One reason British troops continue to be killed and injured in southern Iraq is that they are expected to patrol in lightly-armoured Land Rovers which give them no protection against roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. Meanwhile, their American counterparts walk away unscathed, even when their RG31 armoured patrol vehicles are hit by the same explosives. Yet the Ministry of Defence has not equipped the British Army with the RG31, even though it is built by a British-owned company.
This is a small but chilling example of the shambles the MoD is making of Britain's defences, thanks not least to the way Tony Blair is trying to pursue two contradictory policies at the same time. This has not been properly appreciated because media coverage of defence has become so scrappy.
On one hand, as we saw yet again with his recent visit to Washington, Mr Blair tries to keep in with the Americans by committing thousands of hard-pressed and ill-equipped British troops to fighting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush and Blair still like to talk of keeping alive the Joint Strike Fighter project, the last major example of Anglo-US collaboration on military hardware.
Continued on Page 49
#1
In this regard, the Brits are strictly Euro, requiring soldiers to play out their leaders fantasy in charm school warfare.
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/19/2006 0:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Read Melanie Phillip's "Londonistan." She gives Tony Blair praise where it is due, but she is not too happy with either his politically correct war-making or internal dhimmitude. Can you believe that UK cops have to remove their shoes when they raid a mosque?
Melanie for PM!
Non-Brit readers might consider buying her book for info on escalating Muslim demands, when their overseas community's grow. Forewarned is forearmed.
#3
Buying equipment like this costs serious money, and the Brits have not been willing to put serious money into the upgrades. They do better than some of the other Euro nations, but as I recall they're still under 2% of GDP, whereas we're about 4% or so.
They're doing some useful things -- a carrier task force is no easy undertaking -- but unless they're willing to put a few billion pounds more into defense each year they simply can't afford to equip their troops like we do. And that means their troops pay the price when in a tough battle environment.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/19/2006 2:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It really doesn't matter how much they spend if they spend it on a Euro force. British forces can no longer fight with American forces because the radios don't work together. By Euro design. Too bad. The Brits have truly joined the French, Italians and Germans in being good troops led by idiots.
Long and interesting piece on PC, a good summary of what has been developed before (check the links) on that marxist mutated strain hidden behind a progressive mask.
And the idea that the West's primary challenge is this relentless organized assault by cultural marxism on its very essence, islam being only an opportunist predator taking advantage of our weakened state, is spot-on IMHO.
#1
I've been working my way through it over the last day so. Fjordman makes a compelling case.
Where will it end and will the cultural marxists win?
I strongly suspect it will lead to a crisis in one or more European countries and the shock will cause a major reassessment. If not, I forsee it leading to facist nationalism of the type we see in places like Belarus and the ex-Soviet Stans.
EDITORIAL
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN WARD CHURCHILL, the phoney Indian ethnic studies professor notorious for defaming victims of the 9/11 attacks on America, should be fired by the University of Colorado for gross academic misconduct.
Okay. That's today's statement of the obvious...
That's the recommendation of CU's research misconduct committee - and we heartily concur. The committee agreed with an earlier investigative panel that Mr. Churchill intentionally falsified his research, plagiarized other people's work and was ghostwriter of articles he later cited as "outside" sources. Now that two academic peer groups have come to essentially the same conclusion, a final recommendation will be forwarded by the provost and a dean to interim CU-Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano.
Moving with blinding speed, aren't they?
Mr. Churchill exposed himself to close scrutiny by calling those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "little Eichmanns," a slur comparing them to Adolf Eichmann, a mastermind of Nazi Germany's campaign of genocide in World War II. Even though the 9/11 slander was set aside as an expression of constitutionally protected speech, the subsequent inquiry revealed that Mr. Churchill has been an academic fraud for years. His own actions have made him a public figure worthy of scorn.
Amazing how many of his peers haven't been willing to scorn him, though...
Probably having their lawyers making sure that all the i's are dotted, t's are crossed, and the documentation is airtight. I'm sure no one here wants Big Chief Spouting Bull to have any chance of a successful lawsuit.
#2
You simply cannot believe how slowly a university will move on almost anything. The major exception is when someone high up in the administration feels either angry or threatened -- they then move so fast you barely see what they've done.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/19/2006 2:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
f he is unwilling to acknowledge the critiques, we are pessimistic that he is likely to change his behavior."
Which basically defines most of academia. They seem so hell bent on 'proportional' representation of color, race, gender, or creed of their student body but not of their instructors, and god forbid, proportional 'political' representation of just their state.
#5
Therefore, today I announce a course of action that will provide due process, as well as help us understand the boundaries of our most fundamental protections as citizens and faculty members.
Within the next 30 days, the Office of the Chancellor will launch and oversee a thorough examination of Professor Churchill's writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works.
The purpose of this internal review is to determine whether Professor Churchill may have overstepped his bounds as a faculty member, showing cause for dismissal as outlined in the Laws of the Regents.
Two primary questions will be examined in this review: (1) Does Professor Churchill's conduct, including his speech, provide any grounds for dismissal for cause, as described in the Regents' Laws? And (2) if so, is this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against University action?
As Chancellor, I will personally conduct this review and will ask two distinguished deans, Arts and Sciences Dean Todd Gleeson and Law Dean David Getches, to assist me with this process.
In this review, I will also draw upon additional resources, including University Counsel to provide legal advice as needed.
At the conclusion of this examination, I will determine whether to issue a notice of intent to dismiss for cause, other action as appropriate, or no action.
If a notice to dismiss for cause or some other action were to be issued, the subsequent process will be governed by the Laws of the Regents.
Obviously, this courageous and clear-thinking man must be killed, that's what the liberals fundies will say. By Licia Corbella
Dr. Mahfooz Kanwar recently attended Calgary's largest mosque for a funeral. At one point in the proceedings, a man Kanwar has known for more than three decades led the prayers. "He was saying in Urdu (the official language of Pakistan): 'Oh, God, protect us from the infidels, who pollute us with their vile ways,'" recalls Kanwar, a professor of sociology at Mount Royal College in Calgary.
"I stood up and grabbed him by the lapels, which was shocking even to me because I have never done anything like that in my life and I said: 'How dare you attack my country.' And then I addressed the crowd and said: 'I have known this man for more than 30 years and he has been on welfare for almost all of those years.' "
Kanwar chuckles at the memory. "Then I said to this semi-literate man, 'you should thank me and those you call infidels.'
"He asked me why and I said: 'Because the taxes I pay are putting food on your table as are the taxes of the so-called "infidels.' "
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, June 18, 2006; B06
Coverage of Zarqawi's death is a good example of how newspapers struggle to make fresh a story readers know about from radio, TV and the Internet for a day before they see it in The Post. After much discussion, editors decided to use a story that didn't take the usual "first-day" approach. The story by Baghdad Bureau Chief Ellen Knickmeyer was topped by a two-column headline: "After Zarqawi, No Clear Path in Weary Iraq."
Readers seemed to miss the accompanying Page 1 story by Jon Finer, which told how U.S. forces found and killed Zarqawi. The second sentence in Knickmeyer's story and the third sentence in Finer's affirmed the event's importance. "A long-sought victory for President Bush, the U.S.-led military forces and their Iraqi allies, Zarqawi's death was the most significant public triumph since the capture of former president Saddam Hussein in late 2003," said Finer's report.
Some Post staffers also preferred a traditional approach with a bigger display. Vince Rinehart, copy desk chief of the editorial pages, said, "I like to hold history in my hands, and it was irritating to see it treated as old news."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/19/2006 17:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
--...I reject the measurement used by your letter writers that news in Iraq should be seen as good or bad, positive or negative. We send reporters out to write what they see and discover...."
Then why didn't those reporters discover Z's death was good and/or positive????
#3
We send reporters out to write what they see and discover.
And then, if that doesn't fit our template, we chop, squeeze, massage and spin it to make sure it does. We wouldn't want it to appear "too heroic," would we?
#1
"Its sad but true: there are people who are deathly afraid to go up on deck, face the sunshine, and realize that the maps they have so lovingly and painstakingly crafted over decades are essentially worthless scraps of paper. They are so wrong, in so many places, that they are far worse than no maps at all. They draw all manner of hazards where there are none, and disastrously, they show open seas and smooth sailing in the most treacherous and deadly places. Such maps are not merely worthless; they are dangerous."
Gosh. I know some of these. There's one who's quite prominent here, in fact.
Nice metaphor. Drop the maps and go topside, play it in real-time, deal with what's actually there, instead of what we want to be there.
"We are not blind, and we are not crippled, and the world is not a novel or a treatise or a theory or a manifesto. It exists. We can go look for ourselves. And on the way up, when those desperate elitist bastards start clutching at your ankles and implore you to stay below where its safe and argue some more be sure to kick those sons of bitches right in the teeth. Their blind obedience to their Big Ideas have killed more people in history than anything except disease. Boot to the teeth, I say."
I've met Karl Rove twice and I don't have a single interesting anecdote to tell about him. Unless you like to discuss poll numbers the way baseball geeks go on and on about ERAs and RBI, he's a pretty ordinary guy - not the SMERSH mastermind behind the James Bond spy fantasies of the paranoid left. But never mind the facts. In news stories and columns he became "the as-yet-unindicted Karl Rove who leaked the name of a double-secret spy at the CIA." The "spy," Valerie Plame, was not even a spy, but an analyst who sent her husband on a phony mission to discredit the president.
But someone at the White House told the truth, and everyone knows only journalists are allowed to leak government secrets in the newspaper. So the media went on its own DaVinci Code chase to find its Holy Grail - a scandal that would bring down the Bush presidency. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd told David Letterman to simply remember two words: "Cheney's guilty."
Another New York Times member of the Bush Haters Club, Frank Rich, ramped it up to "Bush and Cheney are guilty," and said, "Well, of course, Karl Rove did it." Former ESPN yakker Keith Olberman proved again that sports geeks should stick to ERAs and RBI. More than 26 times he predicted the indictment of Rove on his MSNBC talk show. But when it was announced there would be no indictment, Olberman had nothing to say. What class.
Even that was better than Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. He still insists Rove is guilty: "If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin, which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House."
Rovegate is dead. But Dr. Dean prescribes another transfusion of lies. They can't let go. The same thing could be happening with the overhyped "Marine massacre" in Haditha, Iraq. News stories didn't wait for the facts or an investigation. They accused Marines of murdering 15 to 24 civilians in revenge for a roadside bombing that killed a Marine. But now blogs and news reports are yanking loose threads, and the story may be unraveling.
Sources for the massacre story may be linked to insurgents who have played the press like a kazoo. Their stories keep changing, and the "witnesses" did not tell anyone about it for months. Some American "witnesses" were not even there. And some alleged photo evidence doesn't exist.
Finally, we are starting to hear from the Marines who were there. The father of the Marine who was killed said the patrol was attacked by terrorists who hid behind women and children.
Other Marines said they were under attack and followed rules of engagement to protect themselves in a village where Marines had been ambushed and killed.
Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich told his attorney that "there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield," the Washington Post reported. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."
That story did not make big headlines. But it's at least as credible as the "massacre" based on shaky sources. So why believe the worst? Why not defend the Marines who defend us?
They deserve the same protection we should give to any ordinary guy - even Karl Rove: innocent until proven guilty.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Freedom of the Press was based upon the colonial case of John Peter Zenger. Zenger, publisher and writer of the New York Weekly Journal was charged with sedition and libel by the Royal governor of New York, William Cosby. At the end of the trial on August 5, 1735, the twelve New York jurors returned a verdict of "not guilty" on the charge of publishing "seditious libels," despite the Governor's hand-picked judges presiding. Hamilton had successfully argued that Zenger's articles were not libelous because they were based on fact.
It's way past time that basic principle be reintroduced into the process. If its not fact, its not protected. It doesn't stop reporting. It does stop libel.
Wonder how many 'journalists and publishers' would go to a doctor and based upon preliminary exam buy into a diagnosis that he/she required immediate spade or neutering to stop a possible deadly consequence. How many would want further tests or second opinions?
The killing of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is truly a positive development, and U.S. forces who accomplished this feat deserve enormous credit and appreciation. Late last year, Congress approved, and President Bush signed into law, a Defense Department authorization bill for fiscal year 2006 that read: "Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."
We have now been in Iraq for more than three years -- and we believe the time has come for that phased redeployment to begin. It is also time for the Bush administration to provide a schedule and timetable for the structured downsizing and redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Our concern -- and that of many Americans -- is for Iraq to become increasingly more self-reliant and for our troops to be back on our soil or deployed elsewhere in the world where they are most needed to protect our national security by combatting global terrorism. Our hope is that the multiple and murderous conflicts that bloody Baghdad and other larger cities in Iraq today can, at long last, be reduced and eventually eliminated by the Iraqis themselves.
There is a storm of conflicting forces overshadowing life in Iraq. Questing for dominance are al Qaeda, nationalistic Baathists remaining from the days of Saddam Hussein's tyranny and an array of rival religious armies. The battle lines are as uncertain and diverse as are the competing objectives of the various combatants.
True, there are some other positive developments: Iraq finally put a constitutional government in place last month -- five months following the Dec. 15, 2005, election -- and that government, after extensive deliberation and debate, is beginning to function. But much work remains to be done by the Iraqi people and their elected leaders. Only they can ultimately defeat the forces that have left their nation on the brink of civil war.
Too many brave American men and women in uniform have lost their lives serving our nation with honor and distinction. The Iraqi people have also suffered significant loss of life. More than 2,500 Iraqis were killed during March and April alone; another 700 in May. More than 85,000 Iraqis have had to flee their homes to avoid the bloodshed and mounting sectarian violence. Daily bombings continue. Each week, we hear of mass graves being discovered that hold the bodies of individuals executed because of ethnic hatred.
According to the Pentagon, there are now more than 260,000 Iraqi military and police personnel who have been trained and equipped and 62 Iraqi battalions are now believed capable of taking the lead in the security effort. Priorities for the new Iraqi government must include:
-- Using the Iraqi military and police to stop the violence;
-- dissolving the sectarian militias and roving death squads;
-- taking responsibility for rebuilding the infrastructure -- bringing more electricity online, keeping schools open, making sure water and sewage systems are working;
-- ending the widespread graft and bribery; and
-- bringing the country under the rule of law.
As the Iraqis increasingly assume the reins of control, it is critical that the United States transition its mission in Iraq to one of logistical support and training of Iraqi military and police. Our goal should be to work with Iraq's neighbors to develop a regional security initiative to enhance stability. As part of that process, the Bush administration should prepare, and present to Congress and the American people, a plan outlining the steps needed to proceed with the redeployment of our troops, either back to the United States, or to critical areas of potential terrorist conflict around the globe.
This is the right thing to do for our troops, who have sacrificed so much, and for their families, who anxiously wait for them to return home. This strategy is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people, who clearly have stated their desire for a change of course in Iraq.
As a nation, we have had enough slogans and reassurances that are meaningless amid the continuing blast of roadside bombs and the rattle of automatic gunfire. No longer should "we will stand down when they stand up" suffice as American policy. Three years ago, the United States may have been misguided into war in Iraq, but today, the world looks different. The country must not be misled about the realities in Iraq and the need to change our mission.
Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, represents California in the U.S. Senate. Christopher J. Dodd, a Democrat, represents Connecticut.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
These idiots believe that the global war on terror is optional choice.
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/19/2006 1:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
These terrorists have killed dozens, if not thousands in Manhatten, Spain, Britain, Iraq, Afghanistan and recently new efforts to continue to kill, kill, and kill has been foiled.
The people killed were like the 10 Iraqi bakery workers who were kidnapped today, just every day people on their way to work or at work, all over the world
The left either calls for the world to cut and run and stop fighting them, or they are now even:
If those two troops are beheaded or killed, I am calling for any left wing person who supports the terrorists, or who demands we stop fighting back, be called what they are, terrorists facilitators.
Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, represents California West Coast Hippy Cowards in the U.S. Senate. Christopher J. Dodd, a Democrat, represents Connecticut East Coast Elite Liberal Cowards.
#4
Our goal should be to work with Iraq's neighbors to develop a regional security initiative to enhance stability.
Like, oh, lets say Itan and Syria, the very countries strying to destabilize Iraq? Or Saudi Arabia, the major source of terrorists wahabbist funding? No?
OK so these morons think the Kuwaitand Jordan can handle securing and rebuilding Iraq on their own?
Jeeeezuz, if Busdh had made such an obviously stupid and malinformed statement, the press would be all over it. Yet they give these two walking f**king poster children for stupidity a free pass when they present one of the biggest howlers in recent months!
With pro-whaling nations winning their first vote at the International Whaling Commission since 1986, the body seems to be turning into an international-level version of the board game Risk, writes David Fickling.
More than half of the countries that voted in favour of the motion have no significant history of whaling (some are landlocked) and have only joined the commission since 2000. Less attention has been focused on the fact that the anti-whaling nations have been fighting back. While 18 new pro-whaling nations have joined the IWC since 2000, 11 countries have signed up on the other side. For what it's worth, the new anti-whaling members are even more likely to be landlocked: they include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Luxembourg, and, absurdly, San Marino.
As with Risk, the main tactic of the pro and anti-whaling blocs is to acquire as many territories as possible before trying to overwhelm the opposition.
The motion itself - which declared that the 20-year ban on commercial whaling should be lifted and blamed whales for eating too much fish - is mainly symbolic. But it holds out the prospect of the pro-whaling bloc winning more concrete victories in future meetings. Nonetheless, some of the surprisingly pro-whaling countries do have genuine reasons for their positions. Denmark, which voted in favour of yesterday's motion, has active whaling communities in Greenland and the Faroe Islands.
But environmentalists claim that Tokyo has been offering aid incentives to countries prepared to vote with Japan in favour of resuming commercial whaling.
The claim is vociferously denied by Japan. Still, it's hard to see any more plausible explanation for cash-strapped, landlocked countries like Mali and Mongolia to send delegates halfway around the world to vote in favour of restarting a trade in which they have no national interest.
With this year's vote coming so close, the most vociferous rich IWC members - Japan, Norway, Britain, the US, Australia, and New Zealand - will be scouring the world for compliant countries to support their positions. Less than a third of the world's nations are currently members, so there are no doubt plenty of impoverished governments out there prepared to sell their votes to the highest bidder.
This situation will go on as long as the world continues trying to ban the whaling industry using a body set up to manage the trade. Anti-whaling countries should be pushing for a proper treaty outlawing whaling, like Cites.
The current situation risks tipping the IWC's activities into the realm of outright face..
Posted by: Steve ||
06/19/2006 11:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good news. Now excuse me, I've got a barbecued dog that needs turning.
#1
The u.n. has become a platform for U.S. bashing, and political subversion of our foreign policy. What benefits do we recieve from our membership? A constant flogging and skullduggerous plots to undermine our influence? We could get that for a lot less than $950 million. Hell, Venezuela gives it to us for free.
"Riverbend," the electifying and poetical blogger in Baghdad, offers the desolating tale of a sportloving shopowner who displayed the Brazilian flag in his window till the party of Muqtada al-Sadr, which is part of the government coalition, ordered him to take it down. Riverbend says that Sadr has issued a fatwa against soccer. She downloaded and translated his words:
"[Islamic law] prohibits activities that keep the followers too occupied for worshiping, that keep people from remembering [to worship]. The West created things that keep us from completing ourselves (perfection). What did they make us do? Run after a ball... What does that mean? A man, this large tall Muslimrunning after a ball? This 'goal' as it is called... If you want to run run for a noble goal, follow the noble goals which complete you and not the ones that demean you...That is one thing. The second thing, which is more important, we find that the West and especially Israel, did you see them playing soccer? Did you see them playing games like Arabs play? They let us keep busy with soccer and other things. Have you heard that the Israeli team, curse them, got the World Cup? Or even America? Only other games... They've kept us occupied with themsinging and soccer and smoking, and satellites used for things which are blasphemous. While they occuppy themselves with science etc. Why habeebi? Are they better than us- no we're better than them."
Riverbend adds a lament:
Islamic Sharia does not prohibit soccer/football or sportsit's only prohibited by the version of Sharia in Muqtada's dark little head. I wonder what he thinks of tennis, swimming and yoga... So when Bush raves about the new 'fledgling Iraqi government' 'freely elected' into power, you can take a look at Muqtada and see one of the fledglings. He is currently one of the most powerful men in the country for his followers.
So this is democracy... Muqtada Al-Sadr is a measure of how much we've regressed these last three years... From a country that once celebrated sportssoccer especially to a country that worries if the male football players are wearing long enough shorts or whether all sports fans will face eternal damnation... That's what we've become.
#2
Wow, someone sure got pissy about the spankings the Iranian team got from the Mexicans and Portuguese! (Maybe the little crosses on the Portuguese players' uniforms is what did it?)
By David Warren
I want to say boldly something I've hinted at, or said only parenthetically before. It is something very big that I think is overlooked by nearly everyone who comments on the terror wars. Whether themselves religious or irreligious, most assume that Christian belief is declining in the West, while Islamic belief is ascending in the East. Hence the general fear, among people who are still Christian -- and therefore know what power religion can have, and how haplessly secular materialism resists it -- that the West is ripe for Islamicization. Worse, the writing on the wall is enlivened by alarming demographic trends.
But what if only the first of these propositions is true?
Without question, the civilization that was once Christendom is in a bad way, not only in Europe, but also across North America. Ignoring polls that tell us nothing, the proportion of people in the West who actually believe in the Trinitarian God, the incarnation of Christ, the working of grace, an absolute moral order, the immortality of the soul -- et cetera -- has probably never been lower (since, say, the 3rd century AD). It remains significantly higher in America than in Europe. But perhaps only because we have heard Europe's splash at the bottom; whereas America is still sliding down the well.
I am ignoring, for the moment, why this should be; I am only stating the large fact. I am aware Christian belief is on the rise, steeply, through much of Africa and Asia. But here I am comparing the West, as conventionally defined, to that part of the East corresponding to historical Muslim territory: especially, its heartland in the Middle East.
Now, it is taken for granted by almost everyone that the violence and disorder emanating from so much of traditional Islamdom may be attributed to the spread of Islamic "fundamentalism" or "purism" or "political Islamism". True enough. It may also be true that the great mass of Muslims are being swept along for the ride: much as Hitler and Mussolini were able to bring disaster upon the great mass of otherwise indifferent Germans and Italians -- by manoeuvring them into a position where their failing national identities could be placed directly on the block. We have every reason to fear such a catastrophe is gathering again.
But no reason to think it is because the great mass of Muslims have been seized by religious enthusiasm. On the contrary, I have the strongest possible hunch, from everything I know about the current Muslim East, that the opposite is true. The world of Islam is suffering a crisis of belief, parallel to that in the West, though so different in its outward expressions that we do not recognize it. Indeed, the failure of what we fondly call "moderate Muslims" to stand against the fanatic tide, is among the leading indicators that the "mainstream" of Islam has hollowed out.
Plummeting birthrates -- a sure sign of a society's terminal decadence -- are not confined to the West alone. The Muslims are outbreeding us, in the short run, but their own birthrates are in steep decline. (Ours could well begin rising again, before theirs finish falling.) In guessing what is to come, and thinking what to do about it, we should entertain the proposition that we are witnessing a double collapse of civilization, and thus civility. In effect, the wreckage of Islam is tumbling into the wreckage of Christendom.
We don't see this possibility because our eyes are trained upon what is typical of the crack-up of a Christian society -- absurd parodies of old Christian doctrines, such as tolerance for anything at home, and surrender-pacifism abroad. But the same planetary loss of faith, infecting the Muslim world, produces instead absurd parodies of old Islamic doctrines, such as Talibanism at home and gratuitous terrorism abroad. In other words, both civilizations are entering their "second childhood" of senile dementia, but each in his characteristic way.
So that a better way to phrase the question, "Who will win this clash of civilizations?" might be, "Which one is collapsing faster?"
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't really see eye to eye with declinists, especially as regards the USA. We've been through so many crises: slavery, civil war, Reconstruction, the industrial revolution, isolationism, cold war, civil rights, etc, etc, etc. And we've come up with a creative response for each of them. I will not believe that this is the last crisis -- that this is the one we fail to figure our way out of. There are a lot of nut cases and losers in America. But there are also a lot of steely-eyed killers and winners too. This is a natural consequence of living in a free society. Freedom has no meaning unless it includes the freedom to fail and we have failures a plenty.* We always have. In the end, no amount of passive agressive whining and Tranzi hand-wringing will hold the winners back. We will win this war. I'm just not sure it will be in the way that most of us envision it.
* Three of our biggest "failures" were perhaps responsible for saving the nation during its greatest challenge: Grant, Sherman, and Lincoln during the Civil War. That's another great thing about freedom. You always get a second chance.
#2
I don't buy David Warren's jibe. The Chicago Tribune writer is a old hack defeatist.
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/19/2006 1:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
While minorities are being systematically cleansed from each and every Muslim entity, Muslims are pouring into the West in a non-productive multitude.
#4
It doesn't matter if islam is undergoing a collapse of faith (which is quite possible), what matters is that they also see the West, Europe most notably, as rightly weakened and rip for conquest, and are on the move again thanks to oil money and demographical inertia. They've got a window of population growth for a few decades still, and they will use it for what islam has always done since its violent birth : expansionism and conquest. That it results from deathtroes is irrelevant.
There are large numbers of secular and liberal moslems who deeply fear their Islamist brothers and sisters.
And there are large numbers of ordinary moslems who are sick of corruption in moslem governments and explotation by moslem clergy.
But, there are few voices within the Islamic world who can make a case publically.
What we really need is a 24-7 radio network with news of the moslem world that brings normative, liberal and apostate commentary and observations to the masses in their own languages.
#7
can the entitiies within the system being defined objectively assess the change that is inherent in all systems. how do we accurately assess decline or incline from within? It's change alrihjt but only time will indicate whether or not it was "positive" or negative"
Posted by: bk ||
06/19/2006 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
OLIVIA WARD
A decade ago, Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington predicted a "clash of civilizations" that would pit culture against culture in a war of values rather than borders. His influential book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, excited politicians and outraged pacifists. But 10 years later, anxious and confused Westerners are dusting off their copies and debating whether Huntington's prophecy is coming true.
I'd say that's self-evident, but then I'm not an innalekshul...
On the face of it, there's scant reason for reassurance. Al Qaeda warlord Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, and Osama bin Laden is in hiding. But young disaffected Muslims are joining militant movements in ever-greater numbers, and hatred of the United States and the West is escalating. Meanwhile, the so-called "war on terror" continues, fought by legal and illegal means that convince even moderate Muslims they are the targets of an anti-Islamic crusade.
First you've got to find the "moderate Muslims." I'm not sure how many "moderate Germans" or "moderate Italians" you'd have found in 1939 or 1940, or "moderate Communists" under Stalin. Seems to me that if the "moderate Muslims" can't grasp the fact that the War on Terror has developed into a War on Islamism then they're the ones with the problem.
Insecurity abounds among non-Muslims, with experts as well as ordinary people decrying the anti-terrorism campaign, and 86 per cent of leading American foreign policy analysts calling it a failure in a recent survey.
I don't know where those figures come from. The insecurity among non-Muslims might have something to do with the fear of being bombed or gassed by people with turbans while going about their daily business.
The jihadists, and their opponents on the extreme Christian right, are gaining an edge with apocalyptic warnings that a "final battle" between the Muslim world and the West is now inevitable.
I'm really missing something, since I don't see the finger of the "extreme Christian right" in the WoT. It's just not there for me. Such utterances as we've seen from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have been puffed up by the press, but they've been pretty stoopid. The Christians make a convenient strawman to be erected to conjure up the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party." So this is just another cheap shot with no substance to it.
"I've met Arab teenagers who were trying to raise $100 for a bus ticket to the Iraqi border to join the fight against the Americans," says Middle Eastern scholar Fawaz Gerges, author of Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy. "They weren't even religiously educated Islamists. It's shocking how radicalized large segments of the Muslim population have become, worldwide."
They used to sign up for the SS in droves, too, back in the day. The kiddies see themselves in a romantic light, rushing off the fight the infidel. They're capable of chosing sides in the clash of civilizations, something which the author isn't.
But Gerges and others who study the progress of jihadism and the war on terror say that building a basement bunker is premature for worried people on both sides of the cultural divide. The real clash, they insist, is not between Muslims and the West, but within Islam itself.
It's got a funny way of showing it, doesn't it?
There is also a fierce battle between Western liberals and conservatives struggling for the souls of their countries.
We've noticed that, too...
"We're talking about a clash of fundamentalisms in both camps," says Gerges.
No we're not, and that's where their world view is lacking. The mere fact that you don't want to see your civilization destroyed by another one doesn't require any fundamentalism on your part. It's a matter of self-preservation. But if you're too frightened by the thought of actually defending yourself you thrash around to try to come up with excuses for your inaction. The fact that you find an excuse doesn't make it a valid excuse.
"In the Muslim world, a thin layer of culture and tradition is being imposed on the wider community. Even though the people who are doing it belong to a tiny minority, they are very effective at campaigning and they have set powerful forces in motion."
The "thin layer of culture and tradition" is Wahhabism and its ally, Deobandism, and the tiny majority that's doing the imposing has a lot of money, coupled with the desire to see blood spilled to get its way. Dismissing them is stupid.
America, says former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, follows the same dangerous pattern: "It is sometimes convenient for purposes of rhetorical effect for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad," she warned in a recent essay in the Los Angeles Times. "It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction. The (George W. Bush) administration's penchant for painting the perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences."
But what if he's right? What if the enemy really is not only bad, but Bad, even Evil. The evidence would seem to point in that direction. There are the vicious attacks on large numbers of civilians in the name of Islam, and all the atrocities you can imagine, starting with cutting off people's heads. There's continuous oppression of non-Muslims, the fostering of ignorance and xenophobia, the manner in which women are treated... I could go on all night. It's fashionable, I suppose, to deny the existence of evil, but the empirical evidence says it exists.
In America, analysts say, such apocalyptic thinking fits neatly into the culture of fundamentalist Christianity, and a substantial number of Americans believe the end of the world is inevitable. Launching wars against "evildoers" and unbelievers is a way of provoking a "final battle" of all against all.
That's a part of fundamentalist Christianity, I guess, but it's not the impetus toward the War on Terror. That was four hijacked aircraft and 3000 Americans dead.
Bush's religiously tinged rhetoric convinces some of his critics that a clash of civilizations is his goal.
They have to reach for that conclusion, but they eventually get there. But some people are able to believe five impossible things before breakfast, too.
"One suspects that the right is full of apocalyptic excuses for not facing the huge challenges looming in the future," says Deepak Chopra, author of numerous books on spiritual healing. "There is a whiff of apocalypse hanging over the Iraq war, whose rationale may have a lot to do with the Book of Revelations, the rise of the Anti-Christ, a climactic battle in the Holy Land and so on. These scenarios are not divinely manifested, though we make them happen out of our own will, expectations, and perverse love of crisis," he said in the Huffington Post.
Somehow I never saw the war on Saddam Hussein's regime in those terms. I've always seen it as the destruction of a bloody-handed tin-hat dictator whose truculence and consorting with known terrorists made him a logical target in a campaign to do away with... ummm... people like him. Nobody was throwing allusions to the Anti-Christ around in early 2003.
Extremists in the Muslim world are also courting the Armageddon that a clash of civilizations would create.
Apparently more consciously that the U.S. has been, given some of Ahmadinejad's statements. But since you have an actuality on the one hand, there must be a corresponding actuality on the other, right? Whether it's visible to the naked eye or not?
And, analysts say, the invasion of Iraq has intensified and speeded up the violent evolution of jihad. "There is a sense of apocalypse now," says Reuven Paz, director of the Project for the Research of Islamist Movements at the Israel-based GLORIA Center. "Not just youngsters, but people with families, in their 30s, are willing to go to Iraq and blow themselves up. That is something new. About 700 people a year are killing themselves there. They feel that they are living on the eve of the end of history, and the great victory of Islam is coming."
Of course, they could be wrong. But that Olde Tyme Religion's a good hook to entice the rubes to sacrifice themselves for Sammy and Izzat Ibrahim and Zark and their ilk. Binny's been pushing his jihad as a resumption of the Crusades, and it's obvious that there are lots of people who're willing to buy into that, conflating Binny's brand of Islam with the entire religion. It's my opinion that's not going to redound to Islam's ultimate benefit.
New, too, is the attraction to terrorism of middle-class and wealthy young Muslims in Arab countries and the West, who are backing and planning attacks against "infidels" and "occupiers."
Actually not. The younger sons of the middle class and the wealthy have kind of traditionally been the revolutionaries of our world, regardless of the ideology.
And, Paz says, their nihilism is reflected in an American policy of endless war against terrorism that was exemplified by the invasion of Iraq. "When the Americans started the Iraq war, they waked all kinds of sleeping demons, both Sunni and Shia. They aroused many social and cultural ones, not just in Iraq, but throughout the Arab world. That has fuelled the jihad. If you look at the reaction to the killing of Zarqawi, you see that hundreds are thanking the Americans, because now there will be an even bigger wave of jihad."
Yasss... Better to have left him alone. But it's my opinion that jihad was around long before we bumped off Zark. We've been in an undeclared war with at least a portion of the Soddy royal family for 30 years. Had Binny not jumped the gun with 9-11 we'd have been even more thoroughly infiltrated.
Loretta Napoleoni, London-based author of Insurgent Iraq: Al Zarqawi and the New Generation, agrees: "It's turned into an anti-imperialist movement without end," she says.
What else is new? Everybody who's joined any kind of revolution for the past fifty years has draped themselves in the cloak of anti-imperialism. That doesn't make the charges of imperialism valid. When we start demanding tribute from subject states, then it'll be valid.
"Many of the jihad recruits aren't interested in classic motivations like recreating the Islamic Caliphate.
They're interested in running off to fight jihad against infidels, though.
"The ones who were arrested in (the recent bomb plot in) Ontario may not even have a final objective.
There was that part about demanding the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan and cutting off the Prime Minister's head...
"As long as they attack, it's sufficient. It's purely nihilistic, like some of the old anarchist movements in Europe. And because the people who attack are gone afterwards, it's much more difficult to find out who (the cells) are and how they operate."
Not quite so. When the Bad Guyz pop their beturbanned little heads up to commit an atrocity like the Madrid or Bali bombings it exposes their entire structure, which can then be dismantled. The fact that there are more where they came from is beside the point. Eventual victory in the WoT will be achieved when the head cheeses are destroyed. The real head cheese aren't Binny and Mullah Omar, though it would do my heart good to see them dead.
But while a minority of Muslims are embracing jihad, many others are moving in the opposite direction, say those who have closely studied the politics of the Muslim world. "Arabs are desperately looking for democracy, and there is real dynamism to the movement now," says political scientist Amr Hamzawy, a senior associate with the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "They are fed up with their ruling elites and they've lost trust in governments and leaders."
They're not real paragons of good government, are they? But then...
But ironically, Hamzawy says, the West, and particularly the U.S., has supported autocratic leaders who violently suppress democratic movements. "Traditional American support for the region's autocrats has created a very negative image among the Arab masses. The way in which Western countries have reacted to (the Palestinian militant group) Hamas's election victory, and America's support for the Saudi regime and (President Hosni) Mubarak in Egypt, as well as the invasion of Iraq, explains why there is so much anti-American feeling in the region." And, he says, "the perception in Washington is that if you let Arabs vote, they'll take the most radical alternative."
Lemme see, here. Sammy, the most autocratic leader in the Muddle East, is taken down and Arabs rush off to blow themselves up to restore his rule. We toss the Talibs from power in Afghanistan and Arabs rush off to reinforce the remnants of they try to regain power. When we put pressure on Syria the Arab League rushes to his defense. When we put pressure on Hosni to hold honest elections we're rebuffed. When we try to support freedom and democracy in Lebanon Arabs say we're meddling. Pick a place where we try to mitigate the oppression and we're in the wrong. Meanwhile, it's necessary to maintain diplomatic relations with most of those places for the normal conduct of international relations. Does the author have any suggestions? Is she in favor of invading someplace else and imposing democracy? How about Yemen? Or Sudan?
Whether larger segments of the Muslim world become radicalized and a clash of civilizations becomes likely depends on whether the West can defuse the crises over Hamas, Iraq and the Iranian nuclear program, Hamzawy says. It also depends on whether Muslims themselves can open a frank debate on democracy and jihad something that has begun in the wake of the London and Madrid bombings, as well as the foiled Toronto bomb plot. "Non-violent movements have benefited a lot from the jihadists' growing lack of credibility," Hamzawy says. "It has always been a game between Muslim moderates and extremists, and what we are now seeing is a return of the moderate Islamists. That is a good sign, but only if there is agreement to build viable democratic systems."
Yeah, it's a good sign, but it's still in its infancy, and moderate Muslims aren't the ones cutting the heads off the people who disagree with them.
America, too, needs dialogue if escalating warfare is to be avoided, according to Charles Pena, author of Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism, and senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.
Has anyone seen anything realistic emanating from them, by the way?
"We have to examine how our own policies are contributing to the Muslim terrorist threat," he says. "Part of the problem is using the term `war.'
"I prefer using another term. How does 'whipped cream' sound?"
"If we are going to use military force to define the means by which everything is accomplished, war will be both endless and unwinnable."
No war is endless. Even the Hundred Years War eventually ground to a halt. And wars are winnable. Ask any Gepid, Amalekite, or Aztec.
The more people who are killed by American forces, Pena adds, "the more hatred there will be.
To me, that says we're not killing enough of them, in a fearsome enough manner. Oderint dum metuant.
"There are people, like Zarqawi, who should legitimately be attacked, although his death causes ripples. But the problem is when you bomb a house in Kandahar and kill 17 civilians, or hit innocent civilians in Iraq."
It's the nature of the beast, isn't it? They call them "terrorists" in part because they use innocents as shields.
In the U.S., Pena says, war has become the first line of resistance, and there is no debate on how to arrive at a more constructive policy.
Hardly true. We watch the diplo wars here every day, watch the administration jump through hoops to follow all the prescribed forms and rituals. The end result is sometimes, but by no means always, war.
"This administration has made it much worse. But whether the Republicans or Democrats are in charge next, we're going to see more of the same because we really don't understand how American foreign policy affects terrorism, and nobody wants to have that debate."
We're back to us having to please them. Accomodation has to be two-way.
Is a clash of civilizations likely, given the uncertain alternatives?
It's under way, Bubba. It's being run from Riyadh, with a cheering section in Peshawar.
"The answer, critics say, may be in the equally powerful force of diversity.
Yes. We can see how well it's working in Europe.
"There is no such thing as the Islam (the West) imagines, the looming monolith, the new bogeyman, the `Green Menace' taking the place of the now-dead `Red Menace,'" says Mustapha Tlili, director of the program Dialogues: Islamic World-U.S-the West at New York University's Remarque Institute. "There is an Islamic spiritual community, there are Muslim countries, there are Muslim people, Islamic traditions and various expressions of Islamic faith."
There is al-Qaeda and there is the Muslim Brotherhood. There is Takfir wal Hijra and al-Tawhid and Ansar al-Islam. And there are the Soddy Princes. There are the ayatollahs, dreaming of Shiite world domination, and there are the Sunni mullahs, also dreaming of a Caliphate. If you deny their existence you're being dishonest, whether merely intellectually dishonest or spreading taqiya because you're on the other side.
"Belief in religious separation and the allegedly inescapable hostilities linked to it has to come to terms with the existence of other powerful forces related to other identities economic, political, social, linguistic and many others," points out Nobel laureate Amartya Sen in Slate magazine. "The theory of an overarching `clash of civilizations' not only has to face the difficult problem of explaining so many different types of movements in the world today, it would not be able to provide much of an explanation for some of the most prominent political developments in contemporary history."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Olivia Ward writes what is probably the best summary of the Tranzi narrative for the war against Islamism that I've yet seen. You oughta put this in classics, Fred, so everyone can refer to it.
#2
You canot appease a group whose only satisfaction is your death or your submission. You simply have nothing to offer them unless you plan on surrendering abjectly and dying in large numbers.
The only way to deal with these folks is to kill them. Thye cannot be deterred, since death for them is a good thing as long as they get to take an infidel with them. So deny them that chance. Kill them quickly, in large numbers, and give them meaningless deaths. And keep doing so until you drive home the idea that Jihad results in the eradication of the Jidhadis, their supporters and the society that tolerates them.
Its that simple.
And thats the ONLY solution we've left ourselves after a few decades of ignoringthe problem or attempting to either appease them or use "pinprick" strikes.
Their entire base needs to be put at risk, and demonstrably so, with large losses.
#3
meaningless = not in battle, but kicking at the end of a rope and left to rot, or dead and rotting in rubble from indirect fire or strategic bombing.
We've let it come to this by not slapping the Wahabbist in Saudi hard when we had the chance, by cutting and running in the 1990's, and by having loud morons like Cindy Shithan who are trying to use this war as a means for advancing their political (socialist) goals at the expense of the nation, or the politicians like Fienstein and Dodd and Murtha who have put their hatred of Bush and lust for power ahead of the good of the nation.
You want to point fingers for the blood that will be shed, point it squarely at the idiots who ahve painted us into this corder, starting with the first President Bush, the entire Clinton presidency from aspirin factories to Somalia, at Jimmy Carter for excusing every dictator in the world, and at the current batch of activists and pols who are trying to twist the perception of a winning war into a loss for teith own political gain - and a press that aids & abets the enemy and has become their best weapon in the war on the west.
#5
Hollywood is missing out on such classic plot material by ignoring this struggle, I'm amazed.
Just think of the possibilities of story lines. Behind the scenes covert missions, small towns struggling under the insurgency only to be set free, sharia brutality against housewives who are saved and made widows by empathetic soldiers. There's just no end to the money making angle of these tragic times, but Hollyweird has it's panties in a jumble and can't react with honor.
Honor ? How do you act out honor ? (when you've never had any)
Then consider that many Jews are in control in Hollyweird, and the MSM also. I'm beginning to see Jews as somewhat strange. Israel has been surviving bombings for decades, and continue to live under the cloud of death, daily. Yet, they do not agitate for retaliation ? Seems queer to me. You bang the drum at my gate long enough, and I'll put that drumstick up your ass.
#8
TW, This writer sees the end approaching; The jihadists, and their opponents on the extreme Christian right, are gaining an edge with apocalyptic warnings that a "final battle" between the Muslim world and the West is now inevitable.
Most Christians, all conservatives, and some Jews on one side, and radical Islam jihadists, all leftists including some Jews on the other side.
Is ideology thicker than religious dogma ? Or, is it a case (several cases) of self aggrandizement run afoul. i.e. Chucky Schumer.
I realize that some Christians and muslims are on either side also, but we have not had generations to realize what is happening around us.
I'm a tad shocked that the Jews are not of one mind on this issue.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
One reason British troops continue to be killed and injured in southern Iraq is that they are expected to patrol in lightly-armoured Land Rovers which give them no protection against roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. Meanwhile, their American counterparts walk away unscathed, even when their RG31 armoured patrol vehicles are hit by the same explosives. Yet the Ministry of Defence has not equipped the British Army with the RG31, even though it is built by a British-owned company.
WARD CHURCHILL, the 
I've met Karl Rove twice and I don't have a single interesting anecdote to tell about him. Unless you like to discuss poll numbers the way baseball geeks go on and on about ERAs and RBI, he's a pretty ordinary guy - not the SMERSH mastermind behind the James Bond spy fantasies of the paranoid left. But never mind the facts. In news stories and columns he became "the as-yet-unindicted Karl Rove who leaked the name of a double-secret spy at the CIA." The "spy," Valerie Plame, was not even a spy, but an analyst who sent her husband on a phony mission to discredit the president.
The killing of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is truly a positive development, and U.S. forces who accomplished this feat deserve enormous credit and appreciation. Late last year, Congress approved, and President Bush signed into law, a Defense Department authorization bill for fiscal year 2006 that read: "Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." 
