This also explains why many Saudi youths are easily brainwashed by extremists who advocate terrorism. At this stage in their lives, they are not mature enough and are vulnerable to the deviants, who may exploit them and use them for criminal purposes.

Half of our population is below 20 years old, so the researcher suggests the creation of a Ministry for Youth to look after their affairs. The Ministry of Education recently started modernizing its curricula and monitoring the performance of various institutions, with special attention paid to science and vocational institutes. Almost 25 percent of the country’s general budget has been allocated to education. However, Saudi education experts and academics still hold the universities responsible for the slow and ineffective educational programs that do not keep pace with the socioeconomic changes sweeping the country. Furthermore, recommendations and the mechanism for implementing reforms to the educational system were identified in Crown Prince Abdullah’s opinion document on higher education. We need to see efficient and quick implementation. We hope and pray that bureaucratic and financial reasons will not stand in the way of much-needed educational reforms in the Kingdom.

Educators stress the need to build and maintain strong citizenship among the youth in order to foster patriotism and national pride. Moderation and dialogue should replace fanaticism and extremism that were the dominating forces in Saudi society in recent years. The National Dialogue Center, initiated by Crown Prince Abdullah, has a large role to play in promoting a culture of constructive debate. One of the significant issues raised by young people during the fourth National Dialogue, held recently in the Eastern Province, was the problem of too much leisure time on the hands of Saudi youth. The young participants also called for the establishment of literary clubs, libraries and better facilities for sports activities to enable them to invest their days in useful and constructive ways.

In addition to that, they criticized the curricula and urged implementation of much-needed revisions. They attributed the decline of educational standards in the Kingdom to unqualified teachers and inadequate facilities. Upgrading the educational system is one of the many challenges that the Saudi leadership has to address. However, catering to the large youth segment of society, which constitutes 60 percent of the total population, and providing the guidance to protect them from extremism and fanaticism is a formidable challenge that should not be underestimated. Will these educational challenges be addressed with the required urgency? Can Saudi youth hope for a better future soon? Let us not procrastinate and miss the opportunity to protect our youth with quality education and a fulfilling environment that leaves no room for terrorist activities.

Hillary got it wrong when she said that it takes a village to raise a child, but she was not too far off. Sometimes it takes a village to remind a parent of his or her responsibilities. If the House of Saud wants there to be a Kingdom for future rulers to control they need a wake up call. Abdullah should remember that the future of his nation lies not in the hands of a group of old men, but in the idle hands and hate filled minds of the young. No village, including a global one, will stand idle while the neighborhood children play with fire and gasoline.

What if... we gave up in 2001?

2005-07-30T23:58:00.000-04:00

Friends, my apologies for the light content of late- I'd forgotten how much has to be done in preparation to leave the First World for the Third. Buying consumables (rations for the next year) and making sure my family has all the things we will need in a place where there is almost nothing to buy has become the focus of my days, to the detriment of this blog. Smiley is equally, if not more, busy with Smiley: The Next Generation and preparations for the Smiley Family relocation. It'll get better here eventually, just no promises as to when- sorry, but that is the best I can do.

In the mean time here is an excellent, if somewhat chilling, speculative article in a sort of counter point to our first group-blog project ("What If We Never Invaded Iraq")- an article that examines what might have happenned had we chosen not to meet al Qaeda's challenge. The article is long, but worth the read. Hat tip once again to Larwyn.

Dark Diary -By Alan Dowd

There are those who believe that people are merely a part of history, pieces of driftwood carried along by forces and currents often beyond our control. Others argue that history is shaped by individuals—that the right person in the right place can alter the course of human events.

Certainly Osama bin Laden shifted the historical tide on September 11, 2001. As General Tommy Franks put it, bin Laden created a “crease in history” on 9/11, a fault line that changed how we piece together the past, how we live the present, how we look at the future.

To their credit, Americans have—so far—resisted the winds unleashed on that Tuesday morning four years ago, winds that could have blown us to defeat and despair. But what if they had not? What if Americans had allowed bin Laden and his followers to write the story of our time?

The following is a dark diary of what might have followed.

September 20, 2001

In an historic address to a special joint session of Congress, President George W. Bush honored the eight House members, three Senators and 187 staffers, civil servants, and tourists killed on September 11 when United Airlines Flight 93 plowed into the western face of the U.S. Capitol.

“They were standing their post, and we can do no less,” the President said, fighting back tears. The special session was held at the Washington Convention Center, where Congress has been gathering under heavy security since the staggering terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Capitol.

Bush refused to characterize the coordinated assaults as acts of war, and took pains to distance himself from comments made by Pentagon officials, who argued that the U.S. should use 9/11 as a rationale for “ending states that sponsor terrorism.” Instead, Bush said that “America’s enemies are the criminals who carried out these attacks—not the states where they hide.”

September 30, 2001

British newspapers reported that Washington has quietly asked British Prime Minister Tony Blair to tone down his hawkish rhetoric. Blair has called on the Western allies to “identify the machinery of terror and to dismantle it as swiftly as possible.” Spelling out what some in America have dubbed the “Blair Doctrine,” the British leader declared: “Those who harbor or help terrorists have a choice: either cease your protection and promotion of our enemies, or be treated as an enemy yourself.”

October 7, 2001

Appearing on “Meet the Press,” Vice President Dick Cheney downplayed any rift between the two transatlantic partners, but he also panned calls for a global counteroffensive against terrorism. “What do they propose—that we send thousands of American boys to fight in a place that has already defeated the British and Soviet empires?”

Later that afternoon, Bush asked the Afghan government to hand over bin Laden, and then dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to meet with Taliban emissaries.

November 11, 2001

On a kind of two-month anniversary, crowds totaling perhaps 15 million gathered all across the Muslim world to taunt the U.S. Critics in the West warned that America’s feeble response to 9/11 was emboldening fanatics who have lost any sense of respect for U.S. strength or determination.

December 13-16, 2001

Car bombs exploded outside the U.S. embassies in Kuwait City and Ankara, killing 204 people, including 73 Americans. The Taliban government, “acting only as a messenger,” delivered a statement from bin Laden claiming responsibility and issuing another warning: “The battle will go on until the infidel leaves our land. The crusaders know not where we will strike, but we do. We will fight them on our terms and at a time of our choosing.”

Bush announced plans for an international summit on terrorism “to bring an end to this scourge.” The conference will be held in Nevada at Nellis Air Force Base under tight security.

December 22-25, 2001

Worldwide air travel came to a shuddering halt for the second time since 9/11, after an American Airlines passenger jet packed with Christmas travelers exploded over the Atlantic Ocean. All 218 aboard were lost, including 181 Americans. Flight 63 was bound for Miami after taking off from Paris.

Hours later, the BBC received an e-mail claiming that a man named Richard Reid carried out the “martyrdom mission with technical assistance from al-Qaeda.” Reid, whose name was found on flight logs, was a British citizen with links to Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called twentieth hijacker from 9/11.

January 3, 2002

Reeling from the autumn anthrax blitz and “Bloody December,” Bush launched air strikes against a half-dozen terrorist training camps in eastern Afghanistan. “We have given the Afghan government enough time to turn over the terror mastermind,” Bush declared. “Now we will act in a measured way.”

Noting that more of his countrymen died in the World Trade Center than in the Gulf War, Blair sent British warplanes to participate in the strikes. Australian and Spanish ships also supported the operation.

Senator Joe Lieberman was among a small handful to criticize Bush’s response. “Summits and pin-pricks are simply not enough to stop this assault on our way of life,” he said. “To borrow the parlance of the Cold War, we cannot contain al-Qaeda; we must roll it back.”

February 2, 2002

Organizers of the Salt Lake Olympic Games called off the opening and closing ceremonies, but promised to hold “a safe and secure” Winter Olympics.

March 2, 2002

Defying calls from Afghan strongman Mullah Muhammed Omar to boycott the Nellis Summit, Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf and Jordan’s King Abdullah traveled to the United States for the two-day counterterrorism conference. Other world leaders refused to attend, citing, ironically, possible terrorist attacks.

March 11-12, 2002

More than two full months without a terrorist attack ended violently, as bombs ripped through morning commuter trains in Madrid and London. At least 115 were killed in London and another 191 in Madrid. Some 2,200 were injured in the simultaneous bombings. An al-Qaeda Web site issued a statement purportedly from bin Laden praising the attacks as “retaliation for complicity with the crusaders.”

Trying to quell an all-out revolt within his own Labour Party, Blair pledged that British forces would not participate in further military action in Afghanistan.

April 2, 2002

Citing a “rising tide of terror that demands the use of our resources close to home,” Bush denied a request from the Filipino government for assistance against Abu Sayyaf, an al-Qaeda-linked guerilla group that controls parts of the island of Basilan.

April 26-May 2, 2002

Musharraf and four of his top military officials were killed by a truck bomb in Karachi as their motorcade snaked through the city. The Indian government immediately moved its military to a high state of readiness and warned that it would act preemptively “to defend its people and territory.”

Vowing to “promote friendship among all Islamic peoples,” a military junta with even closer links to the Taliban swept into power in Pakistan, promising to “restore order.” In an interview, bin Laden endorsed the new Pakistani government as “unspoiled by collaboration with the Zionist-crusader alliance.”

August 21-28, 2002

In the most daring attacks on the U.S. homeland since
September 2001, heavily armed terrorists seized a hospital in San Francisco and a dormitory on the campus of the University of Richmond in Virginia.

Led by a man named Suleyman al-Faris, the hospital attackers demanded America’s withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and held 189 hostages for almost eight days. The Richmond attackers, who took at least 212 students captive, made no demands, refusing even to talk with local imams who implored them to spare the innocent. One imam offered to trade places with the hostages, to no avail.

The dual standoffs ended when the terrorists in San Francisco began to execute hostages, triggering operations to retake both the hospital and dorm. Split television screens captured the twin ordeals and climactic gun battles that claimed three federal agents, ten National Guardsmen, 27 students and 51 hospital patients. All 18 terrorists—ten in San Francisco and eight in Richmond—were killed.

It was later discovered that al-Faris, ring leader of the bloody attack, was an American citizen who had traveled to Afghanistan and trained with al-Qaeda. Before his conversion to radical Islam he was known as John Walker Lindh. All of Lindh’s accomplices were either American or Australian.

August 30, 2002

French president Jacques Chirac told an E.U. conference that “The position of leader of the free world is again vacant. If our American friends are too preoccupied to lead, we must choose our own path to security.”

September 11, 2002

In a stirring speech at Ground Zero, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani warned that: “Bin Laden is tearing our civilization apart—people are no longer traveling; colleges look like prisons; our government is in hiding; our allies are turning away; our enemies are mocking us…. I had hoped that September 11 would serve as a wake-up call—and as the high-water mark for terrorism. But rather than spurring us into action, it has trapped us in a cocoon of fear.”

October 12, 2002

On the same day that terrorists killed 202 vacationers at a resort in Bali, the Taliban-style government of Pakistan issued a chilling statement calling on “our brothers to rise up with the assurance of our protection.” According to one CIA analyst, “that’s a not-so oblique reference to the country’s nuclear arsenal.”

October 15-20, 2002

Saudi attackers launched what the Pentagon called “a highly coordinated assault” against U.S. forces at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, while Americans stationed in Kuwait exchanged automatic-weapons fire near Camp Doha. Local security forces failed to respond to either attack, prompting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to conclude, “We will not stay where we are not wanted.”

Congress easily passed a resolution demanding the withdrawal of U.S forces from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

November 2, 2002

Executing what Washington called “a precision hit,” al-Qaeda operatives murdered an unnamed U.S. diplomat and his driver in Yemen. Ali Qaed Sinan al-Harthi, mastermind of the USS Cole attack, took credit for the strike.

“Bin Laden’s followers are predators,” Bush said grimly, “our citizens have become their prey.”
January 18, 2003

Flanked by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Oakland Raiders coach Bill Callahan, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach Jon Gruden, NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue announced that the Super Bowl would be postponed. “We will be changing the venue and the date in order to provide the best opportunity for our fans and players to enjoy the game in a safe environment,” he explained.

Pointing to “a highly credible and highly specific threat,” Ashcroft praised the NFL for cooperating with federal authorities to take this unprecedented step.

January 27-February 12, 2003

Explosions rocked the government district in Amman, and rescue workers succumbed to caustic fumes and blistering skin as Jordan reeled from the deadliest terror attacks worldwide since September 2001. Jordanian sources reported that a cloud of poison enveloped a wide swath of the capital after ten buses exploded throughout the city. At least 4,100 people were killed, with thousands more treated in hospitals and makeshift decontamination facilities outside Amman. Officials estimate between 100 and 200 Americans among the dead. According to the White House, the poison cloud was sulfuric acid.

A video recording by a man identifying himself as Musab al-Zarqawi warned that more attacks would follow if Jordan continued to cooperate with the United States. Washington confirmed that Zarqawi is a Jordanian with ties to both al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.

On the same morning that a U.S. medical relief plane was downed over Amman, the New York Times published excerpts from a CIA memo warning about the possibility of Baghdad transferring material to Zarqawi for use against U.S. interests. But according to CIA director George Tenet, “the intelligence was too murky...we just couldn’t connect all the dots.”

King Abdullah was not harmed by Zarqawi’s attack, but his government was toppled. A committee of clerics sympathetic to bin Laden emerged to govern the once-moderate Arab nation. “This is a great step toward our new caliphate,” an aide to bin Laden announced.

February 9, 2003

NASCAR officials cancelled the 2003 Daytona 500. “In light of what’s happening here and overseas, it’s just too dangerous,” a spokesman explained.

April 8-9, 2003

U.S. forces completed an ignominious withdrawal from bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Shadowed by a massive statue of himself in Baghdad’s Firdos Square, a strutting Saddam
Hussein mocked America’s flight: “The father was too weak to finish the battle. The son was too cowardly to continue it.?

September 1, 2003

Amnesty International released the most comprehensive report to date on the deteriorating state of affairs in the Middle East. Using e-mail messages, Web sites, smuggled video, faxes, and cell-phone transmissions, Amnesty pieced together “an animal frenzy of state-sanctioned violence in Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Pakistan—a latter-day Reign of Terror that has butchered thousands, ceded the streets to vengeful Islamic sharia-enforcers, and imprisoned millions.”

October 19-30, 2003

Terrorists rammed an 18-wheeler loaded with gasoline into the Boulevard Mall in suburban Buffalo. Survivors say the truck crashed through the entrance to the mall’s food court, with fire engulfing the eastern half of the upscale shopping center. At least 158 were killed in the attack, many of them children. Another 250 people were being treated for severe burns at area hospitals.

Minutes later, news helicopters beamed pictures of another fuel truck bursting into flames on a bridge over Lake Erie, blasting a massive hole into the span and sending cars careening into the water. With just 17 killed and 13 injured, casualties were relatively low, but the fiery images were devastating to a violence-weary nation.

In a videotaped message broadcast a day later, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed connected the two fuel-truck attacks and praised what he called “our Yemeni brothers in America…. We gave them the training and tactics; they chose the targets and timing.”

Investigators recovered surveillance footage of at least six men stealing three different fuel haulers from a truck stop in western New York on the morning of October 19. New York State Police intercepted the third truck on Interstate 290. During their initial interrogation, Sahim Alwan and Faysal Galab hinted that other elements of their terror cell were planning additional attacks. Ashcroft convened a press conference to share the chilling news with America. “Information obtained during interrogations indicates that the cell was also planning to attack a middle school,” a grim-faced Ashcroft explained.

Ashcroft’s statement sent a cascade of fear across North America, as law enforcement agents in Canada and the U.S. intercepted hundreds of tanker trucks. Average gas prices shot from $4.20 per gallon to $10, with scores of pumps left dry by the scare.

Across the eastern seaboard, parents rushed to pull their children out of school. By October 24, 6,700 of America’s 15,000 school districts had canceled classes.

On what CNN described as “a night of rage,” armed clashes were reported outside mosques and Islamic centers across the U.S., leaving 19 people dead and forcing governors in Michigan, New York, and Virginia to activate the National Guard. Twenty other governors declared dusk-to-dawn curfews.

In a televised address to the nation, a beleaguered Bush seemed to speak to both bin Laden and the American people: “By word and deed, we have proven that we only want to end this carnage.”

November 18-19, 2003

Bush announced that he would not seek re-election in 2004. Not coincidentally, a day later, a congressionally appointed commission released a report heaping scorn on the administration for not acting “to preempt or respond in kind to the terrorist onslaught.” According to the commission, “by failing to go on the offensive, the administration gave al-Qaeda the opportunity to gather support and resources, enhanced bin Laden’s influence, and weakened moderate forces in the Muslim world.”

December 19, 2003

Libya tested a missile that brings nearly every country bordering the Mediterranean in range. “Thanks to our North Korean and Pakistani friends, we have matched special weapons with our new rockets,” Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi gushed.

December 24, 2003

Appearing for the first time on live television, bin Laden declared “victory over the infidel.” He mocked Bush for failing to defend the American homeland. “Look at me. I do not hide, but you do. You are the coward, you and your decadent society,” railed bin Laden. “To end this carnage, use your power to remove every last Zionist from Jerusalem.”

February 10, 2004

In testimony before a House committee, Tenet painted a grim picture of bin Laden’s expanding base of client states: “OBL and Zawahiri spend most of their time in Pakistan. Basilan has been transformed into a virtual al-Qaeda state. Atef is based in Indonesia. Khalid shuttles between Somalia and Yemen. Zarqawi is something of an enforcer in Jordan, Kuwait, and Iraq. Omar controls Afghanistan.”

March 3, 2004

Frayed by weeks of tense security duty outside Washington, D.C., National Guardsmen opened fire on a car that failed to stop at their checkpoint. Three children and two adults were killed.

April 13-29, 2004

The so-called “Christmas Truce” ended as terrorists detonated a dirty bomb in downtown Chicago. Mixing the worst of 9/11 and Amman, the attack showered radioactive material across a half-mile stretch of Adams Street. While only 83 people were killed by the initial blast, 227 others succumbed to heavy doses of radiation exposure in the first week after the bombing. With hospitals overwhelmed by radiation-poisoning cases, the immediate death toll could top 1,000, and cancer deaths will spike for years.

“The bomb appears to have been made of TNT and radioactive material crammed into the back of a rented moving van,” according to one FBI agent.

The van was traced to Jose Padilla, an American citizen with links to al-Qaeda. Padilla, a Muslim convert who traveled to Pakistan, arrived in Chicago sometime in 2002. However, federal agents lost him soon after his arrival. “As he came in, CIA should have handed him off to FBI, but bound by civil-liberties safeguards, the agencies were not allowed to communicate with each other,” conceded one Justice Department official.

May 1-5, 2004

Stung into action by the dirty-bomb attack in Chicago, the lame duck Bush administration vowed to begin “an all-out war on terror.” A flurry of activity at military bases all across the nation underscored the seriousness of U.S. intentions. But the buildup came to a sudden halt after two soldiers were killed and 15 injured when an attacker lobbed grenades into a barracks at the headquarters of the 101st Airborne in Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. News outlets initially reported that the attack came from a breach of the base’s heavily guarded perimeter, but Army spokesmen later confirmed that the attacks came from inside the sprawling facility. Sergeant Hasan Akbar was detained after the attack, which left the nation paralyzed with fear.

Any hopes of the American people overcoming that paralysis were dashed when bin Laden issued a stunning double-edged threat: “Be warned,” he began, “our martyrs have infiltrated your military. If you attack our brethren, we will carry out more martyrdom missions against your army. If your stooges in Europe attack, we will strike them. And if the Zionists attack, we will rain missiles on their cities. America lacks the will to stand up to our martyrs.”

Checkmated by what he called “an axis of evil,” a humiliated Bush ordered U.S. forces to stand down.

October 2, 2004

Bush defiantly rejected calls to postpone U.S. elections. Promising “to defend our most cherished right,” Bush said that Washington would deploy units from the military and the new Department of Homeland Defense to protect voters in all 50 states. “We can respond to an act of terror committed virtually anywhere in the country,” Bush stated.

Bush also unveiled an ad campaign encouraging Americans to consider voting via the new Internet-based “WebBallot.” A 30-second TV spot assured viewers that, “It’s safe and secure—for voters and their votes.”

January 20, 2005

With the nation on hair-trigger alert, the 44th President was forced to take the Oath of Office at Andrews Air Force Base. “Humbled by the realities of a new era, America will chart a new course,” he explained. “In the century past, we planted freedom on foreign soil. Now to protect our own freedom we must turn homeward.”

September 11, 2005

The Washington Post published excerpts of Rumsfeld’s memoir Defeat Without War. According to Rumsfeld, “The enemy is not only bin Laden. The enemy is the regimes that spawned and nurtured him…. When the masters of terror came together to wage a global guerilla war against us, we ignored history’s lessons on appeasement and failed to take the fight to the enemy. Our cities then became battlefields, by which time we had already lost this war.”

Peace activists protested the release of the book at the Manhattan offices of the book’s publisher. According to their spokesman, “Rumsfeld’s martial language presents an obstacle to the only viable solution to this tragedy: apologies and aid transfers to disrespected Islamic nations.” They underscored their commitment by daring to move their protest outdoors—where they exposed themselves for more than an hour to the potential dangers of New York City’s now mostly-empty streets.

Far fetched? Maybe. But the idea that the Twin Towers would be reduced to smoking holes in the skyline of NY by September 11th was pretty farfetched on September 10th, 2001, too.

“the River Tiber foaming with much blood"- corrected

2005-07-26T22:10:00.000-04:00

I am still plowing through the GAO report I mentioned yesterday, a post on that subject is forthcoming. In the meantime I have received an e-mail that led me to a new blog today (thank you LARWYN)- Mystery Achievement- two posts in particular: The Enemy We Treat Like a Friend: Part One and Part Two. These posts are actually translations of posts by Oriana Fallaci from the Italian language blog Eddyburg. Fallaci represents a rare side of ultra-liberal Europe, and it is the Eurocentric positing of items such as the following that grabbed my attention:

Thus, three days after the latest massacre, when Pope Ratzinger renewed the theme of dialogue, I was astonished. Your Holiness, I speak to you as a person who admires you very much. Who loves you, because you are right about so many things. Who, because of this, is mocked along with those nicknamed “devout atheist,“ “sanctimonious layperson,“ “clerical liberal.“ A person, above all, who understands politics and its necessities. Who understands the drama of leadership and its compromises. Who admires the stubbornness of faith and respects the renouncements and generosity that it demands. But I must pose the following question all the same: do you really believe that the Muslims would accept a dialogue with Christians, or with other religions, or with atheists like me? Do you really believe that they can change, reform, quit planting bombs? You are a very erudite man, Your Holiness. Very cultured. And you know them well. Much better than I. Explain to me then: When ever, in the course of their history--a history that has lasted for 1400 years--have they changed and reformed?

Of course Fallaci has been branded a heretic by many in Europe, she does not adhere to the psuedo religion of political correctness that dictates all cultures are equal and therefore above reproach. Her clarion calls that Italy has as much to fear from Islamofascism as do America and Britain (or Spain for that matter) have been ingored, or worse, belittled. She has been persecuted and her books have been subject to lawsuits seeking to repress them. Perhaps after the series of attacks in London continental Europeans are paying more attention to Fallaci and her arguments, but that is what we thought might take place after the murder of Theo Van Gogh as well(as an aside Mohammed Bouyeri, who stbbed and shot Van Gogh in November of last year told the court "I did it out of conviction. If I ever get free, I would do it again." He was sentenced to life in prison today.) Fallaci has a simple wish for her countryman- that they open their eyes:

Oh, that for a week or a month they might understand that they are hated and despised by the enemy that they treat like a friend, and that he is completely indifferent to the virtues known as Gratitude, Loyalty, [and] Mercy! They would indeed be roused from their apathy, their inertia, their indifference. They would indeed believe in the announcements of Saad al-Faqih and the explicit, clear, [and] precise warnings pronounced by Bin Laden and Company. They would avoid taking underground trains. They would travel by automobile or bicycle. (But Theo van Gogh was killed while riding his bicycle.) They would knock off the good-naturedness (or servility) They would trust the immigrant who sells them drugs or cleans their houses a little less. They would be less cordial towards unskilled workers who, waving a worker’s visa in our faces, claims to want to be like them, but in the meantime beats the hell out of his wife--his wives--and kills his daughter [for wearing] blue jeans. They would even renounce the litanies of the “Voyages of Hope,” and perhaps they would realize that, in order not to lose Liberty, sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit of liberty. That self-defense is legitimate defense, and that legitimate defense is not barbarism. Maybe, they would even cry out that Fallaci was right; that she didn’t deserve to be treated like a delinquent. But then, they would begin anew to treat me like a delinquent. To call me a retrograde xenophobic racist, etc. And when the attack will come, we’ll hear the usual nonsense: It’s the Americans’ fault; it’s Bush’s fault.

Fallaci is a realist, however, and she sees little hope that her countrymen will heed her call. She firmly believes that Italy will be struck, and is willing to go so far as to predict when such a strike might occur, and she does not pull any punches- she sees it happening within the next year:

Nonetheless, regarding an attack on Italy, I fear two things: Christmas and the elections. We might slide by for Christmas. Their attacks are not rude, showy strikes. They are refined crimes, well-calculated and well-prepared. They need time to prepare themselves, and I don’t think they’ll be ready by Christmas. But the will be ready by the 2006 elections--the elections they want to see won overwhelmingly by pacifism. And of us, I fear, they will not be content [just] to massacre people. Because this is an intelligent and well-informed Monster, my dears. A Monster who (on our dime) studied in our universities, our renowned colleges, our luxurious schools. (With the money of their parents; be they sheikh or honest day-worker). A Monster who is not only knowledgeable about engineering, chemistry, physics, airlines, and subways: he is also knowledgeable about Art. Art, that their presumed “Beacon of Civilization” has never known how to produce. And I think that, along with our people, they want to massacre come work of art. How hard would it be to blow the Cathedral of Milan or Saint Peter’s Basilica sky-high? How hard would it be to blow Michelangelo’s David, the Uffizi, and the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence--or the Palace of the Doges in Venice--sky-high? How hard would it be to blow the Leaning Tower of Pisa--a monument recognized in every corner of the world, and therefore even more famous than the Twin Towers--sky-high?

But we cannot escape. We can confront the monster with honor, [with] courage; and by remembering the words that Churchill said to the English when he went to war against Hitler’s Nazism. He said “We will pour out tears and blood.” Oh, yes: we too will pour out tears and blood. We are at war: do we or do we not want to get this through our heads?!? And in war, you cry. Period.

I hope she is wrong, for the sake of the people of Italy. For that same sake, and for the sake of all the people targeted by al Qaeda simply for existing, I hope she is taken seriously- but I doubt she will be. We have Bin Laden's own words that tell us what his goal is, and we continue to see members of "allied" governments paying tribute to OBL and his cause- for example Egyptian Member of Parliament Hamadein Sabahi recently had this to say:

"The responsibility for the slaughter of [the Egyptian ambassador in Iraq] lies, first and foremost, with George Bush, his administration, and his military forces, occupying Iraq."

"When the conflict is directed against the Americans, it is good. Any weapon that kills an American is good. Any gun aiming at the Marines is good. Any kidnapping or slaughtering of an American in Iraq is good."

"I support Al-Qa'ida when it kills Americans."

It is hard for me to believe that Europeans, or for that matter Americans, still doubt that there is a threat to us and our way of life. On a statistical scale the threat may be small, but it is growing, and it is embodied by an insatiable enemy. LARWYN, who sent me the link to the posts refernced today, also sent me a few snippets from the history and literature books which I found interesting, and so reproduce here for you, I hope they make you stop and think. Of course if you have read this far in this post hyou probably already agree. I've left LARWYN's comments attached to the pieces as received:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899

Rudyard Kipling: Of all his politically incorrect poems, none violates more of the Ten Commandments of Multiculturalism than this one:

THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.

Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

If one moves past the conditioned response to Kipling’s politically incorrect tropes, this poem seems strangely apropos to our time. Replace “White Man” with “Anglosphere” or “America”, and it is not 1899; it is 2005, and the poem is our poem.

Enoch Powell’s famous "Rivers of Blood" speech in 1968.There have been other reminders of it recently-and this one is uncannily prescient:
" We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population — that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate. Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. Powell concluded his speech with this: As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”… Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Regardless of his racist motivations, regardless of any demagogic ambitions he might have had, Enoch Powell was right. He lived until 1998, long enough to see that much of what feared had already come to pass. In 1968 he was in the unenviable position of someone in 1931 warning of the danger that Hitler posed to the world. Regards, LARWYN

Correction:
Larwyn has sent me an e-mail asking me to let everyone know that the Churchill quote and the poem + speech excerpt respectively have come from the following blogs: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ and http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/. Sorry for any confusion, we had no intention of not giving credit where due.

Link-O-Rama (or, too tired to blog)

2005-07-25T21:26:00.000-04:00

After a long weekend in the car for a too short visit home for the wedding of my best friend from that ancient period known as "grade school" I am too tired for deep thoughts today. In light of that- here are some links worth exploring.

I am planning a post on the GAO report 21st Century Challenges Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government- an ambitious post on an ambitious paper:

The report is organized in three sections. The first section sets the stage by providing the rationale for reexamining the base of the federal government and the scope of GAO's effort. The second section is organized around 12 areas of federal activity and includes narratives discussing emerging changes in each area as well as several illustrative reexamination questions for each area. The third section provides some perspective on various strategies, processes, and approaches that should be considered as a possible means to address the issues and questions raised in this report.

The report is very sweeping, as you can imagine. I'll focus on the Homeland Security and International Challenges portions of the report, for those of you who like to read ahead.

As always, for a well written and thought out post from the other side of the aisle Irecommendd a trip over to Total Information Awareness where, among other things, Eric gloats and chortles over the Karl Rove issue that is lighting up the beltway.

American Future has a great weekend roundup of some of the British editorials responding to the latestattackss there, and Gandleman at The Moderate Voice has an excellent post on the British policy that suspected suicide bombers are to be shot in the head (mug tip to Barcepundit) that asks how we are to deal with the new risk of "friendly fire" in our cities- and he provides a good round up of opinions in answer to the question.

Finally, fellow FSO blogger Consul at Arms has a seemingly stream of consciousness post and linkfest of his own up, entitled "If Kerry was President...". If I could get away with it I'd print this one out and paper my office with it.

So, a hot cup of tea, a good night's sleep and then back to the salt mines, with a nice GAO report to fill the empty spaces- can't wait to see how the plan is going to shape up and fix the government in the next century.

(End of post, such that it is)

Al Jazeera supporters are right.

2005-07-21T21:52:00.000-04:00

As London recovers from the latest act of terror to strike the city a terrorist and mass murderer in Iraq begins his march to justice. Saddam has begun his day in court, unfortunately media coverage is minimal due the continued threat to the west posed by al Qaeda and its sympathizers. Luckily al Jazeera is covering the trial:

Long-bearded Saddam, who was wearing a white shirt, a suit jacket and glasses, appeared to be defiant and stared directly into the judge's eyes, who in turn seemed uncomfortable and avoided eye contact with the ousted president.

I'd be uncomfortable too, looking into the eyes of a man who ordered a province of his own country to be gassed, although I assume al Jazeera finds the judge's revulsion to be a victory of will for Hussein. Not surprisingly, some of their readers feel the same way (from the comments on the AJ site):

he lived like a lion and even living like lion. these pupets don't dare to look into his eyes. they know he can not do a thing but their guilty and fear don't let them to look into his eyes. salute to a lion heart.

and

saddam husseins trial should be open so that the whole world can understand the history of these past crimes and that there are many others deeply implicated, particularly the usa.

Luckily, there are other sources of news to refer to- the Internet allows anyone interested in learning more to do so, easily. Take this view of Saddam, for example:

A man describes how Saddam Hussein's secret police shoved a dissident's baby into a sack with a vicious cat that scratches it.

Undercover agents throw a man to his death from the roof of a building.

Iraqiya state television is reviving images of life under Saddam as a court prepares to announce his trial date.

``I wish they were here to see the day when Saddam is finished,'' a tearful woman who lost her relatives under Saddam tells viewers of Iraqiya, which broadcast footage of abuses filmed by members of Saddam security forces as they committed them.

Grainy footage of senior officials, including Ali Hassan al-Majid - nicknamed Chemical Ali because his men allegedly gassed 5,000 Kurds in 1988 - shows them questioning Shiites after a failed rebellion in 1991.

One official calmly smokes a cigarette and then kicks one of them in the face. The bound men were later executed. Other reminders include a blindfolded man with his hands bound behind his back being pushed off the roof of a building.

Another scene captured on video shows a man being held on the ground with an arm extended. The arm is beaten with a club until the bone breaks.

So, for perhaps the first and last time, I agree, at least in part, with sentiments expressed on the al Jazeera site- the trial of Saddam Hussein should be open and transparent, it should be broadcast on the satellite channels and the Internet, the entire world should have the opportunityto view the process of the rule of law in action. The lion of the desert will quickly be exposed as the hyena he is, or was- with full apologies to hyenas.

(End of post.)

Visa Waiver and the next threat -Updated!

2005-07-19T22:35:00.000-04:00

This post has generated a good amount of e-mail.. In light of the events in London today I've taken two of the most interesting and pasted them in at the end of the post- click the link at the end of the preview to read these comments.

Thanks to everyone for the comments over the last few days, especially to Melanie who pointed out a very interesting article on the American Enterprise Institute website- Jihad Made in Europe. This relatively short article covers a wide range of ideas, two of which are central to this post: the idea that the next al Qaeda top-level figure might come from Europe, and the threat presented to the national security of the United States by terrorists entering the country under the Visa Waiver program.

First, a little background. The Department of State provides the following description of the program:

The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. The program was established in 1986 with the objective of promoting better relations with U.S. allies, eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel, stimulating the tourism industry, and permitting the Department of State to focus consular resources in other areas. VWP eligible travelers may apply for a visa, if they prefer to do so. Not all countries participate in the VWP, and not all travelers from VWP countries are eligible to use the program. VWP travelers are screened prior to admission into the United States, and they are enrolled in the Department of Homeland Security’s US-VISIT program.

Citizens from the following countries are exempted from the need for a visa to travel for tourism or business:

Andorra, Iceland, Norway, Australia, Ireland, Portugal, Austria, Italy, San Marino, Belgium, Japan, Singapore, Brunei, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Denmark, Luxembourg, Spain, Finland, Monaco, Sweden, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, United Kingdom.

Let’s examine that list for a moment: France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe, largely unassimilated, and purportedly making up 70% of the prison population in that nation. Anyone think there might be some radicalizing of young men happening there? Spain saw its government elected on the strength of jihadi simultaneous attacks- and responded by blaming American foreign policy. In the Netherlands a film maker was brutally murdered for criticizing Islam. The Dutch response? Open a center for Arab cultural studies. At least some of the September 11th hijackers are known to have spent time studying in Germany. I think we can safely assume they have friends there. No one needs to be reminded about what took place in London recently.

While this truly demonstrates that Islamofascism is a global threat, it also points to the very real possibility that the next attack on American soil will be carried out by men who simply flew into the United States on the strength of their European, or other waiver program country, passport. I am by no means saying that a visa interview will stop all terrorists- but thanks largely to the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 there is at least a chance if the would-be terrorist has to face a American officer before traveling:

Section 305 requires specialized training for consular officers for the purpose of identifying applicants who pose safety and security threats, particularly those inadmissible under INA 212(a)(3)(A) and (B). As a part of the program the Secretary must work with law enforcement and intelligence agencies to provide to the Bureau of Consular Affairs reports, bulletins and updates relevant to terrorism and the screening of visa applicants who pose a threat to the United States.

To be fair the law requires that all foreign nationals entering the U.S be screened through a database system for known or suspected terrorists. That’s great if the person is a known entity, not so great if he is not. While Consular officers have a short amount of time for interviews at a visa window, immigration inspectors have far less at the arrival counter- and will most likely have no idea of the cultural issues surrounding the nice fellow with a British passport and the odd accent, who is here to attend a conference on urban planning, the better to learn to identify weaknesses in infrastructure.

Combine the above, then, with this (from the AEI piece):

What was once unquestionably an import has gone native, mutated, and grown. Some of what the Europeans are now confronting--and for the United States this is very bad news--is probably a locally generated Islamic militancy that is as retrograde and virulent as anything encountered in the Middle East. "European Islam" appears to be an increasingly radicalizing force intellectually and in practice. The much-anticipated Muslim moderates of Europe--the folks French scholar Gilles Kepel believes will produce "extraordinary progress in civilization," a new "Andalusia" (the classical Arabic word for Moorish Spain) that will save us from Osama bin Laden's jihad--have so far not developed with the same gusto as the Muslim activists who have dominated too many mosques in "Londonistan" and elsewhere in Europe.

[snip]

For organizations like al Qaeda, this may mean that the future will be decisively European. From its earliest days, al Qaeda viewed Europe as an important launching platform for attacks against the United States and its interests. Now, Western counterterrorist forces, which have traditionally tried to track Middle Eastern missionaries in Europe, would be well advised to start searching for radical European Muslim missionaries in the Middle East and elsewhere.

[snip]

Although some of the reasons put forth by Europeans to explain their Muslim problems are undoubtedly valid, a wise U.S. counterterrorist policy would downplay the external causes of Islamic activism in Europe. We should prepare for the worst-case scenario and assume that European society itself will continue to generate the most lethal holy warriors. In doing so, American officials should be skeptical of their own ability to identify through profiling which Muslim Europeans might engage in terrorism against the United States. Stamps in passports indicating travel to Middle Eastern countries can't tell you much, since holy-warrior pilgrimages are not required to fortify jihadist spirits and networks. Living in London, Leeds, or Manchester can be more than enough.

The author concludes, as Melanie indicated in her comment that launched this post, that the Visa Waiver program has to go:

This means, of course, that the Bush administration ought to preempt fate and suspend the visa-waiver program established in 1986 for Western Europeans… The transatlantic crowd in Washington--the bedrock of America's foreign-policy establishment--might rise in high dudgeon at the damage this could do to U.S.-European relations. The State Department's European and consular-affairs bureaus might add that they no longer have the staff to handle the enormous number of applicants. Ignore them.

The Visa Waiver program is flawed, there can be no doubt- radical Islam is well established in the EU, and the passports held by the subscribers to the ideology of hate that is preached in the mosques there have enormous potential as the catalysts for horrifying new attacks. Our allies across the pond have shown little proclivity, outside of Great Britain (and precious little there), to address the underlying issues of the threat within- we can hardly count on them to screen out the threats for us. Is the end of the Visa Waiver program a realistic possibility? I do not know. Our goal, as stated by then Secretary of State Powell, is “secure borders, open doors.” How would the EU nations react to the end of the program- in effect a closing, if not barring, of the open door? What would the economic impact on the U.S. be if tourism from Europe plummeted, even for the short term as a new visa program geared up (such a sea change would take considerable time- the authors suggestions not withstanding)? Do our leaders have the courage to honestly and openly address the loophole that the program provides for the increasingly hostile Westernized Muslim radical to do harm to the United States? Only time will tell.

BEGIN UPDATE:

Dear Doc:

Instead of hiding behind the veil of even-handedness why not call a spade a spade. Let's face it a Swedish blue-eyed mother of three is not going to blow up the Capitol. Neither is a French white (or nearly all) back-packer. These people don't really pose a problem. So why not impose a visa program on all non- white Europeans: specifically the Muslim variety.

We are far more advanced then we were in 1986. How about modernizing the program that allows those people who pose no problem to move around freely. In other words the CEO of Daimler Chrysler poses no threat. I am thinking at the top of my head here, but surely there are ways which would discriminate between those who are "unknown" to the US as against people who are. How about getting waivers in the same way as applying for a H1 visa, or by getting an American or several Americans to vouch for those who would like a waiver.

I think you are on the right track here in that the US cannot afford to let in undesirables. But the US also wants and needs to interact with the rest of the world in a seamless less annoying way than applying for a visa.

Several friends of mine who have visited the US in the last few years have noted how the airports resemble a nation with a siege mentality. This of course is understandable, especially after 911. But by the same token, these Australians are people who the US would dearly like to attract as visitors.

The problem as I see it is that political climate does not allow discrimination against the very people who pose a threat even US residents- Muslims.

Maybe the American people would go for a system whereby restrictions on followers of Islam are tightened even further while we see a relaxation for the rest of us.

Just think[ing] aloud here of course.

Joe, Melbourne

Email #2:

You know, we could take a lesson from the British in the wake of the
London bombings. The PM summoned Muslim leaders to instruct them to get
their houses in order, that anti-national crimes and behavior will not
be tolerated.

What do we in the US do? We send key leaders to visit mosques and fawn
over Muslims as a way of demonstrating our respect for them and to
reassure them that all forces of the Government will be used to protect
them. Which is pretty much the same thing we'd do if a group of Muslims
in the US did something good, as well as bad.

Where's the incentive for good behavior?

Islam and the Great Debate

2005-07-15T22:35:00.000-04:00

I was going to post today on our relationship with Mexico vis-a-vis terrorism, our porous border and the largely unknown illegal population in the United States, based on this article:

HOMELAND INSECURITY-

Mexico's help with terrorists? Not unless U.S. enacts reforms Ex-foreign minister testifies before senators, says cooperation will come at cost of amnesty.

On Tuesday, former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing: "No border security is possible without Mexican cooperation" and "there can be no cooperation [from the Mexican government] without some sort of immigration reform package."

I'll definitely address this issue at some point in the future- but today our good friend Marc Schulman at American Future has asked us to join in on a conversation he has been having with a few readers related to Tom Friedman's current NY Times piece: A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage. The key to Friedman's piece is this exchange:

Why are young Sunni Muslim males, from London to Riyadh and Bali to Baghdad, so willing to blow up themselves and others in the name of their religion? Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers; it would be ludicrous to suggest that.

But virtually all suicide bombers, of late, have been Sunni Muslims. There are a lot of angry people in the world. Angry Mexicans. Angry Africans. Angry Norwegians. But the only ones who seem to feel entitled and motivated to kill themselves and totally innocent people, including other Muslims, over their anger are young Sunni radicals. What is going on?

Schulman, on his blog, responds to Friedman with a "thank you":

How refreshing it is to read someone as widely influential as Friedman who dares to puts the blame squarely on Islam itself, instead of on the Bush- and Blair-blessed nostrum that Islam is a peaceful religion that's been hijacked.

That is where the fun begins. If you have not yet clicked over to American Future to read the post please do so now, I'll wait. The comments are well written, well reasoned and incredibly far reaching, covering every topic from the resurrection of Whabism in Saudi Arabia, possible collusion between the Saudis and the U.S. government, the lack of a credible leader of the anti-Jihad Muslims and the need for the Muslims of the world to stand up and solve this problem themselves. I am not going to try to address all of these issues here, but will offer my two cents on a few of them.

First, I am glad to see the Friedman piece. I agree wholeheartedly with the following sentiment contained in that piece:

Some of these young Muslim men are tempted by a civilization they consider morally inferior, and they are humiliated by the fact that, while having been taught their faith is supreme, other civilizations seem to be doing much better," said Raymond Stock, the Cairo-based biographer and translator of Naguib Mahfouz. "When the inner conflict becomes too great, some are turned by recruiters to seek the sick prestige of 'martyrdom' by fighting the allegedly unjust occupation of Muslim lands and the 'decadence' in our own."

I have long argued that the favorite leftist mantra that poverty causes terrorism is easily proved wrong by the vast preponderance of amazingly poor people who do NOT blow themselves up on a regular basis in order to seek a better life for their people. I am glad to see an Arabist promote this idea. Shame and humiliation coupled with religious indoctrination are easily forged into hate.

The Muslim world has often decried extremist acts of terror, often, but not loudly or for a prolonged period of time. Many of the refutations of these attacks have been feeble, or pro-forma. No strong leader has stood up and said "This is wrong, it has to stop." A few days ago I posted on the Ku Klux Klan and al Qaeda. The Klan ceased to be a viable terrorist organization in the U.S. when the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny made it impossible for them to recruit and to operate. No such condition exists in the Muslim world today- images of a lone cleric or two speaking out against terror, juxtaposed with scenes of people dancing in the street in celebration are hard to square. There are no Muslim "freedom riders", no marches in the streets of Londonstan, there is no Muslim dream to equal that of Dr. King's.

Finally, as Marc indicates in his response comments, the war on terror is not being waged as a long term large scale global war- there has been no call for sacrifice in the U.S. If you do not have a family member or a close friend in the military either in the Middle East or about to deploy there, the war hardly touches your life. You might buy a ribbon decal, or fly the flag in front of your house, but beyond that it is all "Desperate Housewives" and Splenda. It is hard to take the Color Code terrorist warning system seriously. Until your bus blows up on the way to work, that is.

The great debate will continue to rage, at least in the blogosphere, thanks to bloggers like Marc and his readers (and you- our readers). The question is, will this argument- is our battle against Islam or is it limited to an extremist subset- ever see the light of day in our overly PC world? Why are we not calling, loudly and repeatedly, for the Muslim world, who loves to claim that their peaceful religion has been hijacked, to solve this problem? When the KKK was terrorizing blacks (primarily) in the U.S. the black population of America did not depend on Tanzania to help defeat them. The outrage came from non-racist whites (and of course black Americans), and it was this white outrage that finally destroyed the Klan.

We can fight Islamic terror until the end of time, and without strong Muslim internal dissent, without a destruction of the recruiting base that OBL and his ilk draw from, we just might end up fighting them forever. Mr. Friedman's Bahraini friend wants to know "why are we [Muslims] in every story." I want to know why Tom's moderate friends aren't in more stories- and why they consider themselves part of the "we" that kills Russian school children, London commuters and anyone else they consider to be "other".

Freedom is not free.

2005-07-13T22:53:00.000-04:00

The title of this piece has become cliche in recent decades, a mantra of the right to be ignored by the left, repeated so often by people who take their freedoms for granted that by and large it has lost its impact in the U.S. For a great many people, though, this statement is an altruism, they live it every moment of every day. No matter where these people are, they are our brethren, especially if they are imprisoned, held in solitary and threatened with death, or worse, as is the case of Akbar Ganji.

Ganji is an Iranian writer who has written about the Iranian government's involvement in the 1998 murders of those who seek to reform the mullahcrocy. He has been in prison on and off since 2001, much of that time in solitary confinement. Many people have called for his release, including President Bush

The President calls on all supporters of human rights and freedom, and the United Nations, to take up Ganji's case and the overall human rights situation in Iran," a statement released by the White House yesterday read. Calls for comment to U.N. spokesmen were unreturned at press time last night.

"The President also calls on the Government of Iran to release Mr. Ganji immediately and unconditionally and to allow him access to medical assistance. "

In addition to the leaders of the world speaking out for Ganiji, a simple Google search turns up a large number of sites devoted to him. One of the best, entitled simply "Free Ganji" has a collection of translations of his past work, well worth the read. Ganji recently managed to have a letter smuggled out of his solitary confinement cell which is also available through the invaluable MEMRI, they have translated the message and posted it (excerpts follow):

"The entire world knows of hundreds who have been incarcerated in Iran's prisons in recent years merely because they had different thoughts. Nevertheless, the liars deny that there are prisoners of conscience in the Islamic Republic. Tehran's Islamic Prosecutor [Saeed Mortazavi] fabricated a few stories about the circumstances of my arrest. Once he made up [the story] that I was in solitary because I began a hunger strike, and the next day he denied I was on a hunger strike, and falsely claimed that I was in solitary to teach me a lesson. Recently he has been telling various stories that I am in solitary because I suffer from mental problems, and require medical supervision.

"What does this medical supervision consist of? The person is imprisoned in a dark unventilated dungeon, and is denied visits even if he is in need of medical supervision. In addition, he is prevented from reading newspapers or using the phone, and is denied the 20-minute period in the sun and fresh air given to every [other] convict.

"The Islamic prosecutor said he wanted to punish me until I have 'sobered up and understood the error of my ways and recanted, just like others in the Islamic prisons.'"

"Denying [Opinions] and Signing Recantations are Tactics Invented by Stalin, and the Islamic Republic [in Iran] has now Adopted Them."

"I want the world to know: I am not sick, and I have not been on a hunger strike. My weight loss, from 77 to 58 kilos, is the result of the torture to which I have been subjected this past month. Why are the authorities refusing to allow the press to photograph me and to publish [the photos]?"

"What the Islamic prosecutor doesn't know is that Ganji may die, but the love of freedom, and the thirst for political justice will never die. Ganji may die, but humanism and the love of one's fellow man, and the hope and expectations for a better future, will never die.

"I will spend my time in solitary, but my heart will continue to beat for freedom. And some of the time I will hear prisoners cry for the windows of their solitary cells to be opened, to let the sun in."

So the next time you hear someone say that "freedom isn't free" think of Akbar Ganji, and tell that person about him. Make sure that person knows that the bumper sticker slogan is still true, and that for much of the world it is an intensely current fact of life. And when you are confronted with someone who decries the Guantanomo prison, and the war in Iraq, remind them that our battles are with people like those who have imprisoned Ganji. Make sure they understand that we live in a society where a reporter can invent a story about the flushing of a Koran down the toilet and people die half the world away. Ganji lives in a world where he dares to speak the truth and faces the possibility of paying for it with his life.

When we can summon the righteous indignation of the world against regimes and dictators who oppress their own people, and can count on the world to force these regimes to listen to their own people we will have made great strides in the promotion of freedom and democracy. In the mean time, I would like to say thank you to all the men and women who have given their lives, suffered wounds and offer today their own futures to pay the price for our freedom. Mr. Ganji, may your voice be heard and you and your people someday know the freedom that you crave and so deserve.

On Honor

2005-07-12T18:00:00.000-04:00

This is going to be a short post- it regards Karl Rove. I admire the man's work in the elections, but if an investigation determines he did indeed reveal classified information, he has to go.

It is not just a matter of having revealed classified, although that is enough in and of itself, it is also a matter of doing what is right- it is a matter of honor. That is not a word we use too often anymore, and that is damn shame.

What is left when honor is lost? Publilius Syrus

(End of post)

Al Qaeda and the Klan

2005-07-11T22:10:00.000-04:00

The G8 leaders stood united behind Tony Blair as he addressed the world in the immediate aftermath of the attacks- in silence. Now is not the time for silence; it is the time for a clarion call to action. Our leaders, the leaders of the Western world and all nations that cherish freedom and liberty must work together to determine a cogent strategy against the extremism that threatens every Western nation. Our foes may be content for now to target the U.S. and our allies in the GWOT , but we must not forget that this is not their ultimate goal. The restoration of the caliphate and the ancient borders of the peak of the Islamic empire are their goals. Far fetched, to be sure, but they believe they can do it. And that belief is a dangerous thing.

Every jihadist that fights in Iraq and makes it back out of the country, either before or after order is restored to the nation, is a walking knowledge base. They are learning how to build improvised explosive devices (IEDs) they are learning how to fight in an urban environment, how to communicate in combat situations and how to form cells that can work in crude, but effective, independence. Where will they go when the war in Iraq is over? Will they go “home”? Home to the Europe that welcomed them with more or less open arms, provided shelter and sustenance, the freedom of religion to practice as they see fit and the freedom of travel to go abroad to train and wage jihad? What will they do when they get there? I doubt they will open falafel stands- in fact I fully expect that they are already returning and plying their new trade. They will have garnered valuable skills, and passed the test- emerging from Iraq alive- that makes them valued recruiters and trainers. It also means that the nations from which they are emerging should be afraid- very afraid, of their return.

At the top of that list of nations that have the most to fear from returning jihadis: Saudi Arabia.

The NBC News analysis of Web site postings found that 55 percent of foreign insurgents came from Saudi Arabia, 13 percent from Syria, 9 percent from North Africa and 3 percent from Europe.

That is a huge percentage, more than four times the number from the next leading supplier of murderers. Can our Saudi allies do nothing to close the border? Or do they prefer not to, hoping that the jihadi element of Saudi society will meet its end in Iraq at Coalition hands? If this is the case it is a dangerous game that the Saudis play. We will not, no matter what the effort, destroy all of the terrorists who oppose us in Iraq. Some will inevitably escape. In addition to the deadly skills they will take with them, they will have made connections both ideological and physical to the vast amorphous terror network that is commonly know as al Qaeda- for example the perpetrators of the London attack, here to for unknown, ensured that their evil deed would not only rocket to the forefront of the media‘s attention, but would remain there by using al Qaeda in the name of their group. Were they ordered to commit the attack by bin Laden, or one of his remaining top level men, or did they act independently? Does it really matter? They claim to be aligned with, or to at least adhere to the same principles as, bin Laden and his followers-and that may really be all that al Qaeda is today- a name in which to perpetuate terror against the West.

This leads me to a source I would not normally refer to on this blog, but for once (at least for a portion of the article) Mother Jones has hit it on the head:

Which brings us to an important question: What is Al Qaeda? The network is perhaps best understood as a set of concentric rings, growing more ill defined as they spread outward. At the core is Al Qaeda the organization, which bin Laden and a dozen or so close associates formed in 1989, and which eventually expanded to 200 to 300 core members who have sworn an oath of allegiance to bin Laden, their emir, or prince. It was Al Qaeda the organization that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

The second concentric ring consists of perhaps several thousand men who have trained in Al Qaeda's Afghan camps in bomb making, assassination, and the manufacture of poisons. Beyond that ring are as many as 120,000 who received some kind of basic military training in Afghanistan over the past decade. An undetermined number of those fighters are now sharpening their skills as insurgents from Kashmir to Algeria.

The Madrid attacks in March are emblematic of what is emerging as the fourth and perhaps most ambiguous -- and potentially most dangerous -- ring in the Al Qaeda galaxy. The attacks were carried out by a group of Moroccans with few links to Al Qaeda the organization. Some of the conspirators did try to establish direct contact with the inner core of Al Qaeda, but that effort seems to have been unsuccessful, and they carried out the attacks under their own steam. These attacks may well represent the future of "Al Qaeda" operations, most of which will be executed by local jihadists who have little or no direct connection to bin Laden's group. This is a worrisome development, because it suggests that Al Qaeda has successfully transformed itself from an organization into a mass movement with a nearly unlimited pool of potential operatives.

I will part company with Mother Jones at this point, because I do not see the pool of applicants that al Qaeda has as basically unlimited. In fact, to me this pool of potential terrorists is what the next phase of the GWOT should be all about. We are already actively engaged with the current crop of jihadis, and may indeed already be too late to stop the next generation. This will be a long, long, battle. Our enemy is prepared for a lengthy war of attrition, and is counting on being able to replenish their pool of recruits as time goes on. In a conventional war we would strike at the enemy’s ability to produce materiel, targeting factories and supply lines. In this war that means one thing: the jihadis themselves. The big question, of course, is how to do this. Is there a model to draw upon to base the battle against the al Qaeda recruiters? There might be, and it might come as a surprise: the destruction of the Ku Klux Klan.

The Klan had a long and somewhat storied history in the U.S. prior to its eventual downfall- supported by a large percentage of the population, tacitly if not implicitly. It took the eventual refutation of the people of the nation to drive the KKK back to the fringes of society- we will never be quit of the KKK, but they no longer present a viable threat to any segment of the nation. We will most likely never be quit of al Qaeda, either. But we just might be able to deprive them of the materiel (recruits) that they need to continue to wage their "holy" war. There are a lot of "ifs" in this idea, and it is by no means a quick solution, more a long term strategic goal than a silver bullet.

The first of the conditions is the establishment of a viable democracy in Iraq, where liberty and freedom for all is the reality. And that, after all, is the biggest if. If we, and our allies, can find the resolve to stay the path in Iraq while continuing to fight the ideological war at the same time the rest of the conditions should fall into place.

I plan to continue this post soon, following up on the idea that the destruction of the Klan might offer a path towards ending the flow of martyrs that bin Laden and his ilk depend upon- I am still working on it, and have written as much as I can tonight. Stay tuned, and as always your comments and e-mails are much appreciated.

Religious Visas- a threat?

2005-07-09T18:46:00.000-04:00

Occasionally we receive e-mails that are too good to resist sharing, and we invite the author to do a guest piece, or re-publish something he or she has posted elsewhere. This is one of those e-mails that evolved into a guest piece. The text below is unedited by The Daily Demarche (with the exception of reformatting links for this space). The author served a visa tour in a high volume post, and speaks from experience. - Dr. D

The LA Times has a story about the currently-incarcerated Lodi imam being known in Pakistan for his fiery anti-American rhetoric, but nonetheless receiving a visa to come to the US as a religious worker. The story may be found here.

The story points out that the imam had made flagrantly anti-American speeches, but that the consular officers who interviewed him did not see the imam as a threat to the US. There are three possibilities for why that is, which I do not know, not having seen the imam's application or the vice-consul's notes. One is that no one in the Embassy knew about what he was saying in other settings. Two is that someone knew, but no one thought to enter any lookout on him in the State Department's computer database (called CLASS). Three is that the vice consul was aware of everything that he had said, but that the officer didn't feel there was any grounds for denying the visa.

The reporter highlighted the problem of vice consuls on the visa line not knowing everyone's background, but the article missed the larger hole in the R-1 visa, which is that the State Department's regulations (the Foreign Affairs Manual) do not permit consular officers to refuse an R-1 under section 214(b), which is the catch-all refusal used to turn down applicants (tourist, business, student, etc) that the officer feels are not being truthful, or has other suspicions about. Some categories, like H-1bs and L-1s (the visas used by temporary workers, particularly in software engineering for example), are exempted from 214(b), and R-1s are as well (although that is an interpretation found in the FAM, not actually part of the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act, like it is for H-1bs). Consular officers use 214(b) as an important anti-terrorism tool, as it is the only generic refusal that lets them say no to someone who gives off bad vibes, and it is a serious flaw that someone going for a religious worker visa (which could very plausibly include some extremists whom we wouldn't want in the country) is exempt from that.

So, in theory, a vice consul on the visa line could find this imam in front of him or her, and know exactly what this imam had preached about the need to destroy America, but have no plausible grounds to turn down the visa application- it is pretty obvious that the imam is a qualified member of his religion, and if he has an invitation from a real mosque, then the vice consul cannot refuse under 214(b). The only option would be to try to refuse under 212(a)(3), which is for someone deemed to be a terrorist threat, but this is unlikely to stick based only on inflammatory rhetoric. This is what the reporter missed in this story- the fact that R-1s are exempted from 214(b) is a serious hole in our first line of security, the visa issuance process.

Those of us who have served on the visa line would love to have stronger tools to refuse suspect cases. 214(b) is a great tool for most non-immigrant visas, but the concept (a catch-all, non-appealable refusal) needs to be extended to other categories to allow us to refuse those who give us "bad vibes," even if they haven't yet broken any laws. Remember, the "20th hijacker" was refused entry by an immigration inspector who couldn't identify anything wrong with him, but just had a funny feeling. Like it or not, that's our best defense at catching someone who intends us harm but hasn't yet committed any crimes, and our consular officers need to have more flexibility to turn those people down

Criticalreactor