Archived news and commentary: February 17 - 23, 2003

2003/03/24 - 2003/03/30
2003/03/17 - 2003/03/23
2003/03/10 - 2003/03/16
2003/03/03 - 2003/03/09
2003/02/24 - 2003/03/02
2003/02/17 - 2003/02/23
2003/02/10 - 2003/02/16
2003/02/03 - 2003/02/09
2003/01/27 - 2003/02/02
2003/01/20 - 2003/01/26
2003/01/13 - 2003/01/19
2003/01/06 - 2003/01/12
2002/12/30 - 2003/01/05

Sunday, February 23, 2003

News and commentary:

"What Now?" (Michael Kelly, The Atlantic, from the March 2003 issue)
I mentioned the notion that American dissent is "crushed" below. Kelly puts the complaints about a "stifled debate" in perspective: "As events moved closer to war with Iraq in December and January, the complaint grew among people (mostly of the left) who are strongly opposed to such a war that what had gone wrong was much due to a lack of informed debate, and that this, in turn, was much due to the refusal of a corrupt White-House-and-Wall-Street-mastered media to allow such debate.
I know that this complaint of a stifled debate and a Bush-lackeyish media is not Le Carré's alone, because I come across it frequently, from the stifled, in the opinion pages of major American and British papers such as The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books, the Guardian, and The Independent; on the programs of National Public Radio and its 680 member stations; on such Web sites of the left as openDemocracy.net, TomPaine.com, truthout.org, Talking Points Memo, American Politics Journal, Media Whores Online ("the site that set out to bring the media to their knees, but found they were already there"), and FAIR; in the print and online columns of Molly Ivins, The Village Voice's Nat Hentoff, The New York Observer's Joe Conason, and The Nation's Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, and Eric Alterman; in The American Prospect and The Washington Monthly; and so on."

"We don't want to shield Iraqi army, say British" (The Daily Telegraph, 2003/02/23)
Useful idiocy in extremis. Found via Little Green Footballs: "The first Western "human shields" will take up their places at strategic sites around Iraq today as dissent among them grows about the nature of the targets they are being asked to protect.
Fifteen volunteers from the first 200 shields are moving into a bunker at the South Baghdad Electricity Plant in an effort to deter attack by America and its allies. However some of the shields yesterday questioned Iraq's selection of the power plant, after discovering that it is situated next to an army base.
Since the shields' first visit to examine their new quarters, sandbags and unmanned check points had been erected around the plant. Asked about the neighbouring Rasheed military base, an Iraqi official said: 'Don't worry, it is a small army camp.'" (See also: "Saddam's shields" (Michelle Goldberg, Salon.com, 2003/02/21))

"Taliban kung fu champion is granted asylum" (Dipesh Gadher and Christina Lamb, The Sunday Times, 2003/02/23)
"A former Taliban government official with links to Mullah Mohammed Omar has been living in Britain for almost two years after being granted asylum by the Home Office.
Mohammad Ihsan Mutmain, a former kung fu champion who served on Afghanistan’s Olympic committee, is thought to have obtained a visa for travel to Britain by claiming that he was taking part in a sports competition here. He applied for refugee status soon after his arrival. ...
He is one of at least five people who have been given permission to stay in Britain despite serving under the fundamentalist Taliban regime. Three of these, who fled Afghanistan after October 2001, when the West launched airstrikes on the country, claim they were coerced into fighting for the Taliban."

"Iranians Eager for Hussein to Be Ousted" (Azadeh Moaveni, Los Angeles Times, 2003/02/23)
A report from Tehran: "Iran would seem to be an unlikely corner of the Middle East to find support for Washington's plans to unseat Saddam Hussein. But despite decades of poor relations with the U.S. and their pique at being labeled part of an "axis of evil," most Iranians are eager to see the Iraqi dictator's demise.
Those who fought in Iran's war with Iraq in the 1980s and those for whom that war is little more than a childhood memory equally want to see Hussein's regime toppled. Few doubt that he is dangerous, armed with terrible weapons and a bane to the region. ...
Others, who despair of the clerical regime's capacity for reform, even hope that after Iraq, the U.S. will take on Iran.
The fantasy that the U.S. could swoop in and remove Iran's hard-line regime, as it did the Taliban in Afghanistan and threatens to do to Hussein, bespeaks the depth of frustration at the pace of internal reforms.
When newspaper headlines suggest that Washington's resolve may be wavering, anxiety sets in.
"Are they changing their mind?" Goli Afshar, a 23-year-old student, asked as she alternately tightened and loosened her grip on a mug at a cafe on Gandhi Street. 'Can they hurry up with Iraq already, so they can get on with attacking us?'"

"Arabs Destroy Joseph's Tomb" (Arutz Sheva, 2003/02/23)
As there were plenty of articles on how difficult it was for Palestinians to undertake their pilgrimage to Mecca this year because of Israeli travel restrictions, this atrocity will surely be huge in Western media. Just kidding. Prepare for a deafening silence:
"The destruction of Joseph's Tomb of the past two weeks is now "official." Prime Minister Sharon and Defense Minister Mofaz confirmed this morning, at the Cabinet meeting, Arutz-7's report of the end of last week: Arab vandals entered the holy site in Shechem sometime in the past two weeks and turned the large stone marking Joseph's grave into a pile of rubble. Minister Natan Sharansky called upon the Foreign Ministry to publicize the photos of the destroyed site. "If we would have razed the gravesite of one of the founders of Islam," Sharansky said, "billions of Moslems would have taken to the streets. It's inconceivable that the world should not know about this travesty." Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Sharon said they would in fact publicize the photos." (See also: "Palestinian Denial of Jewish Holy Sites" (GAMLA): "'As Palestinian troops stood by, some shooting in the air to express their own the joy, hundreds of Palestinian men set upon the shrine with pick axes and crowbars while black smoke billowed from the charred structure. Raising a Palestinian flag, the Palestinians said that they were destroying Joseph's Tomb to ensure that the Israelis never returned.' - The New York Times, October 7, 2000, Barak Issues 48-Hour Ultimatum to Arafat By Deborah Sontag")

"'I'd Like to Go On'" (TIME, from the 2003/03/03 issue)
An interview with chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix: "TIME: You did say that many proscribed weapons and items, including 13 tons of chemical agent, were unaccounted for. You said there were significant outstanding issues of substance from previous inspection regimes, including the whereabouts of previously identified anthrax, VX, and long-range missiles. That seems to suggest they're not cooperating.
Blix: Well, is non-delivery of documents which they deny having noncooperation? Is that too semantic for you? They deny they have these documents, and you say you are not giving the documents. There is no cooperation. Well, I don't have the evidence that they have them.
TIME: So when you say to them, what happened to the anthrax, they say, well, there was a hole in the ground in the desert we put it in. Is that what they say?
Blix: Yes. That's right. Exactly. That's what they say. It was not a hole in the ground, they poured it in the ground. They did the same thing with the VX. ...
TIME: There are also questions as to whether or not the quantity which Iraq declared originally represent the full amount anyway.
Blix: You're hinting at their lack of credibility. Of course they have no credibility. If they had any, they certainly lost it in 1991. I don't see that they have acquired any credibility. We attribute absolutely no credibility. There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence or you can't find it, I simply say sorry, I don't find any evidence and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence. It might be there, it might not be there."

"All together now" (Robert Solé, Le Monde/Watch, 2003/02/22 [2003/02/23])
Another memorable French lesson. In America, where dissent is supposedly "crushed", the diversity in the debate on how to handle Iraq is staggering. By now, all thinkable - and unthinkable - pro- and anti-war arguments have been put to the test in a free and lively debate. In France, supposedly the Mother of all Debate and Dissent, by contrast, Le Monde has just cancelled their last page column on Iraq, because no one is dissenting:
"A one-sided debate, at any rate: of the 27 voices heard, 26 came out more or less for the French position. It should be said that the editors had trouble finding hawks. Some of those asked to contribute refused to reply; others wanted to tell us all the bad things they think of Saddam Hussein, all the horror that terrorism held for them, but not much more. For lack of combatants, the column was canceled on 21 February. ...
It remains that the French in general and the readers of Le Monde in particular are overwhelmingly opposed to the preventive war sought by George Bush. Iraq in the service of national unity? Such a consensus hasn’t been reached since... the World Cup." (Note: The excerpt from the article is translated by Douglas. See also the French original: "Tous en chœur" (Robert Solé, Le Monde, 2003/02/22))

"The French Lesson" (Régis DeBray, The New York Times, 2003/02/23)
Just scratch the surface of DeBray's "modesty" and you'll find a rather pompous view of Europe as enlightened and America as pre modern and fundamentalistic. "Binary logic", indeed. If this postmodern European sophistication boils down to the inability to differentiate between good and evil, it seems that they haven't learned the lesson of "the situation with the concentration camps" at all: "Europe has learned modesty. A civilization that believes itself capable of making do without other civilizations tends to be headed toward its doom. To be sure, in defending its interests a great nation may end up promoting freedom. Such was the situation with the concentration camps. It will not be the case for the $15 barrel of crude.
The stakes are spiritual. Europe defends a secular vision of the world. It does not separate matters of urgency from long-term considerations. The United States compensates for its shortsightedness, its tendency to improvise, with an altogether biblical self-assurance in its transcendent destiny. Puritan America is hostage to a sacred morality; it regards itself as the predestined repository of Good, with a mission to strike down Evil. Trusting in Providence, it pursues a politics that is at bottom theological and as old as Pope Gregory VII. ...
"Old Europe" has already paid the price. It now knows that the planet is too complex, too definitively plural to suffer insertion into a monotheistic binary logic: white or black, good or evil, friend or enemy."

"Fortress America" (Matthew Brzezinski, The New York Times Magazine, 2003/02/23)
"In the here and now, an aerial photo of my backyard is on file at the Joint Operations Command Center in Washington, which, unlike the N.C.S., already exists. The center looks like NASA, starting with the biometric palm-print scanners on its reinforced doors. ... I ask for a demonstration of the system's capabilities. A technician punches in a few keystrokes. An aerial photo of the city shot earlier from a surveillance plane flashes on one of the big screens. ''Can you zoom in on Dupont Circle?'' I ask. The screen flickers, and the thoroughfare's round fountain comes into view. ''Go up Connecticut Avenue.'' The outline of the Hilton Hotel where President Reagan was shot materializes. ''Up a few more blocks, and toward Rock Creek Park,'' I instruct. ''There, can you get any closer?'' The image blurs and focuses, and I can suddenly see the air-conditioning unit on my roof, my garden furniture and the cypress hedge I recently planted in my yard."

"Why Saddam will never disarm" (William Shawcross, The Observer, 2003/02/23)
"But the reality to remember is that Saddam will never voluntarily give up his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as resolution 1441 and 16 other resolutions demand. They are integral to his sense of his regime. His record shows that he considers no cost too high to retain his biological, chemical and whatever exists of his nuclear capability.
In 1991, the surrender agreement ending the war in Kuwait specifically guaranteed that Iraq would surrender its weapons of mass destruction within 15 days. Till then sanctions, imposed after his invasion of Kuwait, would remain. His refusal to do so has meant that the UN oil embargo has stayed for 12 years, costing Iraq more than $180 billion and its ordinary people great suffering. It is wrong to blame the West, or the UN, for the starvation and deaths of Iraqi children - Saddam is to blame and he considers it a small part of the price to pay for his proscribed weapons. ...
The inspectors may find some banned materials, by luck, perseverance and good intelligence - and because Saddam has made cunning tactical concessions. They will never find the bulk of the illegal weapons. But that is not their job. That is to monitor his voluntary disarmament. He is not doing that and he never will. He is in clear breach of resolution 1441 and he always will be. The decision the world faces is: will we let him get away with it again? George Bush and Tony Blair say No. They are right."

"Saddam told: disarm in three weeks or it's war" (Kamal Ahmed, The Observer, 2003/02/23)
"Saddam Hussein is to be given a final 'act or be defeated' deadline of the middle of March before a second United Nations resolution is debated by the Security Council, clearing the way for imminent military action.
Downing Street said for the first time last night that there would be a definite vote on the second resolution within three weeks. To be tabled jointly by Britain and America tomorrow, it will say the Iraqi dictator is in 'material breach' of resolution 1441 and call on him to comply fully with UN weapons inspectors or face 'serious consequences.'"

Saturday, February 22, 2003

News and commentary:

"The Silence Surrounding the New Judeophobia: blindness, complacency or connivance?" (Pierre-André Taguieff, Fayard - Mille et Une Nuits/Watch, 2002/01/16 [2003/02/22])
An excerpt from Pierre-André Taguieff's "La Nouvelle judéophobie" ["The New Judeophobia"], translated by Douglas: "In France, as in other European countries, certain fanatical americanophobes and israelophobes, of which the majority are on either the far-Right or the far-Left (Communist or neo-Marxist), play the role of fellow-travellers and auxiliary helpers in the total war instigated by the anti-American attacks of 11 September. I shall confine myself, by way of illustration, to a very summary text dated 7 October 2001, signed Bruno Roy, a sociologist and director of Fata Morgana publications, in which he addresses his academic colleagues:

A few humanists had hoped that the just admonition addressed on 11 September to the United States would lead them, from its moderation (5,500 dead is less than 1% of the victims of the embargo on Iraq), to change their policies. A vain illusion: the worst of the terrorist States, founded in genocide, enriched in slavery, prospers only through crime, from Mexico to Hiroshima, from Guatemala to Vietnam, from Colombia to Palestine. When today the Afghan people are the direct victims of bombing (and Palestine the indirect victim, the Zionist power's profiting from the situation to worsen its massacres), so much less it is acceptable for us to remain indifferent as the French government, valet of the Americans, wishes to involve us in these crimes. What can academics do? In answer to the lies of power, to the disinformation of the media, try to make the truth known, to oppose the war, to show our solidarity with the victims.

To read such a text, oozing hatred (the massacre of 11 September presented as a just admonition!), consorting with the enemies of all freedom, one is reminded of some of Orwell's reflections on intellectuals, singularly receptive to totalitarian dictatorships: 'Intellectuals are led to totalitarianism much more than ordinary people.'"

"Globalization and sovereignty" (James C. Bennett, UPI, 2003/02/22)
"Today the collapse of the Cold War international order, the rise of global terrorism and the backlash to globalization have among them raised the specter of a shrinkage, or even collapse, of globalization - one perhaps even more catastrophic than the reversal of globalization from 1914 through 1945. Such a collapse, greatly limiting the international flow of goods, capital, and people, would have a number of consequences.
One repercussion would be a global depression probably surpassing the severity and breadth of the 1930s. The second would probably be the return of empire as a strategy for securing resources and security. These two are familiar from history.
The third would be the elevation of weapons of mass destruction, but particularly nuclear weapons, to an effective requirement of sovereignty, and to create an arms race to develop countermeasure, such as ballistic missile defense, and new, hard-to-counter weapons of mass destruction. ...
Ironically, many of those who profess to hate war, empire and poverty, and who strive for a just international order, accuse Bush and Blair of promoting those things. In reality, a failure of the Bush-Blair coalition would sooner or later (probably sooner) give rise to a world in which a number of regional tyrannies who gradually, under the cover of their weapons of mass destruction, would annex first the states that are sovereign by convention, such as Kuwait, and eventually many that have been sovereign by circumstance." (Note: Found via InstaPundit.)

"Here's just one of the excitable Professor Marc Herold's..." (Professor Bunyip, 2003/02/22)
A useful roundup of estimates of civilian casualties during the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan, in the face of the latest outlandish claim: "Here's the New York Times' calculation of casualties at 11 locations accounting for "many of the principal places where Afghans and human rights groups claim that civilians have been killed": as many as 400.
Here's the estimate of the interim government in Kabul, as reported by the Los Angeles Times: total civilian dead at 1,000 to 2,000.
Here's the Associated Press estimate: "... reporting and other reliable counts - by no means complete ... suggest a civilian death toll ranging from 500 to 600." ...
All those fugures get so confusing, let's keep it simple and accept the worst-possible-case figure advanced by Professor Marc Herold - who presides, incidentally, over the University of New Hampshire's Department of Economics and Women's Studies: 3,500 lost lives.
Now, here's another calculation to occupy sharp minds on a slow and sleepy Sunday:
Just how far up the postern orifice did Hagfish Phil have to stuff his unoccupied hand in order to pluck this figure for civilian casualties: 'the 20,000 civilians promptly murdered in Afghanistan in retaliation as the US began its 'War Against Terror.''" (See also: "No names, just numbers" (Phillip Adams, The Australian, 2003/02/22). Note: Herold's estimates are of course also highly disputable, to say the least: "The Prof Who Can't Count Straight" (Joshua Muravchik, The Weekly Standard, from the 2002/08/26 issue))

"Shia worshippers killed in Pakistan" (BBC News, 2003/02/22)
"Gunmen have opened fire inside a Shia place of worship in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi, killing at least nine people and wounding at least 10. A police officer said the unidentified attackers had opened fire at the entrance of the Imam Bargha just as worshippers were arriving for evening prayers. ... About 25 worshippers were believed to be inside the building when at least three men, riding on two motorcycles, opened fire with automatic weapons and then fled."

"That Devil Ashcroft" (David Tell, The Weekly Standard, from the 2003/03/03 issue)
Tell on reactions to the "secret draft" of "Patriot II": "What matters is that an anonymous, self-styled whistle-blower gave Charles Lewis a copy of the latest "secret" Big Brother plan being hatched by awful John Ashcroft's awful staff henchmen, and that Lewis then made out like Paul Revere, rushing to warn each Middlesex village and farm - and all the Justice Department beat reporters, too - of an imminent and positively "breathtaking" threat to the Republic and its freedoms. ...
Because, as anybody who does take the trouble to track down and read the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" very quickly begins to suspect, the overheated commentary it's occasioned is ill-informed - so freakishly ill-informed, in fact, as to constitute something close to an outright hoax, the punditry equivalent of one of those "I am treasurer of the Nigerian exile government" e-mail money scams. ...
Yet none among the claimants seems ever to have been bothered by the fear he might be exposed as a humbug. None has hesitated to allege - by reference to wholly imaginary details purportedly contained in a draft legislative package Ashcroft has not yet been presented for review - that the attorney general of the United States, left to his own devices, would dismember the Bill of Rights and establish a police-state autocracy in its place. ... Demonstrably paranoid and fantastic the notion may be, but these days, for some reason, a great many perfectly respectable Americans have come to accept it, on some level, as truth - the kind of postulatory truth that's immune to disproof. Everybody knows that John Ashcroft is a not-so-closet fascist, just as everybody once knew that the Sun orbited Earth." (See also: "Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act" (Charles Lewis and Adam Mayle, The Centre for Public Integrity, 2003/02/07))

"Inspector Orders Iraq to Dismantle Disputed Missiles" (Felicity Barringer and Michael R. Gordon, The New York Times, 2003/02/22)
"A chief United Nations weapons inspector demanded today that Iraq start destroying — within a week — all its Al Samoud 2 missiles and any illegally imported engines designed for use in the rockets, which United Nations experts say exceed the allowed range of 92 miles.
The demand from the inspector, Hans Blix, with its blunt March 1 deadline, appeared to set the stage for a diplomatic showdown over the next two weeks that could determine whether Iraq faces war."

Friday, February 21, 2003

News and commentary:

"As a crowd looks on..."
(AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, 2003/02/21)
"As a crowd looks on, a hooded Palestinian member of Islamic Jihad holds up a Holy Koran and a grenade, during a rally held by Islamic Jihad, in Gaza City, Gaza Strip, Friday, Feb. 21, 2003. On Feb 20, Palestinian man Sami Al-Arian, a resident of Florida since 1975, was arrested on charges of supporting terrorism, for allegedly helping fund Islamic Jihad, which is on the U.S. Government's list of organizations officially considered as terrorists."

"I'm writing this on the anniversary of the murder of Daniel Pearl. Keep that in mind..." (James Lileks, The Bleat, 2003/02/21)
"Playwright Harold Pinter, speaking at last weekend's rally, said "The US is a nation out of control," and "unless we stop it, it will bring barbarism to the entire world." He said America was "a country run by a bunch of criminal lunatics with Tony Blair as a hired Christian thug."
When Blair shows up in the pulpit cleaving the air with a scimitar, let me know. When US television broadcasts a speech with Billy Graham hosting an Excalibur replica from the Franklin Mint Collection, demanding the decapitation of Muslims, let me know. When George Bush grips the podium and beseeches American rock formations to give up the location of non-Christians so we can slit their throats, and it's carried live on national TV by presidential order, drop me a line.
It takes a particularly rarified variety of idiot to look at a Jew-hating fascist with a small mustache - and decide that his opponent is the Nazi."

"TPM Interview with Kenneth Pollack" (Joshua Micah Marshall, Talking Points Memo, 2003/02/21)
Marshal's interview with Kenneth Pollack, author of "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq", is complete, with the second part posted: "Obviously, on the chemical front they've got everything they need. There is not a single chemical weapon they would want to procure beyond what they've got. On the biological front there are still some things out there. We don't think that they have smallpox. We don't think that they have plague. There are a few other agents out there which they'd like to be getting. So I don't think it's quite the case that they're as far along. It's just that I believe that they're working just as hard on the nuclear and ballistic missile side as they are on the chemical and biological side. It's just been my experience that every time the IAEA says 'We've got this thing under control. We know exactly what they have' we find out later that they absolutely didn't. Again, one of the things that has been most important to me is talking to the inspectors., the inspectors who were responsible for this program during the 1990s. Every one of which I've spoken to believes that the Iraqis somewhere have a clandestine centrifuge program. And that's very meaningful to me because the experts, the guys who are in there doing it themselves, they also believe that the Iraqis are still pursuing this. It's just that we can't find what they've got."

"Sontag Award Nominee I" (Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish, 2003/02/21)
The most demented columnist on Earth? Sullivan quotes Ed Lewis: "There is no other government on Earth with the same publicized aspirations to tyrannical control [as the US government]. Other countries, including Korea, Iraq, Russia, and China, maintain arms to defend their shores against invaders and those who would 'dominate the weak and intimidate the world.' The two governments that do not maintain armies and weapons solely for defense are the US Government and Israel, a coalition of pure evil intent on destroying human freedom." (See also: "The most demented government on Earth" (Ed Lewis, Liberty For All, 2003/02/16))

"Saddam's shields" (Michelle Goldberg, Salon.com, 2003/02/21)
Here's a free tip: beware of leaders ranting about secret societies seeking total global domination. Goldberg on voluntary "human shields" in Iraq, including a profile of the movements "leader", Ken Nichols O'Keefe: "The shields adamantly insist that they're not defending Saddam, yet it's clear most prefer him to Bush. O'Keefe certainly seems to. When he renounced his citizenship, he gave the U.S. Consulate a long, rambling document explaining why he was rejecting his country. ...
It begins "Be it known," and includes the following charges:
"That the US Government has puppets and initiates serving elitist families and their agenda and that these elitists operate via secret societies;
That George W. Bush and his father are both members of one such society; ...
That the primary goal of these pathetic secret stooges via the UNITED STATES Military is the fulfillment of the New World Order;
That the goal of the New World Order is total global domination..." ...
Such thinking has led some of them to discount reports of Saddam's atrocities - the raping of children in front of their parents during interrogations, the mutilations of political prisoners, even the gassing of the Kurds - as propaganda.
Empson, a former human shield in the Israeli-occupied territories who traveled to Iraq three years ago, says questions remain about Halabja, the town where Saddam's regime used chemical weapons to massacre thousands of Kurds in 1988. "I don't think one can necessarily say it was a thing deliberately carried out by Saddam Hussein," she says. She also insists that there is more freedom in Iraq than the Western media would have the world believe, saying of her trip to Baghdad, 'I found there was freedom of speech. I was allowed to go anywhere I wanted on my own. I could walk through Baghdad at any time of the day or night without being hassled.'"

"Top Iranian Defector On Iran's Collaboration with Iraq, North Korea, Al-Qa'ida, and Hizbullah" (MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series - No. 473, 2003/02/21)
A translated interview from the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq with the recently defected senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards official Hamid Reza Zakiri: "Zakiri: "The subject of the connection of the intelligence of the [Revolutionary] Guards, not of the [Iranian] government, with the Al-Qa'ida organization and other fundamentalist groups such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad goes back to the 1980s. After the assassination of [Egyptian president] Anwar Sadat, a number of Egyptians who were responsible for the crime came to us, and the [Revolutionary] Guards intelligence established relations with them. Later, we went to Lebanon, where we got acquainted with many non-Shiite revolutionary activists." ...
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "Did you know about the plans to attack the World Trade Center in New York?"
Zakiri: "No, but we had in our headquarters models of the [WTC] two towers, the White House, the Pentagon, and the CIA building at Langley. Thus, Imad Mughnia came to Iran, met with a number of top officials in the security apparatus of the Leader [Khamenei] and gave them a letter from Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, which said: 'We need your help to carry out a most important mission in the land of the 'Great Satan.'' The issue was presented but his request was denied. Afterwards, it was decided by the head of our department and Natiq Nouri's deputy, head of the investigations section in the Leader's [Khamenei's] Office and his representative in the Higher Council for Security, to entrust Mughnia with keeping the relations with Al-Zawahiri and his comrades, provided he did not get involved in their activity."

"A Last Chance to Stop Iraq" (Kenneth M. Pollack, The New York Times, 2003/02/21)
"With the Bush administration set to put a resolution on Iraq before the United Nations Security Council next week, those opposed to war will rally around the notion that Saddam Hussein can be deterred from aggression. They will continue to say that the mere presence of United Nations inspectors will prevent him from building nuclear weapons, and that even if he were to acquire them he could still be contained.
Unfortunately, these claims fly in the face of 12 years — and in truth more like 30 years — of history. ...
What we do know is that for more than a decade we have consistently overestimated the ability of inspectors to impede the Iraqi efforts and we have consistently underestimated how far along Iraq has been toward acquiring a nuclear weapon.
For all of these reasons the assurances from Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that he has Iraq's nuclear program well in hand should be less than comforting. ...
Given Saddam Hussein's current behavior, his track record, his aspirations and his terrifying beliefs about the utility of nuclear weapons, it would be reckless for us to assume that he can be deterred. Yes, we must weigh the costs of a war with Iraq today, but on the other side of the balance we must place the cost of a war with a nuclear-armed Iraq tomorrow." (Note: The article can also be found here: "A Last Chance to Stop Iraq" (Kenneth M. Pollack, The New York Times/IIP, 2003/02/21 [2003/02/24])

"A perfectly moral case for fighting for Iraq's oilfields" (Nicholas Boles, The Times, 2003/02/21)
"You would have thought that the need to protect the world economy from calamity required little further justification. But the Left does not see it that way. For it, an economic motivation is merely a selfish motivation. It isn’t sufficient to point out that a depression would cause many in Britain to lose their jobs, savings and homes. For few people in Britain are likely to die as a result.
But what about the world’s poor? The high priests of anti-materialism don’t ever seem to consider what effect economic devastation among rich countries would have on the Third World. When the OECD economies shrink, so does the demand for Third World products. When the only member of an extended family working in a factory loses his or her job, elderly relatives die because the family can no longer afford treatment, children are deprived of an education because the family can no longer afford them not to work in the fields, members of the family may even starve. Now the Left can call these consequences "economic" if it likes. But if defending those who rely on a healthy global economy to feed themselves is not a moral imperative, what on earth is?"

"How Muslims (Finally) Conquered Europe" (Bat Ye'or, FrontPageMagazine, 2003/02/21)
"Today the Iraqi crisis confronts the EU governments with three decades of pusillanimous policy based on oil, markets, short-term economic gains, and an imperialist ambition of domination. It is practically impossible now in Europe to control Islamic terrorism either from within or without. Nor can the EU accept the destruction of the multifarious symbiosis created by all European political parties with the Arab and Muslim world, to the detriment of their own country's security. Europe has undergone a profound structural and demographic change, which is not yet fully perceived by Europeans, even less by Americans. This transformation of a Judeo-Christian based-civilization and culture by strong trends of Islamization is creating social, political and cultural grounds for confrontations that could provoke dangerous social implosions. The drifting away of Europeans from America is not, therefore, due to their superior moral exigencies, as some superficial analysts write. Rather, this drift reveals a traumatic fear of a terrorism that the EU always refused to acknowledge, scapegoating instead Israel and America. It reveals the preservation, at all costs, of Arab and Muslim corrupt dictatorships, including Arafat, with whom the EU has built its economic and international political strategy, power and security. And, more threatening, it indicates a profound transformation, a mutation, whereby a civilization is engulfed in 'dhimmitude.'" (See also: "Eurabia" (Bat Yeor, National Review, 2002/10/09))

"Profs Duped by Sami Al-Arian" (Martin Kramer, Sandstorm, 2003/02/21)
Podhoretz, below, concentrates on columnists. Kramer takes a look on Middle East "experts" who have defended Al-Arian: "The 50-count indictment makes riveting reading. That's because it's based on wiretaps of Al-Arian's telephone and fax communications — the sort of material which, before 9/11, didn't get into indictments. And those wiretaps show Al-Arian to have been involved up to his neck in Islamic Jihad's finances, recruiting, and internal intrigues. The wiretaps, as summarized in the indictment one by one, offer a compelling portrait of a highly secretive conspirator, casually exploiting America's protection to evade the law and fund terror. The actual transcripts will be even more damaging. Arian's various defenders should be cringing in embarrassment, if they have even a shred of conscience. ...
John Esposito, director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, has been Al-Arian's most distinguished academic champion. Early last year, he wrote a letter to the president of USF, professing to be "stunned, astonished, and saddened" by moves to dismiss Al-Arian, whom he described as a "consummate professional." The university had to resist the "pressures" of "biased, inflammatory" media. ...
Al-Arian's case is no longer about free speech, it's about overt acts. It's no longer between professors and administrators, it's between prosecutors and attorneys. Al-Arian will have his day in court. But whatever the outcome, there's no doubt that he isn't the "consummate professional" and the "quintessential political moderate" of the "expert" testimonials. Bottom line: the Middle East scholars have failed — again." (See also: "Copy Of Indictment" (Middle District of Florida, 2003/02/20))

"His Shameful Defenders" (John Podhoretz, New York Post, 2003/02/21)
Podhoretz on liberal columnists defending Sami Amin Al-Arian: "The Times' Nicholas Kristof fell for Al-Arian's line of malarkey as though he were one of the dopey girls on "Joe Millionaire." Kristof's ludicrous column of March 1, 2002, describes "Professor Al-Arian" as "a rumpled academic with a salt-and-pepper beard who is harshly critical of Israel (and also of repressive Arab countries) - but who also denounces terrorism, promotes inter-faith services with Jews and Christians, and led students at his Islamic school to a memorial service after 9/11 where they all sang 'God Bless America.'"
The act of singing "God Bless America" proves someone is innocent of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism?
Eric Boehlert of Salon.com expressed outrage that the Fox News Channel had taken out after Al-Arian. He described Al-Arian as an "innocent professor" and added that "media giants, eagerly tapping into the country's mood of vengeance and fear, latched onto the Al-Arian story, fudging the facts and ignoring the most rudimentary tenets of journalism in their haste to better tell a sinister story about lurking Middle Eastern dangers here at home." ...
What's really going on here?
Simple. A vast segment of liberal opinion is desperate to see the war on terrorism as a new explosion of McCarthyism. And they want to sign up to fight the evil government in its evil effort to torment poor, innocent Muslims." (See also: "8 Charged in Fed Indictment for Terrorism" (Curt Anderson, AP/Yahoo! News, 2003/02/20) and "Putting Us to the Test" (Nicholas D. Kristof, The New York Times, 2002/03/01))

"A 19-Year Deceit" (Steven Emerson, New York Post, 2003/02/21)
"Back in 1994, I produced and reported "Jihad in America," a PBS documentary that exposed the secret Islamic Jihad cell that Al-Arian ran from Tampa. I interviewed Al-Arian - who, of course, denied any terrorist affiliation. But the documentary also revealed statements by Al-Arian championing terrorism, the existence of Islamic Jihad publications distributed from his office, the use of his academic institute as a cover for Islamic Jihad and actual videos of Islamic Jihad terrorist conferences he organized in the United States.
Virtually every national Islamic "civil rights" group - created with the same guile that fostered the success of Al-Arian's organization - responded by claiming that we were "attacking Islam" and that we were stereotyping all Muslims. That pattern of obeisance to terrorism was repeated yesterday following issuance of the indictment. ...
Yesterday, the Justice Department demonstrated that the United States was not going to sit quietly and allow this murderous deception to continue. Democracies only act, a British politician once said, when there is blood in the streets. For the last 10 years, rivers of blood have flooded Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, New York and Washington. Unfortunately, the terrorist facade, while damaged by the indictment yesterday and the series of post-9/11 effective one-two counter-terrorist punches by the Bush administration, is still vibrant in the United States.
The terrorists had a good 10 years on us. Whether we are able to truly dissipate their infrastructure in the future will depend on the response that is forthcoming."

"It's Back" (David Brooks, The Weekly Standard, 2003/02/21)
Brooks on the return of anti-Semitism, now with its epicenter "no longer on the Buchananite right, but on the peace-movement left":
"It's not just the things people say. It's the things that are now socially acceptable. The leftist group ANSWER has a long and well-documented record of anti-Zionist statements so extreme and inflammatory that they are truly offensive. (Not to mention a record of supporting murderers and tyrants that is appalling and inhumane.) When the thousands gathered for the peace rally ANSWER co-organized on the mall in Washington, I figured most of the marchers didn't really know the true nature of the group. But now principled liberals and many others have exposed its vicious and Stalinoid nature. And the peace marchers don't mind! They still flocked to the ANSWER-organized marches last weekend. The fact that the Jewish liberal Michael Lerner wasn't permitted to speak didn't bother them either! Would they march at peace rallies organized by the KKK or the American Nazi Party, groups that are about as despicable as ANSWER? Is all hatred now socially acceptable if it is organized in the cause of 'peace?'" (See also: "Who Is Behind Lynne Stewart?" (Michael Tremoglie, FrontPageMagazine, 2002/09/25) and "Peace Kooks" (Michelle Goldberg, Salon.com/FrontPageMagazine, 2002/10/17))

"The fall of pacifism" (Saul Singer, The Jerusalem Post, 2003/02/21)
"But as generals tend to fight the last war, so do pacifists. World War I pacifism made no sense in the face of Hitler; Vietnam-era pacifism rings equally hollow in the face of Saddam. Pacifism is about to be discredited more thoroughly than it has been for over half a century.
The liberation of Baghdad will make the jubilation at the fall of the Taliban pale by comparison. Since the Soviet bloc collapsed, those who ridiculed Ronald Reagan's characterization of the "evil empire" have themselves been discredited. It will be difficult to disassociate the horrors revealed in Saddam's wake from the Western masses who, intentionally or not, helped protect his rule at such a critical moment. ...
The world is still recovering or suffering from the follies of pacifism and socialism. The key to human well-being, including the desired victory over war and poverty that those ideologies claimed they would deliver, lies in the ascent of the value of freedom. When we see more rallies demanding freedom than demanding peace, the world will be on a better track, and we will have more of both."

"The world was weak in 1935 - and Mussolini had his way" (W F Deedes, The Daily Telegraph, 2003/02/21)
"If we're seeking lessons from the past to help us deal with Saddam Hussein, then the way we dealt with Mussolini's conquest of Abyssinia in 1935 is - as the Prime Minister understands - the place to look. I was particularly reminded of my own Abyssinia moment when I read about Saturday's anti-war march - hauntingly matched by the Peace Ballot of 1935, the national referendum in which millions voted for peace at almost any price, thus unwittingly persuading Hitler and Mussolini that bold predators had not much to fear.
Then, as now, the authority of what was then the League of Nations and is now the United Nations was at stake. Then, as now, many felt reluctant to take action against a dangerous dictator, even with the authority of a body like the League or the UN, lest it lead to war. Then, as now, our difficulties were compounded by the duplicitous behaviour of the French." (Note: In the latest West Wing episode aired in Sweden, I was struck by this quote from Eugene O'Neill's "A Moon for the Misbegotten": "There is no present or future - only the past happening over and over again - now.")

"U.S. Bolsters Philippine Force" (Bradley Graham, The Washington Post, 2003/02/21)
"The United States is sending about 3,000 troops to engage in a major combat offensive in the southern Philippines aimed at wiping out the militant Muslim group Abu Sayyaf, Pentagon officials said yesterday.
The move marks the second time in less than a year that the Bush administration has committed a significant number of U.S. forces to try to root out the extremist group, which has continued to unsettle the Philippines and target Americans in the islands. It opens another battlefront as U.S. forces already are stretched thin preparing for a possible war in Iraq, securing Afghanistan and pursuing al Qaeda around the world."

"Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq" (Karen DeYoung and Peter Slevin, The Washington Post, 2003/02/21)
"The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a "representative" Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources.
Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, is to maintain military control as long as U.S. troops are there. Once security was established and weapons of mass destruction were located and disabled, a U.S. administrator would run the civilian government and direct reconstruction and humanitarian aid." (See also: "Iraq for the Iraqis" (Ahmad Chalabi, The Wall Street Journal, 2003/02/19) and "Our hopes betrayed" (Kanan Makiya, The Observer, 2003/02/16))

Thursday, February 20, 2003

News and commentary:

"8 Charged in Fed Indictment for Terrorism" (Curt Anderson, AP/Yahoo! News, 2003/02/20)
"Eight people, including four U.S. residents, were charged in a 50-count indictment with supporting, financing and relaying messages for a violent Palestinian terrorist group blamed for the deaths of more than 100 people in and around Israel.
The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in Tampa, Fla., was unsealed Thursday. It charges that the men are members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. Among them are a Palestinian professor at the University of South Florida, 45-year-old Sami Amin Al-Arian, who is described as the group's U.S. leader and secretary of its worldwide council." (See also:"The Terror-Aiding Prof" (Daniel Pipes, New York Post/danielpipes.org, 2002/02/04) and "Is the President a 'Dictator'?" (David Tell, The Weekly Standard, 2001/12/03))

"The Tide of Madness" (Judea Pearl, The Wall Street Journal, 2003/02/20)
"Tomorrow will mark the first anniversary of the day the world learned of the murder of my son Daniel Pearl, a reporter for this newspaper. It is time to step back and reflect on the significance of this tragedy. ...
In Europe, Danny's murder has been condemned as an attack against journalism, while the anti-American, anti-Jewish sentiments were played down considerably. This is understandable, considering the anti-American and anti-Western sentiment echoed in editorials in some respectable European newspapers.
In contrast, Danny's captors concentrated on his Jewish and Israeli heritage. Evidently the murderers were confident that Danny's Jewish connections were sufficient to license the gruesome murder they were about to commit. Such a brazen call to condone the killing of a human being by virtue of his religion or heritage is strongly reminiscent of the horrors perpetrated by Nazi Germany.
In a world governed by reason and leadership, one would expect world leaders to immediately denounce such racist calls before they become an epidemic. However, President Bush was the only world leader to acknowledge the connection between Danny's murder and the rise of anti-Semitism: "We reject the ancient evil of anti-Semitism whether it is practiced by the killers of Daniel Pearl or by those who burn synagogues in France." No European head of state rose to John F. Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" with the morally equivalent statement 'Today, I am a Jew.'" (See also: "Kidnapped Reporter Is Dead" (Peter Baker and Kamran Khan, The Washington Post, 2002/02/22))

"Reverend Jackson, let me speak!" (Amir Taheri, The Jerusalem Post, 2003/02/20)
"I spent part of last Saturday with the so-called "antiwar" marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice to be heard. Soon, however, it became clear that the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"
But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine" and "Indict Bush and Sharon."
Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war.
The goons also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.
We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend's attention and told him how Saddam Hussein had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Ba'ath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990.
"Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" 78-year old Salima demanded.
The reverend was not pleased.
"Today is not about Saddam Hussein," he snapped. 'Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq.'"

"Another Beeb Quote" (Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish, 2003/02/20)
"This time from the BBC's World Affairs Correspondent, David Loyn: "If America was engaged in the rest of the world rather than, frankly, wanting to bomb it and, as Yasmine says, take its resources..." No wonder the Economist this week simply categorized the BBC as an anti-war organization, motivated by simple anti-Americanism." (See also: "Typical BBC bias" (Stephen Pollard, stephenpollard.net, 2002/12/28): "Just in case that isn't clear, let's spell it out: the BBC's World Affairs Correspondent, a pretty pivotal position at the moment, believes that the rationale behind US foreign policy is that America wants to bomb the rest of the world and take its resources for her own use. It's an observation which could have come straight from the mouth of Osama, but because it's uttered in the received pronunciation of Mr Loyn's BBC tones, no one even noticed it until I picked him up on it. And people wonder if the BBC is anti-American.")

"Be Informed: Chemical Threat"
(Ready.gov, February 2003)

"'Ready Campaign' Unveiled" (John Mintz, The Washington Post, 2003/02/20)
"The Homeland Security Department unveiled a major new advertising campaign yesterday that uses television, radio, newspapers and billboards to urge Americans to prepare for possible terrorist attacks and educate themselves about the differences between chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. ...
A main goal of the ads is to steer Americans to the department's civil preparedness Web site, www.ready.gov, or to the phone number 1-800-237-3239, where people can arrange to receive brochures.
The Web site and other literature detail how people should respond before and after various types of terrorist strikes, with sections on such topics as "Make an Emergency Kit," "Creating a Family Plan," "Deciding to Stay or Go," "In a Moving Vehicle" and 'In a High-Rise Building.'" (See also: Ready.gov.)

"Inspectors Fault Iraqi Follow-Up" (Rajiv Chandrasekaran, The Washington Post, 2003/02/20)
Ironically enough, but hardly surprisingly, we seem to have moved one step closer to war, thanks to the antiwar protesters: "President Saddam Hussein's government, apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at the U.N. Security Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed through on its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors, according to inspectors in Iraq. ...
The overriding analysis among officials here is that Iraq has complied and that everyone, save the U.S. and British governments, now views Iraq as the aggrieved party. ...
Babel, a paper run by Hussein's eldest son, Uday, said the United States and Britain face "humiliating international isolation."
"The antiwar demonstrations across the world reflect a new chapter in the global balance of power," the paper said in an editorial earlier this week. "Everyone has noted that a new multipolar world is emerging. Iraq, with its oil, its resistance, its wise leaders and its strategic vision is an important and fundamental actor in this multipolar world." ...
"They are feeling: The world opinion is with us. We can resist further pressure. We have time. We can play with the U.S. and U.K.," a U.N. official said. 'This is very dangerous.'"

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

News and commentary:

"Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea" (Patrick McGowan, The Evening Standard, 2003/02/19)
"Three huge cargo ships feared to be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are being tracked around the world by British and American intelligence. The vessels, which have been at sea for three months, are believed to be carrying weapons smuggled out through Syria or Jordan. ...
Despite grave suspicions of what is on board, Britain and the US are afraid to order interception by naval ships because of fears the crews would scuttle the vessels, each between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes. If they are carrying chemical, biological or nuclear weapons this could cause catastrophic environmental damage."

"Weasel Watch" (James Taranto, Best of the Web Today, 2003/02/19)
"Meanwhile, Reuters reports that a court in Hamburg, Germany, has convicted Sept. 11 co-conspirator Mounir El Motassadeq of 3,066 counts of accessory to murder. The Germans threw the book at him - only it was a slender paperback. Motassadeq, 28, got the maximum sentence of 15 years - less than two days per victim. Even if he serves out his term, he'll be a free man at 43. His victims will still be dead. We suppose the Germans have to treat accessory to murder as a minor crime, else the whole country would have gone to prison in 1945." (See also: "German Court Jails 9/11 Conspirator for 15 Years" (Philip Blenkinsop, Reuters/Yahoo! News, 2003/02/19))

"Roll Call" (Julia Turner, Slate, 2003/02/19)
28 "prominent people in politics, the arts, entertainment, business, and other fields" answer the question: Do you favor a U.S. invasion of Iraq? Here's Sarah Vowell's answer: "I reminded myself to answer this question by writing it in my to-do list, just below "buy duct tape and plastic sheeting." The reason I would rather not rush off to war in Iraq is also a to-do list issue. The first thing on my foreign affairs post-it note is obliterating Bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaida, followed by giving North Korea the attention they apparently crave. Then, the U.S. might consider Colombia and/or Zimbabwe, after which it could indulge in a wistful moment pondering the legacy of Havel and how he was the only world leader who knew who Moe Tucker is. Finally, America could polish off the list by ganging up with the U.N. and deciding what we are all going to do about Saddam and how France is getting on our nerves."

"Immorality on the March" (Michael Kelly, The Washington Post, 2003/02/19)
"There is every reason to think that a U.S. invasion would swiftly vanquish the few elite units that can be counted on to defend the detested Saddam Hussein; and that the victory would come at the cost of few - likely hundreds, not thousands - Iraqi and American lives. There is risk; and if things go terribly wrong it is a risk that could result in terrible suffering. But that is an equation that is present in any just war, and in this case any rational expectation has to consider the probable cost to humanity to be low and the probable benefit to be tremendous. To choose perpetuation of tyranny over rescue from tyranny, where rescue may be achieved, is immoral. ...
To march against the war is not to give peace a chance. It is to give tyranny a chance. It is to give the Iraqi nuke a chance. It is to give the next terrorist mass murder a chance. It is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of the vanquishing of evil.
This cannot be the moral position."

"The damage is immense - and we're not at war yet" (Janet Daley, The Daily Telegraph, 2003/02/19)
"What an extraordinary amount of damage not going to war can do. The non-war with Iraq is destroying Tony Blair's premiership, undermining Nato, exposing the sham of European unity and re-aligning world power axes. ...
The most tumultuous changes in the world order since the collapse of communism will have been caused not by the actual event of a war, but by a succession of non-events, by a stream of self-important blather and desperate strutting, signifying nothing.
Jacques Chirac has gone from the simply arrogant to the pathologically offensive. He has alienated the Americans in a way that will not be forgotten for a generation. But he has also now insulted the new Eastern European accession countries for European Union membership with a recklessness that is truly breathtaking. ...
So what might the world look like when Saddam is gone? The Middle East will have a hope for peace, America will be locked arm-in-arm with its new friends east of the Rhine, and both the UN, and the EU as we have known it, will look remarkably irrelevant."

"Iraq for the Iraqis" (Ahmad Chalabi, The Wall Street Journal, 2003/02/19)
Chalabi is head of the Iraqi National Congress: "Here in Iraqi Kurdistan, it is easy to sense the people's mood of jubilation as President Bush moves closer to ending Saddam and his Baath party's 35-year reign of terror over Iraq. The Baathist ideology is rooted in the racist doctrines of 1930s fascism and Saddam has used the Baath to create a one-party totalitarian state.
For Iraq to rejoin the international community under a democratic system, it is essential to end the Baathist control over all aspects of politics and civil society. Iraq needs a comprehensive program of de-Baathification even more extensive than the de-Nazification effort in Germany after World War II. You cannot cut off the viper's head and leave the body festering. Unfortunately, the proposed U.S. plan will do just that if it does not dismantle the Baathist structures.
We deserve better. The U.S. has a moral obligation to Iraqis to fight for more." (See also: "Our hopes betrayed" (Kanan Makiya, The Observer, 2003/02/16))

"Al Qaeda's Nightmare Scenario Emerges" (Mansoor Ijaz, The Weekly Standards, 2003/02/19)
"A plethora of available but seemingly unconnected evidence provides important clues for what may be bin Laden's final act. To understand the data, we must be imaginative and accept that al Qaeda's highest military objective is the economic paralysis of the West - killing us softly, to quote Roberta Flack. ...
In a worst case scenario, al Qaeda could construct a crude but effective nuclear device in weeks, if not a month, from Hezbollah C4, North Korean plutonium, and a little nuclear expertise from disaffected Pakistani scientists. Making a "dirty" radiological dispersion device with Strontium or Cesium also remains an option, although it is clear that al Qaeda has the intent and resources to go for weapons that cause maximum collateral damage.
Add to this troubling possibility the fact that the terror group has resorted to the use of seafaring vessels to move its people around, and now has a fleet large and diverse enough that one or two could seamlessly move into a large harbor or congested waterway undetected, and a picture emerges of an unparalleled potential threat to the global economy from the paralysis that could be caused by a crude plutonium bomb exploding in the belly of an al Qaeda ship with bin Laden onboard." (See also: "British Agency Claims New bin Laden Tape" (AP/ABC News, 2003/02/13))

"U.S. delays new Iraq resolution" (Nicholas Kralev, The Washington Times, 2003/02/19)
"A former top Iraqi scientist said in Manila yesterday that he believes Saddam had dismantled his nuclear program but was making chemical and biological weapons hidden deep underground.
"There is no way [the inspectors] can really find them, unless by pure accident," Hussain al Shahristani, a former chief scientific adviser to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, said at a briefing organized by an association of foreign journalists in the Philippines. "These materials are hidden deep underground or in a tunnel system."
Mr. al Shahristani, who said he had been jailed by Saddam's regime for 11 years because he refused to develop banned weapons, said his information came from former colleagues and dissidents who had recently fled Iraq. He escaped from Iraq in 1991 and lives in London.
"There has even been discussion within [Saddam´s] circle to set up what they call a chemical belt around Baghdad using his chemical weapons to entrap the residents of Baghdad inside," he said."

Added one new theme in Themes:
"Peace in our time" - News and commentary on the February 2003 "peace" marches.

Note: Don't miss Evan Coyne Maloney's brilliant mini-documentary from the peace protest in New York City, capturing the absolute naiveté and moral confusion of at least some of the protesters: "Protesting the Protesters" (Evan Coyne Maloney, Brain Terminal, 2003/02/15). Found via The Corner.

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

News and commentary:

"Confusion and Power" (Angelo M. Codevilla, Claremont Review of Books, from the Spring 2003 issue)
Codevilla traces the confusion of Bush's strategy for the "war on terror" from Afghanistan to its possible conclusions in Iraq: "The Bush team's unmade choices could invite ploys to preempt or divert American military power. Saddam might proclaim that troops authorized by the U.N. could enter Iraq, search for, and take away whatever they pleased. Iraqi forces would not fire unless fired upon. The U.N, could then unanimously "authorize" a U.S. military incursion, but narrowly tailored to achieve some kind of "disarmament" while respecting Iraqi sovereignty. Part of the Bush team would be tempted to declare that it had achieved its objectives without bloodshed. Bush could agree with Powell that "disarmament" was the functional equivalent of "regime change." The agony of defeat would follow fast.
It is also possible, however, that U.S. military's advantages over Iraq could overwhelm confused planning. Iraqi troops might well collapse, leading to the shattering end typical of tyrannical regimes. The fate of Saddam could discourage the terror regimes of Palestine and Syria enough so that, under pressure from Israel and Turkey, they would cleanse themselves. Meanwhile, decent Iranians might be heartened to end the terrible regime that, since 1979, had produced misery at home and anti-Americanism abroad. The Saudi royal family could be replaced by persons who actually did useful work and did not feel the need to subsidize the world's terrorists. Following the changes in these regimes, terrorists would no longer hatch faster than we could catch them. After a while, even the Bush Administration might consider sending Tom Ridge back to fixing parking tickets.
Magic? Military success is the closest thing to it. If the battle of Iraq turns out so, America will rightly thank the Bush team, confusion and all. If not, we will have to forgive them, for they know not what they do." (See also: "What War?" (Angelo M. Codevilla, Claremont Review of Books, from the Spring 2002 issue) and "War At Last?" (Angelo M. Codevilla, Claremont Review of Books, from the Winter 2002 issue))

"Human shields arrive in Baghdad" (David Blair, The Daily Telegraph, 2003/02/18)
"Three double-deckers, all crammed with "human shields", had set out from London on Jan 25 to reach Baghdad in time for the day of global protests. But only two of them, with 65 activists, including 18 Britons, made it to the Iraqi capital late on Saturday.
The third was abandoned in Italy after breaking down. Everyone crammed aboard the others, one of which had to be dug out of snow drifts near Istanbul. Several activists dropped out on the way. ...
Ken O'Keefe, their informal leader and a former American marine, burned his US passport and designed himself new travel documents proclaiming him a "Citizen of the World". As a result, he was detained in three countries.
Mr O'Keefe has yet to arrive in Baghdad and Mr Joffe-Walt last heard of him in Syria.
A blonde Norwegian activist created a sensation in Turkey and her picture appeared on the front pages of several tabloids. A typical headline read: "Who would bomb this angel?" Mr Joffe-Walt said: "It was not exactly the kind of coverage we were hoping for." Peter Vandyke, a self-styled "reiki master and spiritual healer" from Portsmouth, drove a London taxi with the convoy.
He described the journey as "horrific" and said: "A lot of people are really sick. They have been sleeping on the buses in sub-zero temperatures."
Mr Vandyke, 38, served in the Royal Navy for eight years and believes that there is no terrorist threat to Britain. Tony Blair was "deliberately terrorising his own people", he said."

"Analysis: Patterns of U.S. protest" (Martin Sieff, UPI, 2003/02/18)
"History provides several very clear, and even unexpected, guidelines for the impact that mass demonstrations have - or do not have - on wars in U.S. history.
First, giant demonstrations, no matter how colossal, outside the United States are unlikely to ameliorate tough military policies pursued by any U.S. government. After 1969, the Nixon administration started phasing out U.S. ground troops from Vietnam - nearly all of them were gone by November 1972. But it did so in response to general domestic political pressures across America, and not directly in response to massive demonstrations against the war in Europe.
Indeed, U.S. forces remained on the ground in large numbers in Vietnam for more than seven years from 1965 to 1972, in the face of all the endless massive demonstrations against them in Europe and elsewhere." (See also: "Analysis: Giant demos transform Europe" (Martin Sieff, UPI, 2003/02/17))

"Saudis launch first al-Qaeda trial" (Magdi Abdelhadi, BBC News, 2003/02/18)
"Saudi Arabian authorities have revealed that 90 Saudi nationals are to stand trial accused of membership of the al-Qaeda network. This would be the first prosecution in Saudi Arabia of alleged members of Osama Bin Laden's organisation. The interior minister, Prince Nayef Bin Abdulaziz, told the Saudi newspaper Okaz that more than 250 detainees were still being investigated on similar charges. There was evidence the 90 Saudis had joined al-Qaeda, the prince also said. ...
Prince Nayef accused what he described as foreign organisations of infiltrating Saudi society and brain washing its youths.
Saudi authorities have repeatedly rejected accusations in American media that the country's puritanical brand of religion, known as Wahhabi Islam, is a breeding ground for Islamic militancy. Prince Nayef's remarks are clearly an indication of the Saudi dilemma: the Saudi rulers are caught between the need to do something about the threat of militant Islam without openly acknowledging that it is a home-grown problem."

"Ex-President Jimmy Carter Backs Our Fight" (Alexandra Williams, The Daily Mirror, 2003/02/18)
The Daily Mirror is known for its fierce anti-Bush and anti-War stance, captured on hysterical front-pages such as "Mourn on the 4th of July - for the victims of George W Bush and his bid to control the world" or "There is a lunatic with weapons of mass destruction 'ramping up' for a war that will imperil the whole world - STOP HIM". Carter seems to approve: "Former US President Jimmy Carter is backing the Daily Mirror's Not in My Name campaign.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner, and the only US president since 1945 never to order American soldiers into war, endorsed our stance on war with Iraq, saying: "You're doing a good job. I am glad about that. War is evil." ... Looking at a copy of the Mirror he said: "I know the Daily Mirror, of course. I know it well. It's getting the message across." ...
In private Carter makes his views about the government known, as a friend of his revealed.
The friend said: "The former President is far too discreet to go mouthing off. But people round here do remember him saying, 'Our State Department never gets upset about anything unless white skin or oil is involved'. His words have rung true again." (See also: "Why does everybody suddenly hate America?" (Alice Thompson, The Daily Telegraph, 2002/07/05) and "STOP HIM" (The Daily Mirror, 2002/12/20))

"Chirac lashes out at 'new Europe'" (CNN.com, 2003/02/18)
"France has been a leading voice against Washington's press for war in Iraq to disarm President Saddam Hussein and is insisting weapons inspectors in the country be given more time.
But 13 countries either set to join the EU or in membership talks have signed letters supporting the United States.
Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."
"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." ...
Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up." ...
"Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way," Chirac said. ...
CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley described Chirac's outburst as "pretty grumpy and imperious."
"For him to lecture these applicant countries or these accepted members on their way in was really behavior like the worst of what the French complain about in the United States," Oakley said." (See also: "Chirac finding pro-US stances hard to stomach" (Michael Settle, The Herald, 2003/02/18))

"This Isn't About Iraq Anymore" (Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, from the 2003/02/24 issue)
Zakaria argues that the Western divisions over Iraq in part can be blamed on bad diplomacy: "The poster child for America's self-defeating machismo is Donald Rumsfeld. He brings to mind another famously impolitic American diplomat, John Foster Dulles. Dulles, Winston Churchill once remarked, "is the only bull I've seen who brings his china shop with him."
Most of Rumsfeld's tart observations are true. In fact they're often dead-on. But he is not a columnist, he's a statesman (thankfully, since he'd drive many of us out of the business). To much of the world his jabs convey an arrogance that speaks not of leadership but domination. Every time Rumsfeld opens his mouth, I think, "There goes another ally!"
The West is now divided, as Owen Harries predicted, partly because of broad, historical forces. But it is also the result of bad diplomacy — on both sides. And unless the latter changes, the demonstrations in Europe over the weekend will mark the opening salvo of a new politics of protest. Europe, instead of being America's leading partner, will become its most energetic opponent. This will be bad for the entire world. After all, when the West has been united it fostered peace. When divided, the result has always been war."

"Toxic Talk on War" (Lawrence F. Kaplan, The Washington Post, 2003/02/18)
Kaplan on the "contention that Israel and a powerful "cabal" of its American supporters have manufactured the present crisis with Iraq": "Seconding this appraisal, conservative writer Georgie Anne Geyer, whose column appears weekly in the Washington Times, reveals how "the fanatic neoconservatives around the administration, the rabid Israel supporters in the White House and the Pentagon," plan to wage war in Iraq and then to "democratize the entire Middle East, including Syria and Saudi Arabia, if necessary by military means, in order to secure Ariel Sharon's Israel." ...
But the real problem with claims such as these is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to quiet criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be."

"My address book is the first casualty of war" (Stephen Pollard, The Times, 2003/02/18)
In that case, mine was the second. If I could write in English without constantly pounding my head against the desk in utter frustration, this is exactly what I'd write just now: "In all my 38 years, I have never before felt such a sense of personal shock. I am shocked that so many of my friends would rather a brutal dictator remained in power — for that would be the direct consequence if their views won out — than support military action by the United States. I am ashamed that they would rather believe the words of President Saddam Hussein than those of their own Prime Minister. I am nauseated that they would rather give succour to evil than think through the implications of their gut feelings.
It is a shocking experience to realise that your friends are either mindless, deluded or malevolent. ...
I have many friends with whom I disagree politically; it would be a small-minded person who could not say that. But this goes beyond mere politics. This is about fundamentals. And what makes it truly shocking is how many normal, apolitical, otherwise decent people are so deeply wrong, so stridently misguided. ...
How can I use the word "friend" to describe such people? It is not that they are wrong, but that our moral frameworks are so entirely different. They wallow in their sense of superiority, but what they wish to protest against, I thank God for. What they consider an affront, I salute. What they regard as a moral outrage, I regard as the only safe way to conduct world affairs. What they stand for, I feel sickened by.
This is not about Left versus Right. It is about freedom: those who are willing to protect it, and those who take it for granted." (Note: Thanks to Angus Cook for the tip.)

"I wanted it to rain on their parade" (Christopher Hitchens, The Daily Mirror, 2003/02/18)
"In my opinion, these brave Kurds and their friends in the Iraqi opposition are fighting and dying on our behalf - and tackling our enemies for us.
It should be a cause for great pride that pilots of the Royal Air Force take a leading share in patrolling the skies over northern Iraq, protecting a decade-long experiment in successful regime change.
During the many years I spent on the Left, the cause of self-determination for Kurdistan was high on the list of principles and priorities - there are many more Kurds than there are Palestinians and they have been staunch fighters for democracy in the region.
It would have been a wonderful thing if hundreds of thousands of people had flooded into London's Hyde Park and stood in solidarity with this, one of the most important struggles for liberty in the world today.
Instead, the assortment of forces who assembled demanded, in effect, that Saddam be allowed to keep the other five-sixths of Iraq as his own personal torture chamber.
There are not enough words in any idiom to describe the shame and the disgrace of this. ...
I desperately wanted it to absolutely pour with rain on Saturday's demonstration - heavy rain on the just and the unjust, and a touch of hard rain and hail on the silly who are being led by the sinister."

"Dear marcher, please answer a few questions" (David Aaronovitch, The Guardian, 2003/02/18)
Aaronovitch has some great questions for the "peace" marchers: "I wanted to ask whether, among your hundreds of thousands, the absences bothered you? The Kurds, the Iraqis - of whom there are many thousands in this country - where were they? Why were they not there? When Tony Benn was confronted by a young pro-war Iraqi woman on Channel 4 news on Saturday night, why did he describe the organisations of the Iraqi and Kurdish opposition as "CIA stooges"? ...
What did you feel about the marchers wearing stickers bearing the Israeli flag and the words "the fascist state"? Did you say to yourself, "Actually, there's only one fascist state in this equation, and it's the one we're effectively marching to save"? ...
While we're about it, why do you think Saddam readmitted inspectors after nearly five years in the first place? Was it because he felt it was the right thing to do? Or was it because of the threat of force? If it was the latter, what does this tell you? Should your protest bear fruit, are sanctions part of your preferred containment strategy (should you desire one)? If not, what replaces them? What do you mean, you don't know?"

"When have millions of Europeans ever been wrong?" (Dennis Prager, TownHall, 2003/02/18)
"With millions of Europeans demonstrating against America, many Americans, raised to regard Europe as an ally, must be wondering what is happening. Some Americans even may be wondering if Europe may be right: after all, when have millions of Europeans ever been wrong?
It is therefore essential that Americans understand the nature of the rift between America and Western Europe (not Eastern Europe, which thanks to its suffering under Communist evil, understands evil and values America) - a rift that will only widen unless one adopts the values of the other. For at this moment, there are two civilizational wars taking place: Islamist hostility to Western liberty and European hostility to American values." (Note: Found via Occam's Toothbrush.)

"Blair's popularity plummets" (Alan Travis and Ian Black, The Guardian, 2003/02/18)
"The rift between Tony Blair and the British public over war against Iraq is today confirmed by an opinion poll which shows for the first time that a clear majority of British voters now oppose a military attack.
The survey, taken over the weekend, reveals that Mr Blair has sustained significant political damage from the debate over Iraq. His personal rating has dropped through the floor to minus 20 points, the lowest level since the petrol crisis two and a half years ago.
This month's Guardian/ICM poll also shows that at least one person from 1.25 million households in Britain went on Saturday's anti-war march in London, confirming estimates that between one million and two million people went on the march."

"Chirac finding pro-US stances hard to stomach" (Michael Settle, The Herald, 2003/02/18)
A revealing report from the press conferance after yesterday's EU summit, found via InstaPundit: "Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, fully aware that the international body's future is on the line, began by appealing to the 15 EU leaders to act together. The international community, he said, demanded that their leaders unite around a common line.
He also told it to the heads of government straight: that if Saddam Hussein continued with his defiance, then the security council would have no option but to face up to its responsibilities - confront the Baghdad regime with military force.
At Mr Annan's hawkish stance, Mr Chirac stood up and, with Gallic passion, began a defence of the French position.
Flinging his arms up and down, he declared that war was a terrible thing and that thousands of innocent people would lose their lives in a second Gulf war. "It is a question of life and death," he said.
It was suggested that, at this point, the most dramatic moment of the evening occurred. Silvio Berlusconi, the diminutive Italian premier, eyeballed Mr Chirac and insisted: "I'm just as concerned about life and death as you are." ...
Then, Tony Blair said his piece, deriding the 12 years of deceit by Saddam and stressing he had to come into compliance "100%".
Looking at his colleagues one by one, he told them bluntly: 'There is no intelligence agency of any government around this table that does not know that the government of Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.'"

"Ship gets arms in and out" (Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, 2003/02/18)
The German Way: "The North Korean ship that last year delivered Scud missiles to Yemen transferred a large shipment of chemical weapons material from Germany to North Korea recently, U.S. intelligence officials said.
The ship, the Sosan, was monitored as it arrived in North Korea earlier this month carrying a shipment of sodium cyanide, a precursor chemical used in making nerve gas, said officials familiar with intelligence reports. ...
After unloading the missiles in Yemen, the Sosan then traveled to Germany, where it took on a cargo of sodium cyanide estimated to weigh several tons. The ship then was tracked as it traveled to North Korea. It arrived at the west coast seaport of Nampo on Thursday, the officials said."

Added in archive:
"Why Germany Isn't Convinced" (Paul Berman, Slate, 2003/02/14)

Monday, February 17, 2003

News and commentary:

"EU moves to heal Iraq divisions" (BBC News, 2003/02/17)
"European Union leaders have ended an emergency summit on the Iraq crisis, saying force should only be used as a "last resort".
But the statement from the 15 leaders, who have been bitterly divided over the issue, warned that weapons inspections could not continue indefinitely without Baghdad's co-operation. ...
The gulf between EU leaders was underlined when President Jacques Chirac said France would oppose any early move towards military action.
Mr Chirac said that there was no need for a fresh Security Council resolution on Iraq while weapons inspections continued.
His comments contrasted sharply with those of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he must be disarmed by force."

"Mona Charen Exposes Menace of Senseless Liberals" (Arnold Beichman, Human Events, 2003/02/17)
A review of Mona Charen's "Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First":
"Such a coupon ought to be signed by Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson, a world-renowned economist, who in his economics textbook as late as 1985 wrote: "What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth."
Six years later there was no more "Soviet planning system" and no Soviet Union itself. Stockbrokers go to jail for stealing from their customers but intellectuals are free to tell more lies when their earlier lies are exposed. And what is the aim of these lies? For America to reconcile itself to its inevitable decline. ...
What makes this tragicomedy of a book so entertaining is that you read some senseless statement that you swear can't possibly be topped and you turn a page and there's Norman Mailer on Castro: "You were the first and greatest hero to appear in the world since the Second World War." But why single out the decaying Normal Mailer when he's in such good Castroite company as Charen lists: George McGovern, Jonathan Kozol, Angela Davis, Jean-Paul Sartre, Todd Gitlin, Susan Sontag and on and on into the totalitarian night.
What gives this book particular relevance today is that virtually the same "useful idiots" (and that includes the Sovietologists in some of our major universities, which, unfortunately, Charen doesn't deal with) are now gunning for President Bush because he wants to rid the world of Saddam Hussein.
For them, America, the greatest democracy in world history, was the enemy yesterday, remains the enemy today and will be the enemy forever. Charen's book is the incontestable evidence."

"The curtain will come down on the peaceniks" (Mark Steyn, National Post, 2003/02/17)
Steyn on the "new Universal Theory", with Harold Pinter as an example: "Addressing the demonstrators on Saturday, he declared that the U.S. is "a country run by a bunch of criminals ... with Tony Blair as a hired Christian thug."
Got that? It's not Saddam who's the thug, it's Tony. It's not the Baathist killers from Tikrit who are the bunch of criminals, it's the Republican