Six Muslim imams taken off plane - CNN.com

A clear case of flying while Arab (FWA)

I watched some footage on CNN's website regarding the removal of the Imams from the plane. Specifically, I saw an interview with a young white woman and an older white man. When they asked them to recall what about the men seemed suspicious or of concern, they noted the following:

"One was wearing sunglasses and it was dark on the plane"
"They were kinda of keeping to themselves"
"They were together in the terminal, but sat in different seats when they boarded"
"They were praying together on the plane"

Every one of the things they noted was perfectly innocent. I'm not sure the average white person would recognize the fact that what they keyed off of was the muslim appearance of these men, not their behaviors, but anybody that has ever been profiled can see it a mile away. The guys were scholars in Minneapolis for a conference. The conference organizers even notified local law enforcement and the FBI ahead of time to help avoid issues. When asked to leave the plane, they refused and they got arrested. I can't say I blame them. I would have been pissed off and I think my attitude might have been, "F**k it, arrest me then". They took the guys off the plane, interrogated them, then released them. US Airways refused to put them on another flight. Its a crying shame. Comes with the territory these days, just like being scrutinized by the police when you are a brother, but still, its a shame.

KRT Wire | 11/20/2006 | Rangel says he's serious about reinstating the draft

KRT Wire | 11/20/2006 | Rangel says he's serious about reinstating the draft

Now, this is precisley the kind of absurdity that I do not want to see the Democrats engaging in. While its an arguement to say that the threats we face currently in the world require a larger military (a view echoed by Abizaid in the recent hearings), addressing that need with the draft is not necessary. Beefing up pay and benefits for the armed forces could accomplish the same without all of the attendant issues that come with conscription.

The only reason for Rangel to float this is as a way to embarrass the President and rub his nose in the mess that Iraq certainly is. But thats not what the vote on 11/7 was about. The American people already know its a mess and that we are not winning. We want Congress and the President to come up with a strategy for winning, not to play political games with it. This is the kind of political stupidity that left unchecked will certainly damage the hopes of the Democrats to beat back another decade long absence from the majority.

Its also an interesting light on Pelosi as speaker. Either this is the kind of posturing her liberal viewpoint is comfortable with (a bad thing) OR, she does not have the political strength as Speaker to enforce discipline or forge consensus on strategy with powerful committee chairs like Rangel (also a bad thing). Either way, this is playing politics with the war, and the public is just not going to stand for it. Dems will pay a bitter price in 08 if they don't get a grip.

Democrats to Press Bush to Redeploy Troops in Iraq - New York Times

Democrats to Press Bush to Redeploy Troops in Iraq - New York Times

Its been a while since I got into this blog. The mid term elections have come and gone and the Dems took control. Now the question is whether they will foolishly over reach and misread the American people, or restrain the urge to whole sale reverse course in Iraq.

First off, the Dems won not because they have such great ideas for running the country, but because Americans are convinced that the President's conduct of the war is not working and they were fed up with 12 years of Republican control of Congress and the White House in which the Republicans forgot who the heck they were supposed to be.

On Iraq, I think Americans are clear that Iraq is a mess and the administration's strategy for prosecuting it is not adequate to the complexity of the situation. Oh yeah, I know, a lot of people have no idea what Iraq was to accomplish in the first place. To recap, the Bush administration took down Iraq in order to lean on the surrounding countries more effectively to obtain their help in going after terrorist networks. This limited goal was achieved, we got a ot of cooperation from surrounding countries. The problem became mission creep as it went from muscling regional players to implanting democracy to full scale nation building in a socio-cultural political situation the administration never fully understood. As Colin told them, "if you break it, you own it".

While there are plenty of Americans who say bring the troops home now, I think most recognize that having gone in there and wreaked all this havoc, its not a responsible or prudent thing to simply up and leave. Furthermore, the Iraqi people have been plunged into a living hell and I think there is a moral obligation on this country to try to salvage some hope for their futures from this mess.

The other issue was corruption and plain old partisan power politics. The republicans have ruled with an iron fist, and Congress and the White House just scratched each other's back. Congress let the President do whatever he wanted more or less, backing him with legislation. The White House for its part, hasn't vetoed one bit of the hysterical spending being done by Congress. The deficit is getting hammered and the corporate and moneyed interests of this country were being entrenched while the little guy got screwed.

But as the article in the NYT highlights, its now time to see if the democrats are truly able to govern. Iraq is a complex situation. Bush's strategy has failed because it didn't recognize that, and the Dems already sound guilty of the same failure of understanding with their calls for redeployment in the short term. There was a strategic rationale to the Iraq war. The problem is that the war opened up a large can of worms, a Pandora's box that Bush needs to close. The downside is that there are no good options in Iraq now. All we have are bad choices. The Dems make a mistake if they think that the simplistic answer of just bring the troops home is the right move. Bush's strategy failed for lack of respect for the complexity of the problem. The Dems are poised to make a similar mistake.

CNN.com - Carroll walks unharmed into Sunni�party office - Mar 30, 2006

CNN.com - Carroll walks unharmed into Sunni party office - Mar 30, 2006

Qoute"Ex-hostage says she was 'treated very well' during 3-month ordeal"

Huh? Is it just me, or is anybody else confused by this? I'm getting really angry listening to the statements of this woman. She has been held captive for months, threatened with death. The terrorists released video of her showing her sobbing in fear for her life with guns pointed at her head. Then she gets released and says she was treated well and "its important for people to know that". Somebody help me understand this. They threaten her life, put her family and friends through hell, have the whole world horrified that the next video we see will be of her getting her head severed, and the first words out of her mouth are to praise the kidnappers? Next she will be criticizing the policy of the government that has been working to get her out alive.

Did she think her kidnappers were so considerate when they blew her poor Iraqi driver's brains out all over the road when she was snatched? How do you get released and come out praising people who threatened to kill you and wasted your driver, your friend? What is that? I've gone from being sympathetic to her plight to being disgusted with her comments.

Maybe she will speak more candidly when she is on US soil again. Maybe thats what she has to do until she actually gets the hell out of the country. But if she gets back to the states and wants to be critical of the government and praise the kidnappers who threatened her life, killed her driver in cold blood and put her family through hell and made them beg for her life, I will puke.

Joseph P. Phillips: Beheadings in Iraq

NPR : The Tavis Smiley Show for Tuesday, July 6, 2004

A commentator on the Tavis Smiley show today drew what I thought was an apt analogy between the Islamic extremists and Jihadists killing Americans and Iraqis in Iraq, and the white supremacist thugs of the early 20th century (the Klan and related sorts). He talked about todays practice of beheading as a tactic to initimidate and terrify for political purposes, and compared it to the practice of lynching black people in the early 1900s. Like the white supremacists of that time, Jihadists, largely ignorant, motivated by hatred and with a poverty of vision, use these tactics to terrify their target population (Americans, or other Iraqis) hoping to stop the march of history and progress towards a better society. But just like America in the 1900s, those tactics did not stop thousands of ordinary citizens from moving forward towards a more just society. I don't think its going to stop the Iraqis either.

Iran satellite images raise nuclear questions

Iran satellite images raise nuclear questions

The game of nuclear hide and seek with Iran continues. As I noted in the previous post, a nuclear armed Iran cannot be permitted to arise. The Iranians have begun a game of diplomatic escalation with the U.S., which begun with the arrest of U.K. soilders. That opening salvo was answered nine days after the Iranian navy detained eight British sailors -- whom Tehran claimed had crossed into Iranian territory -- by British Defense
Minister Geoff Hoon. He bluntly accused the Iranians of lying, saying the Iranian navy
"forcibly escorted" the sailors into Iranian waters. The U.S. gave its answer with the the U.S. expulsion of two Iranian security guards attached to the U.N. Delegation for "activities inconsistent with their diplomatic status", diplo speak for spying.

Tehran is not happy with how events are unfolding in Iraq. The Shia allies of Iran, Ali al-Sistani and militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr have been cut out of the interim government. Nabbing the patrol boats was Iran's way of saying to the U.S. that they are still a player. Ejecting the security guards was the U.S. way of saying they got the message and their not impressed. London's statement also indicates they are not impressed, and in fact has a bit of "bring it on" tone to it.

The Iranians think this is manageable stuff and part of what they need to do to get to their real goal, a pro-Iranian Iraq and a border that will no longer be a route for potential invaders. They figure the nuclear card ( a program, not a weapon) will help them win concessions to get to this goal.

But here's the problem. 1. The administration can no longer rely on the intelligence agencies to truly know at what stage the Iranian nuclear program is and 2. the Bush administration is in no mood to jerk around with any government in the Islamic world. To Iran, this is a chess game. For the U.S., this is part of a war.

CNN.com - Officials rebuke Iran for nuclear policy - Jun 26, 2004

CNN.com - Officials rebuke Iran for nuclear policy - Jun 26, 2004

From the US perspective, Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. The reason is because the U.S. government assumes that were Iran to obtain WMD, those weapons would be provided to terrorists who would use them against the United States. That is an intolerable threat and one we believe to be real. The terrorists who accomplished 911 would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon if they could obtain one. Terrorists did 911, and terrorists behead kidnapped civilians and film it. We don't need any more convincing about their intentions.

I'm not sure that the rest of the world has understood how profoundly 911 changed the American outlook. It is very unlikely that Bush could have taken the US to war against Iraq if 911 had not happened. I'm not sure that European or ME countries really get this point. We believe (because its demonstrably true) that terrorist networks out there are plotting to accomplish horrific attacks of mass destruction on American soil. 911 showed us how far they are willing to go, and what they are prepared to do, which is basically anything.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Letting them obtain nuclear weapons technology would be extremely dangerous to us.

CNN.com - Pentagon: South Korean hostage beheaded - Jun 22, 2004

CNN.com - Pentagon: South Korean hostage beheaded - Jun 22, 2004

Everyone is a target. You don't have to be American for the terrorist killers to target you. But like I said in a prior post, this is not going to work. The terrorists really got America wrong. Our mindset I mean. I mean, they think that these beheadings will frighten us. And it is frightening. But all it really results in is a growing contempt for them. A belief that they are simply human scum, animals that should be wiped out. Far from deterring us, they are stiffening our resolve to bear the costs and the criticism to destroy them.

ALERT! American Hostage Paul Johnson Beheaded; Video of Act Reported -- GRAPHIC CONTENT

ALERT! American Hostage Paul Johnson Beheaded; Video of Act Reported -- GRAPHIC CONTENT

Another beheading. The terrorists clearly intend to horrify and frighten us. The sad, pathetic thing is that it won't work. The U.S. government won't ever accede to demands to prevent a hostage from being killed. Period. Its just not going to happen. The terrorists also want to impact the population back home by creating a climate of horror and affect the outcome of the elections. So they may continue this beheading tactic even though it will never result in coalition governments changing.

But every one of these grisly atrocities only hardens the American heart and convinces us that the terrorist enemy we are facing is less than human. After watching the videos of these people killed (pearl, berg, johnson, etc.) I'm convinced that the people who did this were evil incarnate. So's the U.S. government.

Strategic Forecasting, Inc. - Improvements in Western Intelligence

Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

I can't say there is anything comforting about this analysis from Strafor, but at least you can rely on them to have an understandable viewpoint.

Baghdad Burning

Baghdad Burning

One thing about the internet is that you don't have to be relegated to mainstream media for your information. In the middle of a war, I'm not sure anything could be more important than being able to get information firsthand from people on the ground. Like the author of the link above. Riverbend is the name of a blogger in Baghdad. A young woman who is telling it like she is living it.

I'm really beginning to be concerned about this war. When you read Riverbend's writings and perspective, and you look at the continuing horror coming out of the prison abuse revelations, you really begin to question what is happening and what we are doing.

I believe that we are fighting a real enemy in the terrorists. But I'm really concerned that the way in which we are waging it is going terribly wrong. I'm beginning to question whether or not the ideals which we say our behind our actions are really what moves us, or whether it is more dark and sinister motives.

I'm beginning to question the moral correctness of the way this war is being fought. I suspect that this questioning process is beginning to occur for many others, and that will have consequences for the Bush administration this fall.

Oxford Student: 20th May 2004: This War on Terror

Oxford Student: 20th May 2004: This War on Terror

Now, I find this article by some student at Oxford to be just plain naive. Its not surprising that it is, since I had the same sort of outlook when I was a student. His basic argument seems to be that if we would just politically do whatever the Islamic world desired, no one would attack us. He says that you can't win a war on terror. But apparently the right series of political moves in the Middle East, such as solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict will. Gee, what could be simpler than that. The political issues of the Middle East are deep and serious. If the conflict over Israel could be so easily dealt with, it would have been. You're are not going to get the parties to that conflict to reach a political settlement. That conflict is not going to end, and really, thats biblical. So this idea that if we would just do the right political things terrorism would be defeated is as untenable as military action.

And frankly, I think if you kill the terrorist, that is a pretty effective means of stopping terrorism. But I don't think the average person understands the basics of this conflict. Part of the problem in every online debate on the war and something that runs through nearly all the dialogue we see in the media is the question and issue of "why did we invade Iraq?". Many people do not believe the WMD threat was real, that it was a cover for going in to get their oil. I think that concept makes no sense simply because before all this went down, we bought the oil. And we'll be buying the oil in the future. Its not about oil.

Thats not to say that there is not a serious level of ongoing profiteering taking place with this war. There most certainly is. But that does not mean that the rationale for doing it is not there. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has done a strikingly inept job of articulating (or not) the strategy behind invading Iraq.

Part of the problem is that neither our president or our media have done one whit to educate us about the motivations of the principal terrorist enemy, Al-Queda. All you get is "they hate freedom" and "they want to spread an idealogy of hatred". Thats not good enough to help us understand this enemy. Whats going on with this war makes more sense if you have some analysis of the antagonists. So here's one to mull over.

What is Al-Queda's goal? The establishment of a pan islamic state across the entire muslim world.

What is their strategy to achieve this? Al-Queda must bring down the current governments in the middle east and arab world to achieve their goal. These governments are undemocratic, often corrupt and despotic governments iin many islamic countries. Al-Queda's problem is that they cannot overthrow these governments militarily, many of whom are supported by the U.S. However, these governments are not popular and none are democracies. The political will of their populations is supressed, they can't vote the leaders out. Al-Queda wants to cause the "Arab street" to rise up against their governments. 911 was an attempt to do that, by accomplishing a major attack on the US. They hoped that attack would provoke a massive and indiscriminate attack on the muslim world by the U.S. . An, attack that would cause the muslim world to unite against the U.S., overthrow their governments and begin the move towards a pan islamic state.

911 accomplished provoking the US into a very strong response (first Afghanistan, then Iraq), but it was not indiscriminate, nor did the arab street respond as Al-Queda expected, nor have the governments of the region been weakened to the point of collapse, indeed several have changed their behavior.

Why we invaded Iraq: After 911, the president is looking at three major scenarios to respond to the terrorist threat.

1. Homeland security - batten down the hatches, shore up all the defenses and internal security and hope to deflect, detect or deter another attack before it happens. The problem however is that the U.S. is a target rich environment and a free country. If the US only plays defense against this enemy, it will get hit again by a 911 level attack. The terrorists take a long view, they are smart and patient. Its only a matter of time (remember that the trade center was attacked multiple times over a decade). As Condoleeza Rice said before the 911 commission "We have to get it right 100% of the time; the terrorists only have to get it right once". So this can't be the only approach.

2. Global covert war: CIA, NSA hit teams, busboys with silencers, Hellfire missles mounted on robot planes, the full employment of offensive intelligence assets to nail the terrorists one at a time. The problem here is that there are a large number of them, spread out over many countries, many of whom have governments hostile to the U.S. so you wont get cooperation from their intelligence or law enforcement services. You have to do it, but this can't be the major offensive part of a strategy. Its too slow, the U.S. will still get hit.

3. Take the war to the terrorists: The president initiated 1 and 2 above, but this third way is the major thrust of the strategy. People are right to say that WMD was not the primary reason for invading Iraq. The real reason was to convert Iraq into a forward base of operations for the war on terror.

Consider the problem the president is faced with afte 911. Well financed and trained terrrorist cells in multiple countries, many of which have hostile governments to the U.S. In the wake of 911 as the Bush administration got a handle on the issues, they put other countries, friend and foe alike, on notice, essentially saying "look, you have a terrorist problem on your soil that threatens us, a threat we cannot tolerate. You need to fix that problem. If you can't or won't, we'll fix it for you".

Well, in the case of many of the countries in the middle east, like Syria, Iran, and others that are hostile to us, even Saudi Arabia where the terrorist threat is being harbored, supported or tolerated, this is not a credible a threat when all of our military might is sitting across the ocean unmobilized. But that threat is much more credible for Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabi and others when we have upwards of 130,000 crack troops sitting on their borders, backed up with the deadliest weapons available, and a U.S. government with the will to use them.

Iraq is now a forward base of operations for military and intelligence operations against the terrorist networks in their own backyards. The administration could not have gone to the UN and gotten a resolution supporting that result. WMD was their best argument to win UN approval. To be sure, the administration had a belief that they would find WMD, beliefs to some degree fed by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi (now out of favor) But WMD was not the real purpose for going into Iraq.

This strategy has been effective. Bin Laden is on the run and largely confined to the mountains of Pakistan. Terrorist cells around the world have been disrupted and broken up. There has not been another major attack on American soil, though assets overseas are still at risk. Al-Queda's capabilities have been degraded. They are not down by any stretch, but America is playing the resource card to full effect. Chasing down their money flows still has a long way to go because the vast majority of the banking and finacial systems of the arab world are not part of the international finance system, and therefore largely untouchable.

But thats the strategy. Iraq is a staging area for attacking the terror networks both directly and indirectly by pressuring the countries that harbor them or allow them to use their territory, and by getting countries to change their behavior, hand over terrorists and cooperate to suppress them. Our diplomatic pressure is much more credible when the full might of our military is sitting on their doorsteps. Thats the point of Iraq, as well as complementary to the establisment of military bases in the former soviet republics such as Georgia and others.

What you see in the news makes much more sense if you approach it from this stand point.

Wizbang: The Nick Berg Video

Wizbang: The Video

You've been hearing about the horrific video of the Nicholas Berg murder by Islamic militants. The video is available to see in a variety of places on the internet. I hunted it down at the site above, which also lists other places online that have a copy of the video. I watched it because I want to know the character of the enemy we are dealing with. Uncensored. I don't need mainstream media to mediate what I see and hear. If you want to see it, the link above will take you to it.

Its a horrible thing to watch. This man died in terror and great pain. It was not quick or merciful. It was brutal, and showed the absolute lack of humanity in his killers. As I noted in a previous post, there has not been what I would consider a real outcry from the Islamic world about this atrocity. And while many Muslims are quick to say that what was done to this man has nothing to do with Islam, his murderers killed him while chanting "God is Great", and after reading a prepared statement citing a basis in the Koran for their actions. He was slaughtered with no more regard than you would kill a rabid dog or cattle.

If a Christian did this to an innocent Muslim person, it would be swiftly repudiated and condemned by a very clear majority of people in the West. And that condemnation would not be qualified in any way. However, in the Arab world, that is not the response. In the Arab world, there are mixed feelings about this crime. I simply can't understand that.

Atrocities like this lead one ever more in the direction of thinking that we are heading toward, if not already in one, a clash of civilizations. The West vs. Islam. Because its hard to imagine finding common ground with a culture that can find in its faith a justification for this atrocity.

Videos Amplify Picture of Violence (washingtonpost.com)

Videos Amplify Picture of Violence (washingtonpost.com)

More pictures have emerged of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. I listen to Rush fairly regularly. He is outraged about the release of these pictures by "liberal" media outlets, and labels it as simply more of the partisan mainstream press' attempt to unseat Bush in November. Rush is actually a fairly good political observer, and there is some truth to his statement.

Nonetheless, I frankly want to see these pictures. I want to know what we are talking about when it comes to these pictures of abuse. What is being done in my(our) name. I'm a very hard thing to be in Black America. I'm a black male who is a social and fiscal conservative, and count myself a Republican. I was not always this way. If you knew me in college or my younger days before I had a wife and 3 children, I was as liberal and on the left politically as they come. Having responsiblities, accepting Jesus as savior has changed a lot of that.

I voted for Bush. I believed he was the better man for the job and the better leader for America for fiscal reasons, for religious reasons and for political reasons. I don't agree with the social agenda of the Democrats. I don't agree with their fiscal policies when it comes to taxes. And other things.

I'm patriotic. I believe we are a good country, of good people. But those beliefs are really shaken by things like this. Scenes of abuse like these of tied up men by US soldiers makes me wonder if all of the left wing opinions I used to have (The US is imperialistic, racist, nearly evil, we oppress people around the world for power and economic gain) really did represent a correct picture of who we are as a country.

I'm listening to the hearings and reading the information coming out about this scandal, and it does make you question what you believe about the fundamental nature of our country. The military says this is the work of a few bad apples. That there were no orders or approval from higher ups to do these things. But its hard to credit that. The majority of the soldiers involved are very young, very junior in rank with no training in interrogation. But the things they were doing to these prisoners are in fact recognized high pressure interrogation techniques. I find it hard to credit explanations that they just stumbled into these particular actions on their own with no guidance or direction. Military Intelligence (MI) was involved in the prison, and in fact had been given authority over large aspects of the prisoners daily existence. The people who were supposed to be in charge were not, didn't know what was going on. Its plausible that the solider's stories are true.

Gen. Taguba's report clearly points to the presence of MI at the prison. The soldiers indicate that they got orders from them, orders which they believed to be properly coming from within the chain of command. In fact, there is disagreement between Gen. Taguba and one of the other general's who testified before the Senate Armed Forces Committee about just how much of an operational and command role MI had at the prison. Also involved were "other government agencies", a euphemism for the CIA.

Some people believe that Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the many other detention centers the US has set up and is currently operating outside the United States are quite clearly an off shore, extra judicial information extraction penal system, set up in a way intended to put it beyond the reach of U.S. Courts and Congressional oversight. That argument can be fairly made based on what we have seen. It really troubles me.

On the other hand, I believe quite firmly that we are facing an extremly dangerous enemy in the terrorist network of Al Qeada and its affilliates. 911, the Nick Berg killing, the Pearl killing, are all proof positive of this. I believe that the US strategy for the War on Terror, of which Iraq is a part, is sound and that it has been effective. We are in danger of losing the tactical battle in Iraq, and if we do, the larger strategic conflict could be lost as well, but thats another post. But we are facing a very vicious enemy. How far is too far to go in defending ourselves? Its a not quite so extreme version of the hypothetical "if you had a terrorist in custody who knew when and where a nuclear bomb was going to go off, how far would you, could you, justifiably go to extract that information from him?". What you see in these pictures is not on that level. These prisoners are bound and helpless.

So, what am I to believe about our country? Do the prison abuses really represent who we are as manifested by our government's actions? If thats true,it means that so much else that is negative must also be true. Or, is this really the work of a few bad apples, who will be punished, and our honor as a country is and remains intact.

I don't know. I really don't know....

Aljazeera.Net - US hostage beheaded

Aljazeera.Net - US hostage beheaded


The arab world is crying out about the prison abuses in Iraq. Americans are outraged too. Many are calling for Rumsfield to step down. But where is the condemnation in the Arab world against this atrocity? If its there, I don't hear or see it. To Americans, there is a quiet sympathy with this kind of act in the Arab world. Americans feel ashamed that our ideals have been made to look like nothing in the prison abuses. But I
don't see any corresponding horror on the part of the Arab world for these atrocities. Fair or not, these atrocities are the representation of the Arab world. Political sympathy with Arab resistance in the Middle East is a poor reason to support with silence this butchery. Americans know we are not perfect. But in my view, the Arab world has zero claim to any moral high ground at all when it sits still in silent sympathy for atrocities such as this committed in the name of God. The Arab world regards us as infidels worthy of death and takes up arms against us at every turn, for
wrongs real and imagined, but the U.S. makes no claim to follow the teachings of the Koran. But your own people butcher innocents as this man was, and claim that Allah approves, and no one in the Arab world seems to see that as a horrible blasphemy. Arabs are ready to kill Americans for any number of perceived insults to Islam, but where is this ferocity for the butchers that claim to represent you? Your own people who are supposed to be believers pile shame onto Islam with acts like this, but you don't turn to kill them or stop them with any of the ferocity you aim at us. The prison abuses were wrong, and we are ashamed of them. Arabs don't seem ashamed of this kind of butchery, at least not in any way I can detect. Something is wrong with that.

New York Post Online Edition

New York Post Online Edition: postopinion

Now, its not like we don't have enough problems with the war on Terror and dealing with the aftermath of Iraq. Its not like we are not already hated and despised enough in the Arab world. Now, some moron soilders go and make our entire military look bad with stupid hijinks with prisoners, in the Saddam's most feared prison at that.

The morons even took pictures of this crap. You know this bunch of idiots has to be among the stupidest individuals admitted to the armed services. So now, on top of everything else, Arabs can point to this as proof of how evil we are, and it will trump every good thing out there that has been accomplised. The people involved should be hung out to dry. They have done incalculable damage, and have insured that American forces will encounter even more hostility. I'm not going to cry too much over this incident, because frankly, the terrorists are no shrinking violets in the inhumane treatment department. I mean, these folks threaten to burn people alive, decapitate people on film and distribute the results.

But when we do that crap, we lose any claim to being better than the terrorists, better than our reputation, that our system and values are a better alternative, an example to be emulated. Then we are no better than the worst killers in the Arab world. The average Arab person just trying to live their life, and who I have to believe finds terrorism just as repugnant as any westerner, will find themselves sympathizing with the terrorists, because they'll think "the Americans are just as evil, they deserve what they get". And this cultural, religious divide will grow ever wider.

Saddam's capture gives major boost to Coalition mission in Iraq - Jane's International Security News

Saddam's capture gives major boost to Coalition mission in Iraq - Jane's International Security News

My third child and second son was born on Dec. 12th, Friday morning about 9:00 am. The next day they captured Saddam Hussein. I will tell my son that he was born in interesting times. Its good that Saddam was caught alive. I think it will be important for the Iraqi people to have closure on the tyrant's regime. I'm not sure that they can.

The thing that is important about the capture of Saddam is that it happened at all. Its a material demonstration that the intelligence gathering capability of the U.S. has increased dramatically. Remember, initially, the Pentagon said that the insurgents were merely left over Saddam supporters breathing their last gasp. It was weeks before they admitted to themselves and publicly that they were dealing with an organized resistance. A resistance that had been planned from the beginning by Saddam. But the resistance was fueled by money, and as their money ran out, their vulnerability to intelligence penetration by the U.S. increased, as the U.S. continued to pour money on the intelligence problem. The quality of intelligence being achieved by the U.S. has gotten steadily better and that finally resulted in Saddam's capture.

Capturing Saddam is not really going to stop the resistance, since he was not personnaly running it, but it is a major blow to the insurgents. Saddam's was theirs to protect, and if he is in our custody, it makes the insurgents look ineffective, desperate and on the way out.

CNN.com - U.N. vote backs Arafat - Sep. 19, 2003

CNN.com - U.N. vote backs Arafat - Sep. 19, 2003

How does one parse the Arab/Israeli conflict? On the one hand, the Arabs are living under the yoke of occupation. Their movements restricted, subject to attack by Israeli forces, living in desperate conditions in many ways. Uncitizens of any country, voting members of an authority under siege. The Israelites, surrounded by enemies and besieged by homicide bombers who attack despite the military futility of these efforts.

Isarel wants to get rid of Arafat. They feel, with some justification, that he cannot and will not deal with them in good faith. Its clear that he made sure that Abbas would be unsuccessful. He tanked that whole deal, and you don't have to be a diplomatic genius to see that. Neither the U.S. nor Israel wants to deal with him, and now Israel says they will remove him from the scene themselves. Frankly, I think Israel gets more utility out of making the threat than actually carrying it out. What the utility is is not entirely clear to me considering the round condemnation they are getting from the rest of the world for the idea per the U.N. vote on a resolution decrying such an action. If they were to actually carry out this threat, it would surely drive the Palestinians berserk, and ensure continued attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other terrorists organizations. And getting a more agreeable leader to negotiate with would probably become twice as hard after forcibly removing the old one. Actually carrying out the threat does not seem to serve much purpose.

On the other hand, Arafat has been at this game for a long time. He turned down the deal at Camp David that nearly everyone agrees was the best that was probably ever going to come on the table. I don't believe he will ever stop gaming for advantage at the table over Israel. The Palestinians continue to support him perhaps because he continues to fight the good fight. I think radically different tactics are called for. Strategic non violence. But the Palestinians seem functionally incapable of operating without violence. If I walked a mile in their shoes, I might be the same way. But that merely highlights the importance of their leadership. They need leadership that could move them in a new direction that might go somewhere. The basic bottom line though is that there really is no significant attachement point between the parties for compromise. The Palestinians want a deal that would mean the demise of Israel pretty much any way you slice it. The Israelis won't give in, and they will continue to repress the Palestinans as long as they are under threat. The imperatives driving both sides are immovable object meets irresistable force.

The Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail

The deal that got US sanctions lifted off Libya will pay out $4 million a piece to the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. French victims of another bombing of a plane that Libya was responsible for are also receiving upgraded compensation packages. They had a deal, but it was not as good as what the U.S. got, so they held up the deal until they got a better one too. The deal is symbolic since U.N. sanctions were suspended indefinitely for some time. And the real deal is really getting U.S. sanctions lifted which are still in place and won't go away until Libya complies with U.S. demands to deal with terroism. The major point here though is that contrary to the aims of Al Qeuda, governments like Libya have not become more strident or been toppled. On the contrary, they are either cooperating in some fashion or changing their behavior in response to U.S. pressue. Libya's rehabiliation is yet another example of America's offensive against terror.

America's growing network of bases

America's growing network of bases

America's need to have a ready access point to the world's hot spots has given us a new network of "virtual" bases, ready to be revved up and utilized for military operations on fairly short notice. Bases in a lots of out of the way, seemingly god forsaken places in the old soviet republics and countries in Asia. With these bases, agreements and overflight rights, relationships with this myriad number of others. Still to come, hypersonic bombers that can fly through space from U.S. soil and bomb a target out of existence without asking anybody's permission for overflights. American influence. Some people say this is the stuff of empire, of conquest. I don't think so. We are not out to take other people's lands or territory. In fact, if that were the intent, none of these countries which host these bases would do it, even though we pay them. Thankfully, as a country, we have the resources to take the fight to the terrorists. To fight this battle largely over there, and not over here. For this I am profoundly thankful.