Of the three great global conflicts of the 20th century - the First, Second and Cold Wars - who called it right every time? Germany: one out of three. Italy: two out of three. France: well, let's not even go there. For a perfect hat trick, there are only those nations on the front of Roberts' London edition [The UK, the US, Australia, and Canada]. There is a distinction between the "English-speaking peoples" and the rest of "the west", and at key moments in human history that distinction has proved critical. Europe has given us plenty of nice paintings and agreeable symphonies, French wine and Italian actresses and whatnot, but, for all our fetishization of multiculturalism, you can't help noticing that when it comes to the notion of a political west - a sustained commitment to individual liberty - the historical record looks a lot more unicultural and indeed (given that three of the four nations on that cover share the same head of state) uniregal. Roberts provides a good summation:
Although they are ancient states, many of the constitutions of European countries are very young indeed, far younger than those of Britain's constitutional monarchy (1688-9), America's democracy (1776), Canada's responsible government (1848) or even Australia's Federation (1900). By contrast, the French Constitution establishing its Fifth Republic was only promulgated in 1958, Germany's Basic Law was passed in 1949... Italy's was adopted in 1949... and Portugal's became law in 1976...
Or, as I like to say, the US Constitution is not only older than the French, German, Italian and Spanish constitutions, it's older than all of them put together. The entire political class of Portugal, Spain and Greece spent their childhoods living under dictatorships. So did Jacques Chirac and Angela Merkel. We forget how rare in this world is sustained peaceful constitutional evolution and, to be honest, it's kinda hard to remember when the principal political party of our own demented Dominion peddles non-stop Canada Day smiley-face banalities about how "we are such a young country" (Paul Martin) - which, aside from being obvious tripe, gives us the faintly creepy air of a professional virgin. "The English-speaking peoples did not invent the ideas that nonetheless made them great," concedes Roberts. "The Romans invented the concept of Law, the Greeks one-freeman-one-vote democracy, the Dutch modern capitalism..." But it is the English world that has managed to make these blessings seemingly permanent features of the landscape.
As Roberts sees it, the story of the 20th century is one of anglophone democracies defending the planet against what he calls four assaults: "The First Assault: Prussian Militarism 1914-17", "The Second Assault: Fascist Aggression 1931-39", "The Third Assault: Soviet Communism 1945-49" and "The Fourth Assault: Islamicist Terrorism and its De Facto Allies". In between come periods of complacency ("The Wasted Breathing Space: 1990-11 September 2001") and loss of faith ("The Long, Dismal, Drawling Tides: The 1970s"), but in the end the good guys always step up to the plate.
POSTERS PLEASE pay attention to where you file a story; this was originally put in WoT Operations, Lurid Crime Tales...
Posted by: Mike ||
02/28/2007 08:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
LOL, raping and pillaging the world be lurid crime matey.
#2
Of the three great global conflicts of the 20th century - the First, Second and Cold Wars - who called it right every time? Germany: one out of three.
I'd give Germany half out of three. East Germany was on the wrong side of the cold war.
#3
Here's my favorite quote: "But, in their present political sensibilities, Canada is semi-French, Britain is semi-European, and New Zealand is semi-bananas."
#4
If you click the link at the bottom it will lead you to an amusing review of d'Souza's book:
But DSouza identifies a much more widespread and dangerous form of ethnocentrism in the photographs from Abu Ghraib. For hysterical liberal ninnies, this was (and remains) a shocking expose of torture. The question for western commentators was very simple: How far up the chain of command did authorization for these revolting techniques go? Faced with a guy being led around on a dog collar with female panties on his head and a banana sticking out his butt, the anti-war crowd wanted to know whether the Attorney-General had issued a memo on the use of tropical fruits in interrogation techniques and whether there was a smoking-gun invoice at the Pentagon revealing massive bulk purchases from Victorias Secret. The larkier conservative commentators scoffed: Anyone whod spent ten minutes in an Iraqi or Syrian or Egyptian or Saudi or Yemeni prison would not regard the Abu Ghraib scenes as torture.
We scoffers were only half-right. In the Arab world, the shocking expose of torture was shocking not because it was torture but because it exposed something worse. Most Muslims did not view it as a torture story at all, writes DSouza. Abu Ghraib was one of Saddam Husseins most notorious prisons. Tens of thousands of people were held there and many were subject to indescribable beatings and abuse. Twice a week, there were hangings outside the prison. This is what Muslims mean by torture, not the lights-on, lights-off version that American liberals are so indignant about The main focus of Islamic disgust was what Muslims perceived as extreme sexual perversion. Saddams guards pulling out your fingernails is torture. But a nobody like Lynndie England, a female soldier and adulteress, boozed up and knocked up and posing naked for photographs with paralytic casual acquaintances and making men masturbate in front of her and e-mailing the photographs all over the Internet, all that to Muslims that represented something far darker than a psycho dictator: It was just for fun, reported Paul Arthur, the military investigator who interviewed Private England. They didnt think it was a big deal. Thats the point: a society whose army recruits drunken pregnant adulterous fornicating exhibitionist women, and its no big deal.
When the Ayatollah Khomeini dubbed America the Great Satan, he was making a far more perceptive critique than Canadians and Europeans who dismiss the US as the Great Moron. Satan is a seducer, and so is America. And, when Muslims see Lynndie England, they dont like where that leads.
#5
KBK: If you click the link at the bottom it will lead you to an amusing review of d'Souza's book:
What D'Souza says about Muslim views is, in my view, accurate - they do see the US as Satan (in the guise of say, Liz Hurley dressed in a suitably skimpy costume) luring them towards perversion. The Europeans are far more libertine, but the pull of American culture is far greater because of the accessibility of its pop culture, the undeniable success of its consumer brands and its technological dominance - success is extremely seductive.
An Italian court announced this month that it is moving forward with the indictment and trial of 25 CIA agents charged with kidnapping a radical Muslim cleric. These proceedings may well violate international law, but the case serves as a wake-up call to the United States. Overseas opponents of American foreign policy are increasingly turning to judicial proceedings against individual American officials as a means of reformulating or frustrating U.S. aims, and action to arrest this development is needed.
The Italian case involves a 2003 CIA mission to apprehend an Egyptian cleric named Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr. Suspected of terrorist ties, Nasr was seized in Milan and transported to Egypt, where he claims he was tortured. This was, of course, an "extraordinary rendition" -- a long-standing and legal practice that generally involves the cooperation of two or more governments in the capture and transportation of a criminal suspect outside of normal extradition proceedings. It was through such a rendition that the terrorist "Carlos the Jackal" was delivered for trial to France from Sudan in 1994.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Excellent idea. Let's hope the Administration decides to do just that.
Posted by: mac ||
02/28/2007 7:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Don't get mad, get even.
This is where we ask the Iraqi government and courts to issue warrants on the Italian agents involved in bag money transfers to terrorist to spring the commie journalist. And just toss in a warrant for the commie for judicial interrogation as to whether it was a set up to get the funds.
#3
I say let them hold all the trials they want. The moment they touch an American however, consider it an act of war and put a 2000lb laser guided bomb through their prime minister's window. They'll get the message soon enough.
#4
Just bring the troops home. Let them be responsible for their own defense and protection of trade routes. Let them find another easy, rich market that was America. Wish them well and wish them goodbye.
Posted by: ed ||
02/28/2007 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
and have been expert members of the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Is that supposed to impress me, because it doesn't...
#6
The first nation that tries and convicts an American in one of these monkey trials should get the UN. Literally, the US buys land and pays for the building of a new UN compound and the moving of all UN personal to the capital of that nation.
Even if it costs a hundred billion it would be a win-win in the long run.
#5
It's easy to get immune to it, but Pelosi's relationship to the known-to-be very corrupt, Jefferson, Murtha, etc. and now Soros (who made his fortune wiping out pensioners) is truly shocking.
Anyone supporting this cast of criminals really needs to take a loooong look in the mirror and wonder if that smug sense of superiority that they get from supporting the left is really worth it.
A social revolution is taking place in Venezuela. No wonder the neocons and their friends are determined to discredit it
By George Galloway
The chilling Oliver Stone film Salvador got a rare airing on television this week. It was a reminder of a time when, for those on the left, little victories were increasingly dwarfed by big defeats - not least in a Latin America which became synonymous with death squads and juntas. How different things seem now. Yesterday US Vice-President Dick Cheney came uncomfortably close to the reality of Afghan resistance to foreign occupation. On the same day Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez delivered a mightier blow to the neocon dream of US domination, announcing an extension of public ownership of his country's oil fields - the richest outside the Middle East.
Much more is at stake than London mayor Ken Livingstone's welcome oil deal with Chávez, which will see London bus fares halved while Venezuela gets expertise from city hall and a bridgehead in the capital of the US's viceroy in Europe. Washington's biggest oil supplier is now firmly in the grip of a social revolution. This month I watched with Chávez as thousands of soldiers, French and British tanks, Russian helicopters and brand new Mirage and Sukhoi fighter bombers passed by: the soldiers chanting "patria, socialismo o muerte" - enough to make any US president blanch. Chávez answered the salute with the words: "the Bolivarian revolution is a peaceful revolution but it is not unarmed".
The music played throughout the event was the hymn of Salvador Allende's 1970s Chilean government, declaring that the people united will never be defeated. But Chávez's socialism is a good deal more red than Allende's - and its enemies seem no less determined than those who bathed Chile in blood in 1973. Despite complete control of Venezuela's national assembly - the opposition boycotted the last elections after being defeated in seven electoral tests in a row - Chávez has been given enabling powers for 18 months to ensure he can pilot his reforms through entrenched opposition from the civil service, big business, the previously all-powerful oligarchy, their vast media interests and their friends in Washington. Among those friends we must include our own prime minister, who only last year declared Venezuela to be in breach of international democratic norms - though when I pressed him in parliament he was unable to list them.
The atmosphere in Caracas is fervid. The vast shanty towns draping the hillside around the cosmopolitan centre bustle with workers' cooperatives, trade union meetings, marches and debates. The $18bn fund for social welfare set up by Chávez is already bearing fruit. Education, food distribution and primary healthcare programmes now cover the majority for the first time. Queues form outside medical centres filled with thousands of Cuban doctors dispensing care to a population whose health was of no value to those who sat atop Venezuela's immense wealth in the past.
Chávez, who regularly pops over to Havana to check on the health of Fidel Castro, is at the centre of a new Latin America which is determined to be nobody's backyard. Reliable US allies are now limited to death squad ridden Colombia, Peru and Mexico - and latterly then only by recourse to rigged elections. But Chávez's international ambitions are not confined to the Americas. He became a hero in the Arab world after withdrawing his ambassador from Tel Aviv in protest at the bombardment of Lebanon by US-armed Israeli forces last summer, and has pledged privately to halt oil exports to the US in the event of aggression against Iran. This all represents a challenge to US power which, if Bush was not sunk in the morass of Iraq, would be at the top of his action list.
Not that his supporters are marking time. The mendacious propaganda that Chávez is a dictator and human rights abuser is being spread with increasing urgency by the Atlanticist right and their fellow travellers, such as leftie-turned-neocon Nick Cohen who told his London newspaper audience last week that Livingstone's relationship with Chávez was making him think of voting Tory. Chávez's decision not to renew an expired licence for an opposition television station involved in a coup attempt - there are plenty of others - is being portrayed as the beginning of the death of democracy. It's as if Country Life's diatribes against the fox hunting ban were taken as irrefutable proof of totalitarianism in Britain.
The so-called "dictator" Chávez is nothing of the kind. He has won election after election, validating his radical course. Still the fear of a coup - such as in 2002 when Chávez was removed and imprisoned for three days before millions descended to the presidential palace to reinstate him - is everywhere. One Englishman abroad who welcomed the 2002 coup as the "overthrow of a demagogue" was the foreign office minister Denis MacShane - a humiliating correction had to be issued following Chávez's restoration. That tale underscores the importance of the links being forged between revolutionary Caracas and anti-war London. Chávez is well aware that the people were defeated in Chile, the fascists allowed to pass in Republican Spain. Just as in Venezuela, the defence against counter-revolution lies with the poor and the working people who are shaping the world they want; so too must all those internationally who want to see this ferment reach its potential rally to Venezuela's side.
George Galloway is the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow and presents a radio show three times a week on TalkSport
This message brought to you the Grauniad. There is a comments section at the bottom of the page.
#1
The highlighted bit at the top was supposed to be in bold. Sorry. Moderators please fix if possible - I don't care to be associated with that particular sentence. LOL
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/28/2007 7:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Actually, I don't think us neocons and our friends are determined to discredit Chavez and his merry gang... they're doing just fine, going down that well-trodden path, all by themselves.
We're just pointing and laughing, and passing around the popcorn.
Oh, and since this is Gorgeous George, isn't it time to bring forth the Red Leotard of Scorn and Derision!
#6
You know...those neo-con organizations like Human Rights Watch, Oxfam International, Amnesty International, Global Call to Action Against Poverty are spreading mendacious propaganda against Hugo.
Over at the American Spectator, Philip Klein notes a reference to the 9/11 card in New York magazine and observes that one of the primary fault lines between the parties is whether they think our national response to the threat of al-Qaeda demonstrated on that day has been appropriate (or perhaps even insufficient!) or whether they think we have reacted wildly and recklessly . . . .
I know which side I think is right; but I also know that recent events like the 2006 election suggest that at least a small majority of the country might disagree with me.
Think about it the Taliban tried to assassinate Cheney yesterday. Could you imagine if that had occurred in 2002? The snarky too-bad-they-missed comments on Huffington Post would be considered too tasteless for public comment. As mentioned in the Corner yesterday, there would be serious discussion in Congress about how best to strike back at Taliban interests in Pakistan. (As our new DNI said yesterday, Pakistan is where the real fight is going on these days.) Heck, had this happened a few years back, Toby Keith would be working on a song about it.
Today, the standard comment after any terror warning is a suspicious I question the timing. The color-coded homeland security system is widely derided as a joke, and we seem permanently stuck on "yellow with spots of orange." When they foiled the plot to bomb airliners in London last summer, some folks honestly charged the whole thing was a hoax designed to distract from Ned Lamonts victory in the Connecticut senatorial primary.
As of this moment, a Rudy vs. Obama showdown seems believable, and Im not certain that the country wouldnt be sorely tempted by an Obama presidency under that scenario. To Joe Voter, why not choose a man who is completely unassociated with the 9/11 attacks, and who goes on and on about this warm, friendly, audacity of hope, compared to a man who reminds us of one of our darkest days?
And yet this all presumes that our life continues as normal, the way it is today. If were digging bodies out of a pile of rubble in the middle of one of our great cities, will the country be as eager to give the new guy a try just because hes so charismatic? If were afraid of inhaling poison in our mailboxes, will John Edwards look like he's the man who can take commend in a crisis?
For that matter, will Rudy, McCain, or Mitt? Or anybody else?
That is the supreme gamble that every candidate is making as they position their candidacies for 2008. Come Election Day next year, will we have the same priorities then as we do now?
Posted by: Mike ||
02/28/2007 09:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Everyone knows it > e.g. O'REILLY, CNN, FOX BOYS, etal. > 2008 elex may = will be the MOST IMPORTANT US election in US andor World History. As decisive to USA as the Amer Revolution, Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor, ......etc. NUTSHELL > SAVE FOR AMER HIROSHIMA(S), 2008 POTUS ELEX WILL DECIDE THE FACE AND PECKING ORDER OF THE FUTURE OWG, WHETHER FREE = SOCIALIST AMER WILL DOMINATE OR BE SLAVE, FREE Vs SOCIALIST IN GENERAL.
Unless allies spend more on defense, the U.S. will continue to act unilaterally out of necessity.
By Max Boot
Tony Blair's decision to withdraw 1,600 troops from Iraq is understandable. The prime minister had to make a difficult decision about where to allocate Britain's scarce resources, and he decided, reasonably enough, that the top priority was to send reinforcements to Afghanistan, where 5,500 British troops are struggling to hold back a Taliban onslaught.
The tragedy is that he had to rob Peter to pay Paul because Britain can't maintain 7,000 troops in Iraq and 7,000 in Afghanistan. Those are hardly huge numbers for a country of 60 million with the fifth-largest national economy in the world. Yet even as Britain has continued to play a leading role in world affairs, it has allowed its defenses to molder.
The total size of its armed forces has shrunk from 305,800 in 1990 to 195,900 today, leaving it No. 28 in the world, behind Eritrea and Burma. This downsizing has reduced the entire British army (107,000 soldiers) to almost half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps (175,000). Storied regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, with histories stretching back centuries, have been eliminated.
Even worse hit is the Royal Navy, which is at its smallest size since the 1500s. Now, British newspapers report, of the remaining 44 warships, at least 13 and possibly as many as 19 will be mothballed. If these cuts go through, Britain's fleet will be about the same size as those of Indonesia and Turkey and smaller than that of its age-old rival, France.
Britain is hardly alone in its unilateral disarmament. A similar trend can be discerned among virtually all of the major U.S. allies, aside from Japan. Canada is a particularly poignant case in point. At the end of World War II, Canada had more than a million men under arms and operated the world's third-biggest navy (behind the U.S. and Britain), with more than 400 ships. Today, it has all of 62,000 personnel on active duty, and its navy has just 19 warships and 23 support vessels, making it one-fourth the size of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Of course, numbers aren't the entire story. Both Britain and Canada have top-notch soldiers, allowing them to punch above their weight class in military affairs. But there is only so much that a handful of super-soldiers can accomplish if their numbers are grossly inadequate. Quality can't entirely make up for lack of quantity.
This shortfall has serious repercussions not only for those countries but for the United States. With about 165,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and more on the way, we are seriously overstretched ourselves. We need as much help as we can get, but there isn't much more that our allies could do, even if they wanted to.
Look at Afghanistan, where NATO is always having trouble dredging up an extra helicopter or another infantry battalion to throw into the fray. The British and Canadians are doing more than their share; their willingness to fight hard and take casualties sets them apart from most NATO countries, which prefer to send troops to safe parts of Afghanistan rather than to the front lines in the south and east. But 5,500 British and 2,500 Canadian soldiers can cover only so much ground, even with another 1,500 Brits thrown in. As usual, the United States, with more than 27,000 troops in Afghanistan, is left to carry the lion's share of the burden.
The primary culprit is declining defense spending among U.S. allies. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, defense budgets among NATO members, excluding the U.S., have fallen from 2.49% of gross domestic product in 1993 to 1.8% of GDP in 2005. Britain is actually above the norm, spending 2.3% of GDP, or $52 billion, on defense. Canada, with a defense budget of $13 billion, is below the norm, at 1.1%.
But all those expenditures fade into insignificance by comparison with the U.S., which spends $495 billion a year, or 4% of the world's largest GDP, on its armed forces. That's more than the rest of NATO combined, even though the other countries have, in aggregate, greater demographic and economic resources.
Unless the other NATO members are willing to step up their spending and what are the odds of that? there is scant chance that their gripes about American unilateralism will ever be rectified. We act alone, or almost alone, not out of choice but out of necessity.
#1
The reason those countries can get away with spending so little on defense is because the US is paying to defend them. Since we have to go it alone any way, maybe it's time to get rid of outmoded "alliances" that the US doesn't gain much from.
#2
It's called welfare. If we kick our own citizens off the welfare support after 3 years, it's long past the time to kick the Euros off after five decades. Their combined population and GDP exceeds ours.
#3
This is just another notch in the headstone of NATO. The future will hold military alliances with other nations who actually would like to defend themselves. Australia, Japan, Taiwan, India and others come to mind. While I hate to say it (these people are my kin), unless the Brits "cowboy up" and upsize their military, they'll just be the last to be Islamicized only because of geography (being an island). I do wish the Brits well (and actually, the Germans and French too), but it's time for them ALL to stand on their own 2 feet or get tackled. We've "raised you like a child", it's time for you to go off and become an adult.
Posted by: BA ||
02/28/2007 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
That last part sounds condescending. I only meant "raising like a child" in the military/defense arena only.
Sadly, the populace will be the ones to pay for Europe's governing elite's fascination with socialism. Who give a flyin' freak about French culture, wine, easy living, etc. if they're NOT willing to fight and die for it. My, oh my, how far has Europe (at least, "Old Europe") slithered since the days of the Magna Carta, Napoleon, the French Revolution and the guillotines.
Posted by: BA ||
02/28/2007 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Speaking of Welfare, MVARIETY > AP article > WELFARE [State]KEEPS GETTING BIGGER DESPITE OVERHAULS.
Turns out that Vice President Cheney's secret showdown in Islamabad included a CIA presentation of "compelling" evidence proving al-Qaida leaders are operating inside Pakistan.
The evidence was shown to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf over lunch in his palace. It must have been hard to swallow, because our "good partner" has denied that al-Qaida has made a comeback on his soil. Don't look here, he has insisted, look next door in Afghanistan.
Now we have electronic intercepts of al-Qaida leaders operating in Pakistan, and satellite photos of new terror training camps there. Yet we're still trusting Musharraf to take care of business.
In the latest VIP visit, we warned that Congress could cut off aid to his regime if he doesn't produce results. But we still left it up to him to take out al-Qaida leaders and their camps. The U.S. message, in so many words, was: Here's the evidence. We know they're here inside your country. Now will you please do something about it?
Such deference in the face of photos and intercepts begs the question: Who is running this war? Right after 9/11 it was clear. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," President Bush warned Pakistan and other Muslim nations. "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
It's bad enough we've restrained our Afghan-based troops from raiding those Pakistani camps and shutting them down. Now we've reportedly taken missile strikes off the table after Musharraf complained about a failed drone attack on an al-Qaida safe house.
So now we're completely reliant on Pakistan to fight our war, even as Pakistan harbors our top enemies and exports terrorism to Britain and (almost) to America. There's something else wrong with this picture: Musharraf has emphatically denied al-Qaida's presence inside Pakistan, ignoring evidence presented to him by NATO commanders in Afghanistan.
The fact that we found out otherwise without any boots on the ground, from miles in space, indicates that Musharraf has not been anywhere near as aggressive as he says he's been in hunting down our enemies and cracking down on their bases and camps. In other words, he's been playing us for suckers, stringing us along for more economic and military aid.
The following facts are no longer in dispute:
1. Before 9/11, Pakistani intelligence husbanded al-Qaida, even introducing Osama bin Laden to Mullah Omar in Kandahar.
2. Before 9/11, the Pakistani government formally recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
3. After 9/11, the Pakistani military helped bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders escape from Tora Bora, secretly escorting them across the border into Pakistan.
4. As Musharraf assured Washington he was cracking down on al-Qaida subgroups in Pakistan, Western journalists such as Daniel Pearl found out that their bank accounts in fact had not been frozen and their recruiting offices had not been closed as promised.
5. Musharraf then banned foreign journalists from traveling to Quetta and Peshawar and other Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds where they could confirm his story that Pakistan was free and clear of the Taliban and al-Qaida.
6. Then, last year, he surrendered that northern tribal region to militants protecting al-Qaida and the Taliban in what he called a "peace deal." He even gave captured fighters amnesty, releasing thousands from custody so they could rejoin the jihad.
Since his truce, al-Qaida and Taliban attacks on U.S. and NATO troops across the border have more than tripled. Now add an attack on the vice president to the list.
While we've been coddling Musharraf, the Taliban and al-Qaida have been able to regroup, rebuild and reattack because they enjoy a secure sanctuary largely free of attack within Pakistan.
The longer we wait on Musharraf to act, the longer bin Laden has to train and export more terrorists to the West and communicate with cells already in place. Every second counts, and yet we are dragging this out in a very dangerous game.
Musharraf will no doubt now send troops to those camps, but how can we be sure Pakistani intelligence won't just tip them off before the troops arrive? There are rumors that someone in Islamabad may have tipped off the Taliban to Cheney's travel plans. His stay at the Afghan base hit Tuesday by a suicide bomber was top secret.
Regardless, we must now set a deadline for results. If Musharraf doesn't deliver, the answer isn't sending another U.S. dignitary to twist his arm.
Besides, who's left to send? We have already sent the president, the vice president, the defense secretary, the CIA deputy (and the director before him), the secretary of state, the CentCom commander, the head of counterterrorism for State, among others. At this rate, the administration will have to turn to Jimmy Carter.
It's plain that high-level visits to Islamabad haven't worked. We need to act unilaterally hit those camps with overwhelming force and apologize later. The security of the U.S. depends on it.
Posted by: John Frum ||
02/28/2007 05:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pakistan and Perv are no friends of the West.They are playing a double game to keep in power.Extremist support and West money!!!!
They have used extremist groups for years as part of their foreign policy!!!!
#2
This dovetails well (though not in an encouraging way) with this article on frontpagemag.com. In it Steve Schippert states:
"It is not an unreasonable assessment that the fall of the Musharraf government could well happen within this calendar year. The face of the conflict we think we know would then change in horrific fashion overnight. Buckle up."
Even though I'm a Rantburg addictregular, I'm not sure how realistic Schippert's assessment is. Either way, Paki-land is looking more worrisome every day.
As the Tehran leadership prepares to go to the wire in its confrontation with the international community over the nuclear issue, one thing is clear: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is emerging with his position in the Khomeinist establishment strengthened.
Just a few weeks ago, we were told that Ahmadinejad's star was on the wane, that "moderate mullahs" had persuaded "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei to restrain the firebrand president. Yet last week, as the U.N. Security Council's ultimatum to the Islamic Republic expired, it was Ahmadinejad who gave the regime's final word.
Addressing a provincial crowd, the president announced that Iran's nuclear program has no reverse gear. The Islamic Republic would stop uranium enrichment only if all nations with a nuclear industry - that is to say, some 30 countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council - did so. Ahmadinejad has the great merit of seeing the problem for what it really is.
Fantasists such as Javier Solana, the European Union's ineffective foreign-policy czar, have tried to present the Islamic Republic's uranium-enrichment program as a technical issue. Others, like French President Jacques Chirac, have advised acceptance of what they regard as a fait accompli. For Ahmadinejad, however, the issue is political in the grand sense of the term - with nothing less at stake than the survival of the Khomeinist regime.
The 1979 revolution had a tripartite slogan: "independence, liberty and Islamic government" - and the regime that emerged tried to build its legitimacy on that basis. Over the last quarter-century, however, it has failed to deliver.
In practical terms, Iran today is more dependent on the outside world than before the Khomeinists seized power. In 1977, Iran imported 11 percent of the food it needed; today, it imports almost half. In 1977, Iran was an overall exporter of crude oil and petroleum products; today, it imports more than 40 percent of its gasoline.
In 1977, there were no outside forces in the Gulf. Today, the United States and its allies control the waterway. Iranian ships passing through the Gulf, and aircraft flying over it, have to clear their routes with the Americans.
As for liberty, most Iranians today know that they are much less free, especially in social and cultural terms, than they were before the mullahs seized power. A recent study by the International Monetary Fund shows Iran experiencing the largest brain-drain of any country in history, largely because the educated elites are fleeing an oppressive atmosphere.
The slogan's third part, Islamic government, has also remained a chimera. Many genuinely religious Iranians, including some Shiite clerics, see Khomeinism as an "evil innovation" (bed'aah) because it violates a fundamental principle of the faith by pretending that it can create a truly Islamic government before the return of the Hidden Imam.
Ahmadinejad is conscious of the Islamic Republic's massive loss of legitimacy in the early 1990s (at least). But he knows that he can't restore it by offering greater liberty: Any loosening of the regime's tight grip on power could open a Pandora's box of political, sectarian and ethnic grievances and demands that no undemocratic regime can deal with.
That leaves the radicals with two options: thickening the Islamic coloring of the regime, and emphasizing its claim of independence. Ahmadinejad has tried to thicken the regime's religious coloring by casting himself in the role of the proverbial Islamic ghazi (holy warrior) who will ride his white horse into Jerusalem to liberate it from the infidel.
The regime's claim of independence is best illustrated by its refusal to kowtow to the diktats of the major powers, especially the United States. The nuclear program would not have been an issue in Iran just two or three years ago - most Iranians knew nothing of the program and the controversy it had provoked. But today, largely thanks to Ahmadinejad's constant hammering of the theme during his ceaseless provincial tours, most Iranians are familiar with the issue.
And, because Ahmadinejad has presented the dispute as an attempt by the great powers to deny Iran nuclear energy, many Iranians, while suspicious of the regime's motives, nevertheless support its position.
Ahmadinejad's supporters hailed his election as the second Khomeinist revolution, in the hope that the cooling embers of Islamist passion could be fanned again into raging flames. They have promoted such ideas as a "clash of civilizations," in which Khomeinist Iran would provide the hard core of a new Islamic "superpower" to challenge the United States and offer humanity an alternative to the existing international order. Thanks to Ahmadinejad, the nuclear issue has become a regime-change issue.
If the Khomeinist regime emerges victorious from the current confrontation, it would move to a higher degree of radicalism - thus, in effect, becoming a new regime. The radical faction would be able to purge the rich and corrupt mullahs by promoting a new generation of zealots linked with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and the security services. It would also move onto the offensive in the region, seeking to reshape it after the Khomeinist revolution's geostrategic interests.
If, on the other hand, the regime is forced to back down on this issue, the radical moment would fade, while the many enemies of the regime regroup either to topple it or to change it beyond recognition, as Deng Xiaoping did with China's Maoist regime.
We are witnessing the start of what could be a long, complicated conflict - not a prelude to the sharp, short exchange that many expect. What is at stake is the future not only of Iran but also of the place of American power in the world. This showdown cannot end without a clear winner and loser.
Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe.
#2
Old Joke "If you have to ask, You can't afford one."
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/28/2007 11:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It appears unlikely that nothing is going to be done about Iran's genocidal threats. Winter would have been the ideal time for USAF attacks. The next generation will not be happy with ours.
#4
IMO, even iff Dubya went before the US Congress to enable a formal "Declaration of War" agz Radical Islam, it won't matter to anti-US agendists, including anti-Amer Americans. Amers see it all over the News = MSM already > OWG = MEANS AMERICA MUST BE DEGRADED AND HUMILIATED, DEFEATED SUBORNED IFF NOT PER SE DESTROYED. Amer leaders are NOT allowed to argue or fight for OWG based on any POSITIVE = PRO-USA MERITS-PREMISES, ONLY NEGATIVE, DETRIMENTAL, and ANTI-AMERICAN. The former is a dangerous, risque proaction when dealing wid personages whom engage in wilful, deliberate DIALECTICALISM, i.e. are on ALL SIDES = EVERY SIDE = ANY SIDES = NO SIDES, when Politics = PC matters more to elected Leaders than VICTORY = NATIONAL SECURITY-SURVIVAL OF THEIR OWN NATION, when Totalitarian-Absolute, Personal-Political Blamelessness + winning Elex matters more than winning a war for everyone's survival.
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.
