Thursday, August 31, 2006

Insanity Defense for Homicidal Faith?

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From an American Thinker article, Who’s Crazy?:

Who’s Crazy? [/] August 31st, 2006

Was Hitler crazy? He certainly believed in bizarre contra-factual conspiracy theories, had a deep interest in the occult, and is believed by many historians to have so ineptly and arbitrarily handled German military strategy and weapons development that he turned quite possible victory into defeat for the Third Reich.

Does it matter whether or not he was technically insane? Probably not. Judge him by his actions.

The same approach should be taken with those who seek to slay Jews, Americans, and infidels in the name of Islam.

This week saw yet another incident of a young Muslim male traveling to a location where Jews can be found, and attempting to murder them. Omeed Aziz Popal, who drove his vehicle into pedestrians in San Francisco and Fremont, was quickly diagnosed by nearly all the media as a lone, insane young man, a paranoid schizophrenic who had been previously hospitalized. Eyewitnesses who reportedly heard him say “I am a terrorist” were all but ignored by San Francisco media, save for KTVU, Channel 2, the local Fox affiliate.

A pattern has been established for such incidents. Investors Business Daily today lists some items of recent memory:

a Muslim immigrant from Pakistan went on a shooting rampage at a Seattle Jewish center. After coldly and deliberately shooting six women there, suspect Naveed Haq announced, “I’m a Muslim-American; I’m angry at Israel.”

the hit-and-run rampage last spring at the University of North Carolina in which another angry Muslim lashed out at infidels by hitting nine people with a big SUV he’d rented for the occasion.

The Beltway snipers were Muslim converts who admired the 9-11 hijackers. They said their goal was to “terrorize” Washington. One wrote in his diary: “Islam. We will resist. We will conquer.”

the Muslim immigrant from Egypt who fatally shot two at Israel’s El Al ticket counter at LAX


In all these cases, perpetrators were dismissed as deranged, and no terror dots were connected by the media. Officials have proceeded on the basis of theories of isolated acts of madmen.

No doubt part of this is due to what Patrick Poole calls “kafir-phobia” – the suspicion that Americans are so prone to outbreaks of bigotry and violence that any identification of an Islamic basis for the acts would find innocent Muslims hanging from lampposts at the hands of mobs of drooling Christians and Jews.

A secondary motive is the defense of the multiculturalist agenda. Thus, we find San Francisco Chronicle star columnist C.W. Nevius turning Popal’s rampage into a celebration of diversity.

It would be easy to see the tale of a crazed SUV driver who mowed down more than a dozen pedestrians Tuesday in San Francisco and Fremont as another outburst of seemingly random violence in a scary world. But there’s another side to the story.

It is about the people on the streets of San Francisco of every race, ethnicity and background who rushed out of offices, apartments and cars to help the pedestrians struck down. They were mechanics from Hayes Auto Repair, nurses from UCSF, a drywall installer from the Western Addition and many others we will never know.


The column managed to avoid printing Popal’s actual Islamic-sounding name, but did use the acronym SUV three times, as if the vehicle (presumably of American manufacture) were the guilty party worthy of note.

Anyone who goes out and attempts to murder strangers is probably insane, in one sense or another. It is certainly not normal or rational behavior in mainstream American culture.

But what if a culture or subculture glorifies such individuals? What if, within such a group, it is considered quite rational behavior, in that it gains access to heaven, virgins, and glory?

Multiculturalists take it as a matter of faith that all cultures are equally valid, and that a diversity of cultures is a good thing. The last thing they would want to do is establish a system of cultural imperialism, in which the Anglo-American tradition, founded in the Judeo-Christian heritage, is granted normative status.

So if some of those celebrated diverse cultures produce numbers of people who believe that it is noble to slay strangers in the name of their faith, by multiculturalist standards, who are we to stand in judgment? Indeed, who are we to call them crazy?

Draw your own conclusions as to who, exactly, is really crazy?

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Human Rights Organizations In Israel-Bashing Competition?

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a Jerusalem Post article, Amnesty Int'l redefines 'war crimes':

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition [/] Amnesty Int'l redefines 'war crimes' [/] ALAN DERSHOWITZ, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 30, 2006

The two principal "human rights" organizations are in a race to the bottom to see which group can demonize Israel with the most absurd legal arguments and [the] most blatant factual mis-statements. Until last week, Human Rights Watch enjoyed a prodigious lead, having "found" - contrary to what every newspaper in the world had reported and what everyone saw with their own eyes on television - "no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack."

Those of us familiar with Amnesty International's nefarious anti-Israel agenda and notoriously "suggestible" investigative methodology wondered how it could possibly match such a breathtaking lie.

But we didn't have to wait long for AI to announce that Israel was guilty of a slew of war crimes for "widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure, including power plants, bridges, main roads, seaports, and Beirut's international airport."

There are two problems with the Amnesty report and conclusion. First, Amnesty is wrong about the law. Israel committed no war crimes by attacking parts of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

In fact, through restraint, Israel was able to minimize the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, despite Hizbullah's best efforts to embed itself in population centers and to use civilians as human shields. The total number of innocent Muslim civilians killed by Israeli weapons during a month of ferocious defensive warfare was a fraction of the number of innocent Muslims killed by other Muslims during that same period in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, and other areas of Muslim-on-Muslim civil strife. Yet the deaths caused by Muslims received a fraction of the attention devoted to alleged Israeli "crimes."

This lack of concern for Muslims [[slaughtered]] by other Muslims - and the lack of focus by so-called human rights organizations on these deaths - is bigotry, pure and simple.

AMNESTY'S EVIDENCE that Israel's attacks on infrastructure constitute war crimes comes from its own idiosyncratic interpretation of the already-vague word "disproportionate." Unfortunately for Amnesty, no other country in any sort of armed conflict has ever adopted such a narrow definition of the term. Indeed, among the very first military objectives of most modern wars is precisely what Israel did: to disable portions of the opponent's electrical grid and communication network, to destroy bridges and roads, and to do whatever else is necessary to interfere with those parts of the civilian infrastructure that supports the military capability of the enemy.

[…] The strategy of destroying some infrastructure was particular imperative against Hizbullah. Israel first had to ensure that its kidnapped soldiers would not be smuggled out of the country (as other soldiers had been and were never returned), then it had to prevent Hizbullah from being re-armed, especially given that Hizbullah damaged a ship using advanced radar technology provided by the Lebanese army and rockets provided by Iran.

Hizbullah was being armed by Syria and Iran - as those countries themselves admitted - and the president, government, and population of Lebanon overwhelmingly supported the militia's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilian population centers. The Lebanese army actively supported Hizbullah's military actions. Israel was, in a very real sense, at war with Lebanon itself, and not simply with a renegade faction of militants.

HERE'S HOW law professor David Bernstein answered Amnesty's charge: [/] The idea that a country at war can't attack the enemy's resupply routes (at least until it has direct evidence that there is a particular military shipment arriving) has nothing to do with human rights or war crimes, and a lot to do with a pacifist attitude that seeks to make war, regardless of the justification for it or the restraint in prosecuting it [at least if it's a Western country doing it], an international "crime."

[…] THE MORE troubling aspect of Amnesty's report is their inattention to Hizbullah. If Israel is guilty of war crimes for targeting civilian infrastructure, imagine how much greater is Hizbullah's moral responsibility for targeting civilians! But Amnesty shows little interest in condemning the terrorist organization that started the conflict, indiscriminately killed both Israeli civilians (directly) and Lebanese civilians (by using them as human shields), and has announced its intention to kill Jews worldwide (already having started by blowing up the Jewish Community Center in Argentina.) Apparently Amnesty has no qualms about Hizbullah six-year war of attrition against Israel following Israel's complete withdrawal from Southern Lebanon.

As has been widely reported, even al-Jazeera expressed surprise at the imbalance in the Amnesty report:

During the four week war Hizbullah fired 3,900 rockets at Israeli towns and cities with the aim of inflicting maximum civilian casualties.

The Israeli government says that 44 Israeli civilians were killed in the bombardments and 1,400 wounded.

AI has not issued a report accusing Hizbullah of war crimes.


Amnesty does not even seem to understand the charges it is making. Take, for example, this paragraph from its report:

Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield". However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow.


But the issue of human shields and infrastructure are different. The first relates to civilian casualties; the second concerns property damage. Of course Israel intentionally targeted bridges and roads. It would have been militarily negligent not to have done so under the circumstances. But it did not target innocent civilians. It would have given them no military benefit to do so.

The allegations become even more tenuous, as when Amnesty writes, "a road that can be used for military transport is still primarily civilian in nature." By this reasoning, terrorists could commandeer any structure or road initially constructed for civilian use, and Israel could not touch those bridges or buildings because they were once, and still could be, used by civilians. This is not, and should not be, the law.

Consider another example: "While the use of civilians to shield a combatant from attack is a war crime, under international humanitarian law such use does not release the opposing party from its obligations towards the protection of the civilian population."

Well that's certainly nice sounding. But what does it mean? What would Amnesty suggest a country do in the face of daily rocket attacks launched from civilian populations? Nothing, apparently. The clear implication of Amnesty's arguments is that the only way Israel could have avoided committing "war crimes" would have been if it had taken only such military action that carried with it no risk to civilian shields - that is, to do absolutely nothing.

For Amnesty, "Israeli war crimes" are synonymous with "any military action whatsoever."

The real problem with Amnesty's paper is that its blanket condemnations do not consider the consequences of its arguments. (It doesn't have to; it would never advance these arguments against any country but Israel.)

Amnesty International's conclusions are not based on sound legal arguments. They're certainly not based on compelling moral arguments. They're simply anti-Israel arguments. Amnesty reached a predetermined conclusion - that Israel committed war crimes - and it is marshalling whatever sound-bites it could to support that conclusion.

Amnesty International is not only sacrificing its own credibility when it misstates the law and omits relevant facts in its obsession over Israel. It also harms progressive causes that AI should be championing.

Just last year, for example, Amnesty blamed Palestinian rapes and "honor killings" on - you guessed it - the Israeli occupation. When I pointed out that there was absolutely no statistical evidence to show that domestic violence increased during the occupation, and that Amnesty's report relied exclusively on the conclusory and anecdotal reports of Palestinian NGOs, Amnesty stubbornly repeated that "Israel is implicated in this violence by Palestinian men against Palestinian women."

This episode only underscored AI's predisposition to blame everything on Israel. Even when presented with an ideal opportunity to promote gender equality and feminism in the Arab world, it preferred to take wholly unrelated and absurd shots at Israel.

Amnesty International just can't seem to help itself when it comes to blaming Israel for the evils of the world, but rational observers must not credit the pre-determined conclusions of a once-reputable organization that has destroyed its own credibility by repeatedly applying a double standard to Israel.

The writer is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Politics of Envy and Hate? - J :)

Analysis of the Current Political Danger

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a FrontPageMagazine.com article, :

How the Left Was Won [/] By Jamie Glazov [/] FrontPageMagazine.com | August 22, 2006

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Richard Mgrdechian, the author of the new book, How The Left Was Won: An In-Depth Analysis of the Tools and Methodologies Used by Liberals to Undermine Society and Disrupt the Social Order.

[…] FP: So what led you to write this book? [/] Mgrdechian: Over the past several years, I’ve grown more and more concerned by what I saw happening within American society in terms of the increasing levels of divisiveness and the subtle, but undeniably destructive effects that liberal policies were having on the country overall.

I started to realize that there were certain highly predictable and very well-defined patterns that existed within that particular ideology. My book, How The Left Was Won is intended to show readers exactly what these patterns are and -- more importantly -- to demonstrate how all liberal policies are ultimately self-destructive to them, the people they claim to be helping and to the country as a whole.

FP: You refer to “tools” and “methodologies” in your book. Tell us about them. [/] Mgrdechian: Sure. The primary theme of my book is that all liberal statements, arguments, positions, policies and behaviors are nothing more than simple manifestations of the same relatively small set of strategies and assumptions, or what I call “tools and methodologies,” which are simply used over and over again.

For example, the first chapter, “Promote and Exploit Divisiveness,” focuses on class-warfare, man-hating, race-baiting and every other technique liberals use to divide people. Of course liberals always try to turn things around and, not surprisingly, they endlessly accuse conservatives of divisiveness. But to see what divisiveness is really all about, just take a look at the differences between how liberals and conservatives debate an issue.

When conservatives talk about illegal immigration for example, they structure real arguments and focus on things like the immigration being illegal in the first place, the strain on the county’s social services, the economic impact, the impact of trying to absorb too many people who speak a different language and so on. On the other hand, when liberals talk about immigration, they focus on one thing -- calling conservatives racist and telling Hispanics that we hate them. A logical discussion verses promoting and exploiting divisiveness. It’s as simple as that.

Of course there are numerous other tools and methodologies I go into in the book including Group[ Individuals] (which addresses any an[d] all arguments in favor of affirmative action, reparations, quotas or similar situations), Implicit Assumption (which shows why just about all the arguments liberals use to shape public policy are ultimately nothing more than a house of cards), The Perpetual Motion Machine (how all liberal policies either make problems worse or are based on the scientific impossibility of trying to get something for nothing), Relevancy and Proportion and a variety of others.

FP: What do you think are the underlying inspirations of a leftist? [/] Mgrdechian: When you look closely at all the things leftists do and say, you can’t help but notice that they almost always have one very obvious thing in common -- a need to bring others down. A need to undermine, a need to obstruct, a need to get in the way and a need to make themselves feel good by doing and saying superficial things that make no sense on any logical, practical or rational level.


N.B. "Levelers wish to level down as far as themselves; but they cannot bear leveling up to themselves" - Samuel Johnson ..

Unfortunately, one of the best ways for them to deflect criticism or justify these sorts of behaviors is to hide behind some sort of guise. Disguise their attack against one group as an effort to help another. Disguise their hatred as outrage. Disguise their failure as oppression. Disguise their real agenda in any way they possibly can in order to make the viciousness of it seem as though it was actually meant to be benign.

But the reality is that these people are so consumed by their own hatred that they’ll sacrifice anything, anybody, any culture and even the survival of our own country to destroy the people they need to attack. Just look at the viciousness of the attacks against President Bush. We have an entire army of incredibly well financed, well trained and completely fanatical terrorists intent on destroying our way of life. But what do Leftists do anytime Bush tries to anything about the problem? They relentlessly attack him in every vile way they possibly can. These people are so obsessed by their need to destroy others, that they can’t even see straight long enough to save their own lives.

FP: Why do you think the leftist faith is ultimately self-destructive? [/] Mgrdechian: I think the answer can be summed up in two words -- Bad Competition, a concept I discuss in considerable detail in the second chapter of the book.

In that discussion, I offer the following proposition: There are in fact, two and only two types of competition -- good and bad. Good Competition is ultimately productive to the competing elements, while Bad Competition is ultimately destructive.

After describing what I mean by this and giving a few examples, I then provide some definitions. As such, I define Good Competition as: Any competitive effort where a person or organization attempts to achieve success based solely on the strength of their abilities, products or services. Similarly, I define Bad Competition as: Any competitive effort where a person or organization attempts to achieve success through any means other than the strength of their abilities, products or services. Rather than working to improve these elements, those engaged in Bad Competition will typically seek to achieve success primarily through the impairment of others.

Now look at things like affirmative action, quotas, empowerment, increasing taxes, thought-crimes or any sort of preferential treatment or special protections for women, minorities, homosexuals or others. How do these supposedly begin liberal programs help people? Simple -- by hurting others. There is no improvement on an absolute level, there is only improvement on relative level by taking from others, lowering standards, denying opportunities to more qualified people or rewarding people for achievements they never managed to achieve. Clearly this sort of thing can never help a society as a whole; it can only hurt it. Worse yet, over time, this dynamic of penalizing success and rewarding failure can only lead to one thing -- the complete collapse of a society.

This simple rule explains exactly why Hillary Clinton cannot ever be allowed to be President -- absolutely everything about her is based solely on the relentless exploitation of Bad Competition. And Bad Competition will -- without a doubt -- be the death of this country.

FP: What is the best way to fight the Left? [/] Mgrdechian: I think there are two ways to look at that question. The first would be how to fight the Left on an intellectual level, and I think the answer to that part of the question is fairly straightforward: the best way to fight the Left on an intellectual level is through logic, rational arguments and a thorough understanding of exactly what their strategies are.

Unfortunately, debate and logic don’t win street fights and the second way to look at the question is on a practical level -- in other words, what is the best way to fight the Left in order to prevent their ideas and policies from permeating more and more elements of our society? Now that’s a tough one. It’s tough because in a way, liberalism is to politics what fast food is to nutrition -- a quick fix and an easy escape from responsibility. So how do you get people off of that quick fix? The only way that ever seems to work is to force them to go through a complete withdrawal; to go cold turkey.

In other words, don’t compromise. In general, liberalism advances not through sudden shifts in policy, but slowly. Incrementally. A little bit at a time. And the best way to stop this advance is for conservatives to be more proactive in standing up for what they believe in. I admit, it certainly isn’t easy to do -- especially when you know you’ll be relentlessly attacked just for trying to be objective, but it is something that has to be done. If not, I have no doubt that one day we’ll all wake up, stare blankly out our windows and quietly wonder what ever happened to the country we grew up in.

[…] Jamie Glazov [("FP" above)] is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Soviet Studies. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s new book Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of the new book The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Monday, August 21, 2006

Ignorance: Public Relations and Military

{{___ Hi Jim, I think the jews are doing the same thing wrong we are. They are tying to make war look good on TV, but that won't happen. We have to move quick, kick hard and achive our goals as fast as possible. Every time we stop to see what the press or the world says, we lose momentum. #### the torpedoes, full speed ahead!}}

Your remark is right on.

There are other reasons, based on common sense, for using vastly superior mobility and overwhelming force to win before the enemy knows what is happening.

But the nit picking of military ignoramuses, fellow travelers, anti-Americans, crypto-Marxists, crypto-Islamicists, warped moralists, etc., thrives on a drawn out conflict, focusing on every real and imagined and faked bit of human suffering they can ferret out.

The leadership of the United States, both military and civilian, has reflected the basic ignorance of the elites about warfare since World War II.

The leadership of Israel, both military and civilian, seems to have followed in their footsteps now that they do not have an Ariel Sharon in a position to do the right thing despite various "torpedoes" such as superiors ordering him to do the wrong thing.

I am reminded of Major General Stanley, the leader of a late nineteenth century police action against the pirates of Penzance:

I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I’ve information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I’m teeming with a lot o’ news –
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

I’m very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur’s and Sir Caradoc’s;
I answer hard acrostics, I’ve a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I’ve heard the music’s din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you every detail of Caractacus’s uniform:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon” and “ravelin”,
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I’m more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by “commissariat”,
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery;
In short, when I’ve a smattering of elemental strategy,
You’ll say a better Major-General has never sat a gee.

For my military knowledge, though I’m plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the [(19th)] century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

Suicider Recruiter Defects and Speaks

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a Seraphic Secret article, The Convert:

August 20, 2006 [/] The Convert [/] By Cal Thomas

[…] Soloman was brought up in the Islamic tradition and became a "recruiter," which he says is something like an assistant teacher. One of his responsibilities was "brainwashing people in the Koran." He tells me "The suicide bombers go through stages, and the most important stage is not when they blow themselves up. The most important stage is conforming them to the (Muslim) ideology. Once they are conformed to the ideology, the rest is easy. That is the role I had."

Soloman is in double trouble. Not only did he abandon Islam and the terrorists' objectives, he has also become a Christian, which has marked him for death. Born in the Middle East, he visited Washington from his adopted country, which he declines to name to protect his family.

Soloman speaks with knowledge, credibility and conviction. He has memorized large sections of the Koran and tells me, "There's not a single verse in the Koran talking about peace with a non-Muslim, with the Jews and the Christians. Islam means submission. Islam means surrender. It means you surrender and accept Islamic hegemony over yourselves..."

I ask him about the best strategy for fighting it: "It cannot be combated simply by force. It needs to be combated ideologically, spiritually (as well as) through arms."

Soloman says the outlets for Islamic ideology are religious - seminaries, the madrassas (Koranic schools) and especially the mosques. "From the beginning, Mohammed used the mosque to propagate this ideology. It was in the mosque that jihad was declared (and) that troops were sent to conquer the rest of the world. The mosque was the seat of government and Americans are right to be concerned about (their growth)."

He asks Americans to inform themselves about the real teachings of Islam and not to fall for what various Islamic groups say it teaches. Soloman says, "The simplest Islamic book you open" teaches that all unbelievers (in Islam) are profane people. "Because of the (Koranic) text and what it says, it incites violence." He begins quoting verses from memory, too quickly to write them all down. One is, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush." (Surah 9:5)

"This kind of tactic of taking verses out of context can be used against any religious faith," says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic civil rights and advocacy group. "It can and has been used against the Bible and has been used against the Quran." These verses deal with the real experience of the Muslim community at the time when they were under attack. It's not a general injunction to go out and harm people. The only people who take it that way are those who want to promote hostility toward Islam and Muslims. They would object if the same thing were done to their faith."

Yes, but virtually all Christians and Jews denounce the infinitesimal few who claim to be Jewish or Christian and use their "holy books" to justify violence against others as a direct command from G-d.

Asked whether the Koran commands the killing of or violence against all nonbelievers, Ali Khan, national director of the Chicago-based American Muslim Council, replied: "No. (That's) far from the truth. There's nothing in the Koran, no verse that I'm aware of, that advocates the killing of nonbelievers."

The terrorists and those who preach from mosques throughout the Middle East must be reading a different version, then, because virtually all of their sermons that I've read claim their G-d wants them to kill all "infidels."

Soloman says Americans must demand from the leading Islamic hierarchy, such as the Muslim World League and the Union of Imams, a fatwa that makes it clear "that this is not what the text means and that these texts are no longer effective. They have passed their date. But if they remain effective and eternally valid, then in America we have a serious problem."

How serious? He says. "They are infiltrating and undermining every part of this society. We are promoting Islamic mortgages, Islamic insurance companies. There are 29 banks in the United States promoting Islamic banking. Since 1999, Dow Jones has launched Dow Jones Islamic Index and has subjected itself to be governed by an international Sharia board." (Sharia is the religious law of Islam outlined in the Koran.)

Soloman adds, "The Islamic organizations have their missionaries and there are active or sleeping cells in this country." He mentions one, Tablighi Jamaat, "a Pakistani organization that is hand-in-glove with the Wahaabis, strong Muslim sects known for their strict observance of the Koran, and a strong facilitator of al-Qaida and other factions of terrorism. They alone have 1,000 missionaries in New York, 50,000 across the United States. This is only one organization. In 1994, I took a map and started putting pins in it. I found there is not a single state without a mosque. Since then (the number) has increased."

Americans must see past their natural reluctance to paint all members of a group with a broad brush and realize our failure to act now against this clear and present danger in the ways Sam Soloman recommends will lead to a disaster for us that is far worse than our Cold War enemies had envisaged.

Hat Tip: Seraphic Friend, Naomi Regan [/] Posted by Robert J. Avrech at August 20, 2006 10:25 AM Comments […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

ABC Epic Miniseries Remembers 9/11 Honestly and Well

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a Libertas article, An Advance Review of ABC’s Outstanding The Path to 9/11:

LIBERTAS Exclusive! An Advance Review of ABC’s Outstanding The Path to 9/11

I recently attended an advance screening of ABC’s outstanding, epic miniseries The Path to 9/11 (airing this September 10-11), and I came away enormously impressed. Writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh, director David Cunningham, and the whole production team did a magnificent job in presenting the complex events leading up to 9/11 with accuracy, fairness, and artistry. The writing, acting, directing, editing, cinematography, and overall story-telling are first-rate. The Path to 9/11 is fast-paced and thoroughly gripping the whole way. I was not bored for a minute - and neither will you be. The five-hour miniseries (aired over two nights) is based on the 9/11 Commission’s report, and also on ABC News correspondent John Miller’s book The Cell. ABC is going to air the first three hours on Sunday night September 10, and the final two hours (which culminate in a shattering depiction of 9/11) will be shown Monday night, September 11.

[…] This is the first Hollywood production I’ve ever seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Bin Laden. One unbelievable sequence in the miniseries shows how the CIA and the Northern Allliance had Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan surrounded and were about to capture him, but Sandy Berger refused to give them the order to go ahead, and actually hung up the phone on the CIA agent on the ground! The miniseries is also amazing for depicting the Patriot Act as crucial to the safety of this country, and for showing how political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiency are Islamic terrorism’s greatest friend.

I really enjoyed the acting in The Path to 9/11 as well. Harvey Keitel is strong, sympathetic, and quirky as FBI agent John O’Neill, and Donnie Wahlberg is also sympathetic and believable as CIA agent “Kirk.” The standouts though were the wonderful South Asian and Middle Eastern actors who played both the good guys and the terrorists. I would name the actors, but the Path to 9/11 listing on imdb.com is missing a number of cast credits, and the ABC site is equally uninformative. The actor playing Ishtiak, the Pakistani informant who helps the CIA capture Ramzi Youssef, is terrific - he’s really sympathetic, and such an unexpected, shy guy to be playing a hero. I heard behind the scenes that he’s actually a doctor living in London, who does theater on the side. The actor playing Ahmed Shah Massoud (the heroic leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and one of America’s strongest allies) is also terrific, very noble and charismatic (he’s quite handsome too, and seemed to be the particular favorite of the ladies at the screening). The terrorists and Taliban are also very well cast; each character is three dimensional and non-stereotypical in his villainy.

The Path to 9/11 starts with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and covers the international terrorist conspiracy that unfolded over the next eight years and led to 9/11. The miniseries is shocking for taking a pro-American, anti-terrorist approach that is all too lacking in Hollywood’s depictions of the War on Terror (Syriana, Fahrenheit 9/11, and V for Vendetta anyone?). At a time when the resolve of this country in fighting the War on Terror seems to be flagging, The Path to 9/11 - much more than Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center - will remind the nation why we’re fighting this war. The Path to 9/11 provides the context and the history that World Trade Centerinterview yesterday with writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh (who incidentally spoke at the 2005 Liberty Film Festival). This quote from Cyrus will make evident why I’m so excited about this miniseries:

Nowrasteh: This miniseries is not just about the tragedy and events of 9/11, it dramatizes “how we got there” going back 8 years to the first attack on the WTC and dealing with the Al Qaeda strikes against U.S. embassies and forces in the 90s, the political lead-up, the hatching of the terrorist plots, etc. We see the heroes on the ground, like FBI agent John O’Neill and others, who after the ‘93 attack felt sure that the terrorists would strike the WTC again. It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks — but lacked the will to do so. We also reveal the day-by-day lead-up of clues and opportunities in 2001 right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson. I think people will be engaged and enlightened.

[…] Nowrasteh: The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response — or lack of response — to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. COLE in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.


Fortunately, Cyrus and the miniseries producers have gone out on a limb to honestly and fairly depict how Clinton-era inaction, political correctness, and bureacratic inefficiency allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to metastisize. Let me say here though that The Path to 9/11 is not a partisan miniseries or a “conservative” miniseries. It simply presents the facts in a honest and straightforward manner (the producers backed up every detail of the miniseries with copious amounts of research and documentation), and the facts are that for seven years, from 1993 to 2000, the Clinton administration bungled the handling of the world-wide terrorist threat. The miniseries is equally honest in depicting the Bush administration. It shows a couple of points where administration officials, following in the tradition of the Clinton years, do not follow certain clues about the terrorist plot as zealously as they should. Nonetheless, The Path to 9/11, by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it pretty clear that the majority of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only seven months when 9/11 occurred he can hardly be blamed for the entire thing.

The Path to 9/11 does a fantastic job in bringing to life the complex web of international characters and organizations that lay behind the events of that tragic day. ABC has created a miniseries that is truly epic in scope - a richly textured tapestry that weaves together an fascinating array of people, places, organizations and events here in America and around the world. I was really impressed by how vivid every character was, however briefly he or she may be on the screen - and how quickly, clearly, and economically Nowrasteh and Cunningham depicted complex events. I absolutely loved the on-location work they did, and the great character actors of every nationality that they brought together. It was really fascinating to see the crowded urban slums of Pakistan where the CIA captured Ramzi Yousef, the desert fortresses of the Taliban and Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Manila nightclubs where the 9/11 hijackers planned their attacks, the Tanzanian locales where the embassies were blown up, the meetings of the terrorists in Spain, and the various locations across America where the conspiracy came together.

Let me just wrap up by saying that what I really loved about The Path to 9/11 was the following: the honesty with which it told the story behind 9/11 with all its political ramifications; the epic scope and sweep of the story; the vivid and interesting characters of all nationalities that were brought to life; the great use of international locations; and the outstanding cinematography and editing (the miniseries has a great documentary-realist style that comes from director David Cunningham’s background as a documentarian. Cyrus Nowrasteh tells me that they had five cameras going at all times, which accounts for the great natural moments between the actors, and the swift pace of the storytelling).

[…] Every American, and everyone alarmed by Islamic terrorism around the world should see this miniseries. The Path to 9/11 should get every Emmy award and Golden Globe award out there - if this town is willing to be fair and open-minded.

[…] This entry was posted on Friday, August 18th, 2006 at 2:00 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
13 Responses to “LIBERTAS Exclusive! An Advance Review of ABC’s Outstanding The Path to 9/11” […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Heartbreak and Consolation in Israel

From a National Post [Canada] article, Israel's Broken Heart:

[…] Still, in the Jewish calendar, the summer weeks after the fast of the Ninth of Av, commemorating the destruction of the Temple, are a time of consolation. "Be consoled, be consoled, my people," we read from the Torah on the Sabbath after the fast. And so we console ourselves with the substantial achievements of the people of Israel during this month of war.

First, our undiminished capacity for unity. My favorite symbol of that unity is the antiwar rapper, Muki, whose hit song during the era of Palestinian suicide bombings lamented the absence of justice for the Palestinians but who, this time, insisted that the army needs to "finish the job" against Hezbollah.

Second, our middle-class children, with their cell phones, iPods, and pizza deliveries to their army bases. In intimate combat, they repeatedly bested Hezbollah fighters, even though the terrorists had the advantage of familiar terrain. This generation has given us some of Israel's most powerful images of heroism, like the soldier from a West Bank settlement and father of two young children who leaped onto a grenade to save his friends, shouting the Shema -- the prayer of God's oneness -- just before the grenade exploded. Along with the recriminations, there will be many medals of valor awarded in the coming weeks.

But the last month's fighting is only one battle in the jihadist war against Israel's homefront that began with the second intifada in September 2000. Israel won the first phase of that war, the four years of suicide bombings that lasted until 2004. Now, in the second phase, we've lost the battle against the rockets. But the qualities this heartbreak has revealed -- unity and sacrifice and faith in the justness of our cause -- will ensure our eventual victory in the next, inevitable, bitter round. Such is the nature of consolation in Israel in the summer of 2006.

- Yossi Klein Halevi is a foreign correspondent for The New Republic and senior fellow of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. [My ellipses and emphasis]


From the King James translation of the Hebrew scriptures:

Isaiah 40:1 KJV Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.

Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Friday, August 18, 2006

What Happened to Israeli Will to Win?

Yuval Steinitz has the answer.

It was a departure from the warrior culture of free men.

(The noted military historian, John Keegan, in his "History of Warfare", like Steinitz's authority, Victor Hansen, demonstrates the obvious origins of fight-to-the-finish warfare in the ancient Greek democratic city states.)

As statism decreases freedom, the inclination of the populace to resist the enemies of freedom declines.

From Ben Gurion to Ariel Sharon, the fighting spirit of the ancient Greek democracies was kept alive in Israel (a part of the modern West, actually.)

The post World War II departure from the warrior ethic of the West has now reached Israel.

But, perhaps, in Israel we may see its rebirth.

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a Haaretz .com article, The war that was led astray:

The war that was led astray [/] By Yuval Steinitz

Why was Israel prevented from trouncing a relatively minor terror organization, like Hezbollah, operating from the smallest, weakest nation in the region? How did we fail, not only to achieve our declared objectives, but in the far more vital effort of protecting the State of Israel from a missile and rocket attack for more than four weeks? Was this a specific failure of an inexperienced political leadership? Or perhaps the product of haughty, arrogant Israel Defense Force top brass, who closed its ears to criticism of exaggerated dependence on air power? Or perhaps, are these all symptoms of a far more serious disease: the culture of war we adopted since the first war in Lebanon in 1982.

In his book, "Carnage and Culture" (Doubleday, 2002), American military historian Victor Hanson explores the question of why the West (nearly) always wins? For 2,500 years, from ancient Greece to the present day, Western armies vanquished their non-Western adversaries in almost every war, with rare exceptions when the West was caught completely by surprise or was exceptionally outnumbered

A comprehensive examination of important battles, from the Battle of Salamis in which the Athenians defeated the Persian fleet to the Battle of Midway in World War II in which the Americans defeated Japan refutes widespread assumptions that Western military superiority is explained by greater valor, military-technology advantage or greater economic strength. Hanson argues that the secret is that Western military forces are more effective killers. This results from the "citizens' army" model created in a Western "open society," which was born in the ancient Greek tradition of storming the enemy.

Whie Ancient, Eastern monarchs considered war a sport, a game of balance between forces, ancient Greek democracy gave rise to an utterly unsportsmanlike perception of war. It viewed war as a fight for liberty and freedom of community and citizen, an existential fight to the death. Its primary objective was not to defend city and homeland but, to the greatest extent possible, to prevent the enemy from recovering in time for another round. While non-Western forces strive to gain points, their Western adversaries strive for a knockout.

Emanuel Kant said that the nature of democratic nations prevents them from seeking superfluous wars and causes them to seek peace with their neighbors. Democracies strive for peace, Kant says, because their citizenry are unprepared to risk lives and property for marginal issues. But free citizens also have considerable interest in achieving a victory that would prevent or delay their adversaries' recovery and prevent or delay the next war.

Ben-Gurion and Sharon [/] The culture of war, handed down by David Ben-Gurion and expressed most aptly in the '70s and '80s by Ariel Sharon, was a Western culture of storming, siege and frontal confrontation with the enemy. This was also true when the price of daring military action was seemingly unbearable loss. With Ben-Gurion the Israel Defense Forces rushed to take advantage of every opportunity to trip up the enemy, in an effort to surround and destroy the enemy as an attacking force.

Ben-Gurion declared: "Even if Israel wins 50 wars, it will not defeat the Arab world, but the Arabs have to win only one war to destroy the State of Israel." Ben-Gurion emphasized this asymmetry to explain the need to deliver the fiercest, most painful, blows to delay the strategic and psychological recovery of the other side.

Even in the War of Independence, Ben-Gurion did not make do with thwarting enemy goals and respectable, defensive achievement. Though Israel stopped the Egyptian army at Ashdod and gradually pushed it beyond Israeli borders, Ben-Gurion ordered an exhausted IDF to repeatedly isolate the invading army as it withdrew and confront its withdrawing forces again and again.

Nor did the IDF limit itself to defensive action in 1956 and 1967, but the most interesting examples of this Ben-Gurionesque culture of war were implemented in 1973 and 1982 by first-major general and then-minister of defense Ariel Sharon. The crossing of the Suez Canal in the Yom Kippur War was a clear example of the Western culture of war: Sharon swept military and political leaders with him to a definitive victory. By means of daring and inordinately difficult maneuvers, a surprised and beaten IDF, penetrated front lines to isolate and surround the Egyptian Second and Third Armies and destroy them by means of fire, starvation and thirst.

Lebanon, 1982 [/] The unprecedented public debate that surrounded the first war in Lebanon and its objectives actually represented profound debate of the culture of war. The Israeli public and media led the Knesset and cabinet to argue the wisdom of a tactical war (code-named "Little Pines") to defend the Galilee from cannon and Katyusha fire versus a strategic war (code-named "Big Pines") to defeat the enemy, aka the PLO, as a military force in Lebanon.

Defending the Galilee from artillery fire, then as now, required pushing the enemy to a line 30-40 kilometers beyond the border. That was the stated objective of the war as defined by the cabinet and Knesset. But the minister of defense had other plans. Sharon saw the war as an opportunity to achieve a two-fold victory: First, a defeat of the PLO as a military force in Lebanon; and second, long-term protection of our northern border by signing Lebanon to a peace agreement.

Treading the limits of legitimacy and democracy, Sharon swept the cabinet and army to a war that was supposed to end in a crushing knockout. Like British Admiral Horatio Nelson, who raised a telescope to his blind eye to ignore orders, Sharon claimed "confusion" upon reading the cabinet decision. Instead of ordering the IDF to push the PLO from South Lebanon to the north, he ordered the IDF to land troops north of Sidon to block the path of the withdrawing PLO and push the PLO back to the South. Thus, the IDF might confront the PLO and destroy its military force.

An examination of military history since the first war in Lebanon reveals gradual disengagement from the traditional Western culture of war. Sometime in the '80s, we ceased to speak of our desire to defeat the enemy or destroy its military capability by means of a knockout and began to nurture a culture willing to settle for a "victory in points" or "engraving" something "in their conscience." In other words, it was enough for the other side to integrate the knowledge that it would be difficult to defeat us. Sometime in the '80s, "victory" became pejorative and we began to speak of the "appearance of victory" or the "effect of victory on the conscience." This presumably could be achieved at a relatively low cost in human life.

During the '90s, we began to replace Ben-Gurionesque doctrine with a new concept of static, low-risk war with few as possible losses on the ground while relying, to an exaggerated extent, on air power to defeat the enemy.

Second war in Lebanon [/] In the war just ended, Israel behaved as if it viewed the battle as a wrestling match, scored in points: who suffered the heaviest losses in equipment and infrastructure, who displayed the highest morale under fire? This was expressed not only in the management of the war by its leadership but in IDF power structure.

The ambition to deliver a strategic defeat, along the lines of the "Big Pines" plan and requiring an invasion on the ground, has vanished into thin air. The decision to fight a defensive, tactical "Little Pines" war was made only after the cease-fire timing that barred any chance of completion. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert found himself in a perfect reversal of the role played by Ariel Sharon in 1982. Sharon led the people and the government astray by leading the army far beyond the 40 kilometers approved by the government. Olmert, who sought to prevent even a limited ground operation, led the people and the nation astray while preserving the appearance that he was striving for a strategic defeat.

For Olmert, the problem was that, at war's end, the army and the people forced him to surrender to his own rhetoric and the dynamics left in its wake: He was forced to declare a victorious final ground action that would justify expectations he created, and the fact that he sent northern residents into shelters.

At that stage, Olmert led the people and the government astray in an attempt to create the futile display of a near victory snatched from our hands at the last moment by UN involvement. To achieve this, Olmert first presented a decision to the cabinet to implement a would-be "Little Pines" plan to the Litani River, but immediately delayed implementation of that plan until the UN Security Council decision rendered it a "no go." Then, and only then, the IDF received a dazed order to march forward swiftly and without purpose. Thus, the mission to conquer areas south of the Litani was destined to fail, at its inception, because of timing. And that was nothing compared to the failure to complete the mission of destroying Hezbollah forces in the South.

Power structure [/] The failure of the Second War in Lebanon is the failure of the new culture of war. Though the PM, the minister of defense and the chief of staff are among its most profound representatives, they are not to be solely blamed for its result. The IDF's plan for war and its current power structure, mainly formulated during the terms of the previous chief of staff and defense minister, teach us that Olmert Peretz, and Halutz represent a profound social and cultural problem in our society.

The rush to victory in battle requires a willingness to take risks of the "he who dares wins" variety. However, even if daring pays off in the long run, it occasionally and naturally leads to resounding failure. Striving for a win on the ground is a risk, as there is no ground battle without casualties. "We count our dead and we are proud of that," Prime Minister Olmert said in his Knesset address at the war's end. But if counting the fallen causes vacillation and indecisiveness, and annihilates ambition to deliver a strategic victory, how could gains become anything but losses, in terms of strategic objectives or loss of life?

[…] Were it possible to solve every problem by means of air intervention, why continue to empower ground and naval forces? One factor that made neglect in the military power structure more severe was the self-persuasion of senior security force members who believed that conventional warfare had seen its final days. A total of 23 years without frontal conflict between the IDF and Arab armies allowed ministers of defense, chiefs-of-staff and other experts to develop a military version of the "End of History" theory. It was expressed in the belief that the conventional military threat to Israel had been permanently replaced by the threat of unconventional weapons, on one hand, and terror, on the other.

This concept remained intact even though we witnessed a conventional clash between the United States and Iraq; a clash which included broad ground maneuvers alongside the battle in the air. One must wonder, to some extent, how, after witnessing these battles, we permitted ourselves to cut plans to improve capability?

Dogmatic slumber [/] The slap in the face we absorbed, in Ze'ev Schiff's terms, has woken us from our dogmatic slumber. A great miracle happened here in that our weaknesses and our defects were exposed in the face of a relatively small and marginal enemy, incapable of threatening our very existence.

[…] As to questions regarding power structure preferences, such as providing armored units equipment to counter anti-tank weaponry, completion of the development of rocket-intercepting weapons, or the development of precision and rapid fire power from land and sea, we will need to refine these. We have just begun to contend with our culture of war and culture of denial, which are at the very heart of the matter. If we bravely and wisely learn the right lessons, we will be able to say with satisfaction that "out of the strong came something sweet." (Judges 14:14) [My ellipses and emphasis]

Sunni / Shiite Differences, History

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a San Antonio Express-News article, Differences muddy in Sunni-Shiite split:

Mansour El-Kikhia: Differences muddy in Sunni-Shiite split [/] Web Posted: 08/17/2006 10:44 PM CDT [/] San Antonio Express-News

Most Americans know little about Islam and even less about its various sects. However, they are not alone. Few Muslims know the differences, either. [/] Islam has two major sects; Sunnis are 87 percent, and Shiites, with their offshoots, make up the rest.

The split between the two was initially political, not doctrinal, and precipitated by the death of Prophet Mohammad in 632. To the chagrin of the supporters of the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law Ali, the Prophet died without naming a successor. The Shiites, as they came to be called, believe all the Prophet's successors must come from the house of the Prophet.

Imam Ali was a warrior and a philosopher par excellence, but an awful politician. As a result, he couldn't maintain his hold on the Caliphate, which he lost to Muawiya, the first Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty (661-750). Ali was murdered by a supporter in 661 for allowing Muawiya to rob him of the Caliphate.

The battle continued between Ali's son, Hussein, and Muawiya's son, Yazid. Hussein was caught and executed by Yazid's forces. Supporters who promised him an army betrayed him. Every year, Shiites around the globe lament his death with graphic displays of mourning and self-mutilation.

Sunnis are Orthodox. They believe the relationship between individuals and God is very private. Hence, there are no intermediaries, clergy or shortcuts to heaven. All physical and mental actions in this world determine one's standing in the next. A fierce battle took place between Muslims advocating reason and those advocating faith in understanding God. Faith overcame reason, and as a result, reinterpretation of the text was discouraged after the 12th century. [/] Sunnis believe faith is a personal choice. Hence, the claim by some people that Muslims want to conquer the world is hogwash.

Shiites, on the other hand, have developed a clergy system with Talibu Ilm (seeker of knowledge) as the entry level and Ayatollah ul-Uzma (the Great Sign of God) as the highest level in the hierarchy. [/] There are a number of subsects, the Threers, the Fivers and the Twelvers. These numbers refer to Imam Ali and his descendants, whom the groups revere. According to Shiite theology, the 12th Imam went into occultation and will come back to herald the coming of the Mahdi (the guided one), who will herald the return of Jesus Christ.

Every Shiite must adopt and follow a clergyman as a living source of knowledge. Unlike the Sunnis, the Shiites never closed the door on the use of rationality. Hence, one would think the possibility for rapid evolution and a reformation is possible.

So how did the sects diverge so much? Well, they don't really diverge in the fundamentals of Islam. They both adhere to the five tenets of Islam. They differ in the application. [/] For example, Sunnis insist on praying five times a day. Shiites believe the Koran gives them the leeway to combine prayers and reduce it to three times. This doesn't sit well with the fundamentalists. Also, Shiites reject many of the religious instructions attributed to the Prophet.

Shiite clergy use religious edicts, or fatwas, to institute change. Like papal bulls, they are binding on the believers. A higher authority can only overturn a fatwa declared by a clergy in the hierarchy. Therefore, new interpretations and changes are quite possible for Shiites. To nonfundamentalist Sunnis, fatwas are important but not binding.

The major concentration of Shiites is in Iran and Iraq; a sprinkling on the Arab side of the Gulf and Pakistan is not a coincidence. Until the Safavid Dynasty in the 16th century, Iran was not Shiite. Shah Ismael decided to adopt Shiism to distinguish Iranians. [/] Shiite communities in Lebanon and Syria are what are left of the Fatimid Dynasty in the Levant area. The Fatimids were Arab Shiites who controlled Egypt and North Africa during the 10th and 11th centuries. Most of North Africa was Shiite and still retains some elements of Shiism. The mixture has resulted in a very tolerant brand of Islam, quite unlike Iran and Saudi Arabia, which represent the extremes and, hence, the rivalry.

Both are so caught up in the image that they forgot what the original looks like. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Quotation: Who? Where? When?

(Link posted later.)

I report. You decide. - J :)

A Decline in Courage

[---] may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Monday, August 14, 2006

Hezbollah War: Unmitigated Disaster?

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From an American Thinker article, Another Such Victory:

Another Such Victory [/] August 14th, 2006

“Another such victory and we are undone.” —Pyrrhus, after the Battle of Asculum (279 B.C.)

You know you’re in trouble when Israel lets you down.

One of the few useful methods of judging the results of a war is whether you are better off at the end than at the beginning. (This may sound pretty straightforward, but in fact it’s not that simple. A historian – whose name I can’t recall – once pointed out that World War II began as an attempt to save Poland from takeover by an aggressive dictatorship. So was the war [(World War II)] a success or a failure? Easily answered – if you’re a Pole.)

It’ll be some time before the chips stop falling, but the outline is clear enough: the Hezb’allah War (or the Second Lebanese War or the First Campaign in the Dissolution of the Zionist Entity) is an unmitigated disaster for Israel, the U.S., and the West at large.

This doesn’t mean Hezb’allah has won – though that’s how it will be played throughout the Arab world. It means simply that the only rational goal of the war – the destruction of Hezb’allah as a military power – has not been achieved. Hezb’allah still exists, it still has a large fraction of its weaponry, it remains a threat to both the legitimate Lebanese government and Israel. It also has gained the prestige that comes from fighting a powerful enemy to a standstill.

Israel, on the other hand, has not only been stalemated on the battlefield for the first time, but has also suffered a stunning economic blow, with most of her northern cities emptied out and close to a million refugees to care for. The Israelis blew off the propaganda war completely, allowing themselves to be painted worldwide as child-killers while tossing aside their first-ever expression of sympathy from the major Arab states. Their military has been exposed as a clown act, their political system as completely dysfunctional, unable not only to rise to meet a crisis situation but even to recognize it. Their enemy remains, fully-armed, on their northern border, and their security has become the ward of the UN, that notorious New York-based child prostitution and bribery ring. It didn’t have to be this way. The Israelis opened the war with a series of well-planned air strikes which succeeded in isolating southern Lebanon from resupply or reinforcement. All that remained was a swift attack in force in the customary Israeli style. (It’s one of the ironies of history, not often mentioned, that it was the Israelis who adapted and perfected the German combined-arms strategy known as the blitzkreig, which the Germans in their turn borrowed from the Soviets.) Hezb’allah, a guerilla force of small size—the number of active combat troops is uncertain, with estimates ranging from 1,000 – 6,000—with no real mobility or heavy weaponry, could not have stood up against this.

For the first week to ten days of the war, this appeared to be exactly what the Israelis had in mind. But it never came to pass. Precisely why remains unknown, beyond the fact that Ehud Olmert wanted it that way. The IDF ran into some trouble at the border with mines and fortifications, Hezb’allah having been allowed to work on them for six years undisturbed, but these were little more than a shell and could have easily been pierced by combat engineers. But this was probably no more than a contributing factor.

If asked to speculate, I would point out that the IDF’s chief of staff, Dan Halutz, is an ex-air force commander. Air force officers placed in a position to affect the course of a war have a long history of claiming that their boys can do the entire job on their own with no assistance from ground-pounders (e.g., Goering in 1940, the USAF staff in 1965). What happens then is a series of limited strikes that accomplish little, followed by more and larger strikes, and then desperation raids on any conceivable target before the military settles for doing what it should have done in the first place. This narrative fits the war to a tee. Even down to the fact that, when the time came to throw in the ground forces, it was simply too late. (To give credit where it’s due, the IAF did succeed in destroying most of Hezb’allah’s stock of Iranian Zelzal long-range missiles at the start of the war—apparently one of the few elements of prewar planning that went as foreseen.)

Time was bought by the major Arab states, who were anxious to see the radical Shi’ites bounced even if it was done by Jewish interlopers, and an all-out campaign by the U.S. to keep the UN from interfering. This offered Israel an unprecedented window of opportunity. But Israel wasted that window by consistently playing to Hezb’allah strengths. Ground troops were dribbled into combat in penny packets, becoming bogged down in fortified villages like Bint Jbeil, which should have been bypassed and reduced at a later time. Even after IDF troops were ignominiously ejected from Bint Jbeil, the IDF failed to move in force, leaving the advantage to Hezb’allah. The mass offensive that should have opened the war occurred only at the last possible moment, and then solely to give a jolt to the UN.

In the meantime, the air campaign had fallen victim to a well-planned Hezb’allah PR operation, complete with an impresario, the notorious “Green Helmet” (who insists that he’s simply a civil defense worker doing his job, presumably with his own personal helicopter to fly him from site to site), an apparent stash of ready corpses, and a cadre of news photographers either too enthusiastic or too frightened to protest at being used as propaganda conduits. (The record, as represented by the immortal Adnan Hajj – who has a great future in any Muslim news service if he can only be trained to use Photoshop – and the “Passion of the Toys”, seems to tilt strongly toward “enthusiastic”.)

The trap being prepared, the IAF obligingly fell in, bombing targets to little tactical or strategic purpose – a “Katyusha launcher” can be created with about $20 worth of hardware—though well aware that the Hezb’allah was placing its assets at points where civilian casualties were inevitable. The result was a quick reversal by previously understanding Arab governments, a universal moan by the easily-flummoxed Western elite, and second thoughts by Israel’s allies.

All this time, the Katyushas kept falling on northern Israel in their hundreds and thousands (the total is an astonishing 4,000). Hezb’allah had deliberately modified the warheads for greater terror effects, adding loads of ball bearings and other forms of shrapnel. The missiles effectively cleared out the country’s northern tier, with remaining residents spending most of their days in bomb shelters. This created an image of Israeli helplessness that was both spurious and unnecessary – the original Israeli war plan would have solved that problem within a matter of hours. That image will not be forgotten either in Arab countries or Israel itself.

And now we have a cease-fire, one, mirabile dictu, acceptable to both parties. It seems to envision a muscular UN peacekeeping force on the Lebanese border consisting of 15,000 troops. Presumably these will be actual soldiers instead of the whoremasters and entrepreneurs that customarily operate under the UN name (between Hezb’allah and the Israelis, it appears that brothels wouldn’t have all that much of a future in the area in any case). But with the U.S. embroiled in Iraq and elsewhere and NATO involved in Afghanistan, it’s anybody’s guess where they’ll come from.

The ceasefire also creates a number of interesting possibilities: for instance, if Hezb’allah again starts lobbing Katyushas into Northern Israel, does the UN then turn on Hezb’allah, or do the Israelis attack through the UN forces? (The latest word at publication time is that the Israelis claim the right to do exactly this.) Security Council Resolution 1701 appears to represent good thinking all around. (Condi Rice has taken a lot of flack for her role in arranging the cease-fire. But it has to be remembered that Dr. Rice is the U.S. Secretary of State, with American interests her prime concern. When it became apparent that Israel had fumbled the ball, those interests became paramount. She defended them as required.)

The results of this war will be months in coming, and few will be good (e.g., expect to see a lot more katyushas in Iraq. A lot more.) But the most critical development is this: one of the major elements – perhaps the major element – of Israeli foreign policy is the premise that under no circumstances would Israel be dependent on any other nation for its survival. It could scarcely be any other way, the Jews being the sole existing people that the modern world once attempted to destroy. To depend on anyone else would be to invite a repetition of that ordeal. No greater responsibility lies on the shoulders of any Israeli politician than to see that situation maintained.

But now, thanks to Ehud Olmert, it is over. Israel now depends for its security on the United States and the UN. These are frail reeds. The U.S. has always been faithful, but that can no longer be guaranteed, with the Democrats now being taken over by their maniac wing. That’s unlikely to be permanent, but may continue for several years… and all it takes is one more Jimmy Carter. As for the UN, they have never given a %%%% and never will. Apart from incompetence, there’s the barely concealed contempt for Israel, bordering on blatant anti-Semitism, plainly evident in Kofi Annan and his people. The organization still believes that Zionism is racism. To depend on its goodwill is to tempt a second Holocaust.

Israel now needs to do three things:

* The first is a purge of the IDF’s command cadre. It’s impossible to say what has gone wrong with the IDF, but that’s just the point. It has gone wrong all the way down the line. Three incidents will suffice: last year the IDF abandoned development of the Northrop THEL system, a laser cannon configured to destroy missiles of the Katyusha class that had performed promisingly in tests. The reasoning was extremely vague. The system was “too bulky”, didn’t work well if it was cloudy, and so forth. If purchased at the time, it would have been coming on line right about now. While not quite a Starship Enterprise phaser bank, the THEL is an impressive weapon that would have curtailed the panic generated by Hezb’allah’s missiles in much the same way that the RAF encouraged the British people while being unable to fully stop the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940.

Similarly, the IAF failed to procure a reasonable supply of bunker-buster bombs even though aware that Hezb’allah had six years to fortify and tunnel. Again, this would not have completely solved the problem – some Hebollah tunnels were over 120 feet deep – but it’s still a sign of gross unpreparedness, particularly on the part of ex-air force chief Dan Halutz.

Even more troubling are reports that tanks were being ordered into heavily-defended areas of southern Lebanon with no imfantry accompaniment – which is simply asking for them to be blown away. Dealing with enemy anti-tank teams has been a textbook matter since the Normandy breakout in WWII. Infantry assaults the enemy teams, creating a hole for the armor to roar through. If there’s any truth is these stories, it reveals incompetence of a criminal degree. Courts martial should follow.

Whether the problem is political in origin, with officers bowing to interfering officials to protect their careers, cronyism, with inept officers promoted because they served with the right individual or unit, or institutional or doctrinal failings, it has to be exposed and corrected. Israel does not have two military failures coming to it. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t have one. I’m not certain whether the Knesset holds public hearings on issues such as this, but if it does, they ought to begin within weeks.

* Get rid of Ehud Olmert. The man has proven himself incapable beyond recall. Democracies have a tendency to throw up such types in times of crisis before settling on the right man. It happened in Athens, and it happened in America (look up the careers of Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, for example.) Olmert not only failed to understand how to carry out his war, he failed to understand why it was being fought in the first place. According to Israeli sources, Olmert was heard remarking that the purpose of the war was that it would enable Israel to “remove its settlements from Samaria”. This is as if George Bush had concluded that the point of 9/11 was to give Manhattan back to the Indians. Of course the alternative, the suave (and corrupt) media figure and playboy Benjamin Netanyahu is no prize, but at this point Jojo the Dogfaced boy would be an improvement. This is a case where the parliamentary system adapted by Israel is superior to ours: they can get rid of the useless politician.

* Target Hezb’allah for annihilation by any means necessary. This means every last active combatant. These are not Palestinians who can pose as helpless refugees. They are a terrorist organization and every member is, by definition, a criminal. Their treatment needs to be Biblical, with each member serving as a demonstration that no hand can be raised against Israel without the wrath of Yahweh searching him out from that moment on. Make no mistake: Hezb’allah has humiliated Israel. The country – and the Middle East, and the world at large – will not be safe until that stain is wiped out.

As for us – meaning the rest of the world – we’ll be seeing a lot of Sons of Hezb’allah springing up in the near future. Hezb’allah has taken the pennant from Al-Queda, and are now the heroes of the pathological sector of Muslim manhood, who will be doing their best to emulate them all across the Muslim world. And of course, Al-Q will have to make some effort to get the pennant back….

The first phase of the War on Terror has now ended. It could have, and should have, gone better, in a number of ways on a number of fronts. As it is, we can only repeat what Grant said to Sherman, as the two of them stood in the rain the evening after the carnage of Shiloh: “Whip ‘em again tomorrow.”

J.R. Dunn is a frequent contributor. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Lebanon Ceasefire: No Moral Compass?

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a National Review Online article, If Turtle Bay Had a Moral Compass...:

August 12, 2006, 7:34 a.m. [/] If Turtle Bay Had a Moral Compass... [/] An alternative resolution on “The Situation in the Middle East.” [/] By Claudia Rosett [World's greatest expert on U.N. corruption. - J :)]

It’s happy hour at the United Nations. After four weeks of Hezbollah-provoked war in Israel and Lebanon, accompanied by much diplomatic hand-wringing, the U.N. Security Council met Friday evening to adopt 15-0 its latest attempt to paper over the real problems: Resolution 1701 on “The Situation in the Middle East.” This resolution is meant to deliver the “ceasefire” that Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been calling for, also described in the lingo of the U.S. State Department as a “cessation of hostilities.”

Unfortunately, if Resolution 1701 has any effect at all, its real meaning is that we now embark on a period in which Hezbollah will seize the opportunity to regroup and reload. The feeble and compromised mix of U.N. peacekeepers and the Lebanese army, which is the force authorized in this resolution, will fail to stop them. Iran and Syria will proceed apace with their terrorist infection and subjugation of Lebanon. The U.N. will wave around this latest piece of paper to try to prevent Israel from defending itself, or, for that matter, defending the rest of us against the “Death to Israel! Death to America!” Hezbollah agenda. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, enjoying yet another confirmation of the U.N.’s mincing impotence in the face of guns, bombs, rockets, and terror, will continue his fevered preparations to roll out the nuclear bomb.

In sum, it’s already time to start drafting the next resolution: [/] UNSC DRAFT RESOLUTION 1701-Plus [/] The Security Council,

Recalling that all its previous resolutions on the situation in the Middle East have failed to evict terrorists and Syrian toadies from Lebanon, failed to stop Iran’s terror-sponsoring and nuclear-bomb-building projects, failed to protect Israel from unprovoked attack, and failed to bring peace.

Recalling also that Israel in 2000 withdrew entirely from Lebanon to the satisfaction of the U.N., and that Hezbollah deliberately provoked this war by killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers inside Israel’s borders, and — in some cases using children as human shields — has since fired into Israel with the intent of maximizing destruction and civilian deaths more than 3,300 missiles, from an arsenal at least four times that size brought illicitly into Lebanon under the gaze of U.N. peacekeepers who have been at best passive and at times have been caught actively collaborating with Hezbollah,

Expressing its alarm that Hezbollah has established itself over the past 23 years as one of the world’s most ruthless, unscrupulous, and barbaric terrorist groups, even though the United Nations due to the pressures of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference has failed completely to define “terrorism” and therefore in surreal fashion does not consider Hezbollah’s murderous Islamic fascists to be terrorists,

Emphasizing that Hezbollah is a creation of Iran, abetted by Syria; has infested Lebanon to the extent that it effectively serves as an Iranian terrorist militia bordering on Israel and explicitly dedicated, like the president of Iran itself to the annihilation of the democratic state of Israel,

Recalling that the current “Situation in the Middle East” as emphasized in the paragraph above is a violation not only of umpteen U.N. resolutions, but also of the U.N. charter itself, which spells out that membership in the U.N. is open to “peace-loving states” — a condition that clearly excludes Syria and Iran,

Mindful that despite the courage and desire for healthy democratic government shown by the majority of the Lebanese people in last year’s Cedar Revolution, the current Lebanese government and parliament are still packed with Syrian acolytes such as President Emile Lahoud and Speaker Nabih Berri, as well as with cabinet members and parliamentarians who serve as a political front for Hezbollah’s heavily armed protection rackets and terrorist militia,

Suggesting that Lebanon’s Prime Minister Fouad Siniora stop addressing his lamentations, condemnations, and demands to Israel, stop playing the gutless victim, take some responsibility, show some integrity and place the blame where it belongs — on Hezbollah, and its sponsors in Syria and Iran, whose aggressive and unprovoked attacks forced Israel into a war to defend itself,

Regretting the U.N.’s own role in causing this war, by way of offering false and misleading promises to disarm Hezbollah and keep the peace, while in fact ignoring a buildup that was an obvious and growing threat both to Lebanese democrats and to Israel,

Emphasizing that the Lebanese government is pursuing a disingenuous course in allowing Hezbollah a presence in the cabinet and parliament while at the same time disowning all responsibility for Hezbollah’s aggression against a U.N. member state,

Emphasizing further that when Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora praised Hezbollah and in a bizarre distortion of the realities thanked its leaders for “sacrifices” on behalf of Lebanon, he was casting his lot with the terrorists, and the Security Council would like to clarify that it is now time for him either to renounce Hezbollah completely, or resign.

Offering to the Lebanese prime minister, in the unlikely event he does develop a backbone, the services of a robust international force of competent and armed security guards to protect him against the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah terror squads that would undoubtedly try to assassinate him for any display of principle, much as former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and a series of other Lebanese politicians have been murdered after standing up for responsible self-government in Lebanon,

Urging, lest the message is not already crystal clear, that the Lebanese authorities come clean and officially acknowledge that Hezbollah is an Iranian-Syrian infestation of their country, running not “social services” but protection rackets; broadcasting terrorist propaganda both at home and abroad on its Al-Manar TV station, thus endangering other U.N. member states; and infiltrating its political fronts into the national institutions of Lebanon with the aim of taking over the country and turning it into an Islamic state fronting for Syria and Iran,

Calls for even the worst hypocrites on this same Security Council to stop huffing and puffing their way through resolutions that equate democratic states with totalitarian regimes and their terrorist shock troops, and instead recognize that Iran and Syria today have already declared war not only on Israel, but on the entire Free World,

Affirming the need to end this growing fascist threat, [/] Calls for the free nations of the world to bring together a robust, international force with the express aim of removing, as swiftly as possible, and by whatever means necessary, the terrorist-sponsoring regimes in Tehran and Damascus,

Noting that this might require going outside the U.N. to form a Coalition of the Honest, due to various despotic and hypocritical lobbying blocks which too often dictate the agenda not only for such kangaroo courts as the U.N. Human Rights Council, but for the Security Council itself,

Suggesting that this Coalition be prepared, after dealing with the Middle East, to proceed to North Korea,

Requests urgently that Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his entire entourage of special envoys, aides, and advisers resign immediately so they can be replaced by Secretariat employees who understand the dangers of moral equivalence and instead of calling for “peace in our time” are prepared to serve the interests of the Free World,

Stressing that the immediate departure of the current Secretary-General is essential in light of the derelictions and corruption, extraordinary even by U.N. standards, which under his administration characterized the U.N.’s last major effort to cope with a war-mongering tyrant in the Middle East, to wit, Saddam Hussein and the combination of U.N. sanctions and the Oil-for-Food Programme,

Observes that if this course is followed, Hezbollah will be unable to sustain the attacks that have forced Israel into the current conflict; Lebanon would have an excellent chance of achieving genuine reform and lasting peace; and the rest of the world might yet be spared the suffering, carnage, and widespread ruinous war with which the messianic, totalitarian ayatollahs of Iran and their thug sidekicks in Syria would like to black out the freedom and progress which the United Nations and its Security Council are in fact tasked in the charter to defend,

Adds that the course of action outlined above, along with easing the threat to Western Europe, the U.S. and even such unhelpful governments as those now in Moscow and Beijing, would then allow a better focus on such terror-breeding regimes as Saudi Arabia, and greatly clear the way for healthy development, better lives, and freedom from thuggery, fear and war in places ranging from Sudan to the rest of Africa and parts of Latin America, all now suffering from the spread of the fascist ideologies mentioned above

Decides to remain actively seized of the matter. And just in case anyone doesn’t know what that means, moves urgently to append to the U.N. charter both a diplomatic thesaurus and a copy of George Orwell’s essay on “Politics and the English Language.”


— Claudia Rosett is a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. [My ellipses and emphasis]


World War IV: The Big Picture

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a WSJ Opinion Journal article, IV-square for the Bush doctrine:

Today's Featured Article [/] THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW

Unrepentant Neocon [/] Norman Podhoretz stands IV-square for the Bush doctrine.

BY JOSEPH RAGO [/] Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. […] -- That is, the Iraq intervention found its genesis not only in the immediate crises of the prewar period, but also in a way of thinking about foreign policy that matured over several decades. In other words, "Ideas shape events. They are the moving force in history," notes Norman Podhoretz, editor in chief of Commentary for the 35 years ending in 1995, and a highly influential adventurer in the world of neoconservatism.

Neoconservatism is hard to pin down as discrete political theory; Mr. Podhoretz suggests even that is too strong a term, preferring "tendency." In any case, as a practical matter, it denotes the mentality of those who moved from somewhere on the political left to somewhere on the right, primarily during the late '70s. It had "two ruling passions," according to Mr. Podhoretz. On the one hand, the neocons were repulsed by the countercultural '60s radicalism that came to dominate the American liberal establishment. On the other, they argued for a more assertive, muscular foreign policy (at the time in response to Soviet expansionism).

It is the latter that consumes Mr. Podhoretz during this late period in his disputatious career. Here at his bucolic summer home, he makes an easy, serene figure; but any outward tranquility is very much at odds with the intensity of his moral and intellectual universe.

He is careful, certainly, to distance himself from policy making. Washington "might as well be the surface of the moon." Rather, he says, "I'm always trying to look at the world in some larger frame." That, today, means "telling the story of what has happened since Sept. 11 with some intellectual distance, to place it as a world-historical development."

The scale and the suddenness of that day, as Mr. Podhoretz sees it, swept away the assumptions of the era that preceded it, both the soft internationalism and the balance-of-power calculations that by turns governed the way America conducted itself in the world. Here was a generational, existential confrontation with militant Islamist antimodernism, international in character and analogous to World War III (known otherwise as the Cold War). The "war on terror," he argues, ought to be rightly understood as "World War IV," demanding a new set of policies and ideas that will allow the U.S. to cope under drastically altered conditions.

The point of his voluminous WWIV essays (currently being expanded into a book) is to limn the ways in which George Bush has done precisely that. "The military face of the strategy is pre-emption and the political face is democratization," he says. "The stakes are nothing less than the survival of Western civilization, to the extent that Western civilization still exists, because half of it seems to be committing suicide."

With the crisis in the Middle East deteriorating, alarmingly fraught, Mr. Podhoretz's WWIV theory assumes further urgency. [/] On the violence running over the Levant, he is forthright: "I think of it as another battle or field or front in World War IV--the third front that's been opened: Afghanistan, Iraq and now this." With Hezbollah acting as a proxy for Iran, and Israel standing in for the U.S., "what you have here is Iran testing the resolve, the capability, of the enemy, in this case being the entire West--through few seem to understand this, or if they do understand it they want to deal with it with the usual appeasement."

Does the president understand? Grant that there are no easy answers: Hasn't the administration, on the more intractable questions of Syria and Iran, shown by and large the same weakening of resolve? Mr. Podhoretz winces. The question seems to set his teeth on edge. "There are people who ask George Bush to do everything at once," he declares, "instead of picking his shots and moving at a politically viable pace. It's nice as an intellectual exercise, but what is the point of demanding things that no democratic political leader, not even George Bush, could conceivably do at this time? To my mind it's a kind of right-wing utopianism."

Right-wing utopianism--now there is machismo. It is, of course, the very charge most often leveled against the neocons: that they thought (to put it rudely) they could go parading through Arabia and reorder it as a liberal democracy; instead of flowers and sweets they were met with IEDs and sectarian death squads. And this notion has picked up currency of late--particularly among those who consider themselves conservatives without the qualifying prefix.

Mr. Podhoretz is having none of it. "I always knew they didn't like this policy, the Bush doctrine," he says, speaking of increasingly vocal antagonists like George Will and William F. Buckley. "They had doubts about it going in, and not just because it violates in their view conservative principles but, you know, it's hubris, it's Wilsonianism, it goes beyond the limits of power, it's nation-building, and so on. But for reasons of solidarity or because they were not willing to join with the left or the far reaches of the Buchananite right, they were careful, they voiced their doubts only through hints or veiled asides. So when they came, so to speak, out of the antiwar closet, I certainly was not all that surprised.

"They've declared defeat, basically," he continues. "What can I say? I think they're wrong. I think Iraq has gone not badly but well, is not a disaster or a crime or a delusion, but what's more is a noble, necessary effort."

Mr. Podhoretz attributes the troubles of reconstruction as much to our own irresolution as to what he calls "the recalcitrance and obduracy of the region." "The only reason in my opinion that we're having as much trouble as we're having in Iraq is that we're not getting intelligence. You cannot fight a revanchist insurgency and certainly not one that uses terrorist tactics without good intelligence . . . and you can only get that kind of intelligence by squeezing it out of prisoners. That's all there is to it."

Both domestic opposition and the international community, unhappily, are "defining torture down. The things they're calling 'torture' now have never been and have no business being considered torture." He keeps on: "It is an effort to disarm us that's succeeding to a frightening extent. No, it's worse than that. They're trying to make it impossible to fight terrorism. . . . Every weapon that's been developed to protect us from terrorism, and the Iraqis from internal terrorism, is under assault."

Mr. Podhoretz loops back to the allegations that the administration has botched the execution of its Middle East policy. "I get impatient and even angry with this relentless carrying on in the face of setbacks," he says. "Now suddenly even a lot of my neoconservative friends have either lost heart and deserted the cause or devoted themselves mostly to bitching about this and that and the other thing and everything else. Most of these criticisms or attacks have been so unfair as to be completely unreasonable. . . .

"If you stipulate that everything people allege was a mistake in Iraq, even if you stipulate that they all were actually mistakes rather than judgment calls about which reasonable men could differ and could have had worse consequences if they'd gone the other way--even if you stipulate that all the critics are right, these 'mistakes' are chump change compared to the mistakes that were made during World War II by great leaders like Churchill and Roosevelt, and the lives that were squandered, thousands and thousands of lives uselessly squandered. . . .

"But even with these mistakes," he continues, "this country was indispensable in defeating the two great totalitarian threats of the 20th century. It was this despised bourgeois civilization that turned out to be the one bulwark against those monstrous enemies of humanity. I feel the same way today about Islamofascism."

Mr. Podhoretz is not dismissive of the costs the U.S. has incurred, quite; but better, he argues, to endure these convulsions than the previous arrangements. "We've paid an extraordinarily small price by any reasonable historical standard for a huge accomplishment," he says. "It's unseemly to be constantly whining."

The political odyssey of Norman Podhoretz began in the mid-1950s, when he made his mark as a literary critic and heir apparent of the leftward "New York intellectuals"; veered sharply toward radicalism in the early '60s; and ultimately rejected the ascendant hard left for what we now recognize as neoconservatism. "The issue was America," he says. "I was repelled, almost nauseated, by the rise of anti-Americanism on the left. The hatred of this country seemed to me not only wrong, it was disgusting. . . . Everything the left was saying about America was wrong--everything--and wrong by 180 degrees." He likens it to "staging a black mass, with the cross inverted and Christ hanging by his feet."

"There was a heavy price to be paid for my acts of apostasy," he says. Still: He retains an acute sense of longing for the intellectual community in which he grew up, a world--irretrievably lost--with no real equivalent today. It was a world that cared immensely about the life of the mind, and "even though practically everything it held dear was wrong, the fact is that it was exhilarating--you had all these brilliant people who were interested in understanding what historical forces were at work in the world and how they were playing out."

It was perhaps that spirit, more than anything else, that Mr. Podhoretz and his cadre sowed in the conservative mind. The neoconservatives were not simply "new conservatives," swallowed whole by an established system and along for the ride, Jonahs in the belly of a whale; but, more exactly, they deepened and broadened the nature of conservatism by emphasizing larger questions and long views, all seriously considered. The neoconservative enterprise is still in motion, and--like the war on terror, like World War IV, like whatever one wants to call the present danger--it is not done yet.

"It continues," Mr. Podhoretz says. "It never ends." During the Belle Époque of the Clinton years, things seemed to have sufficiently mended for him to turn his attention to literature again; Sept. 11, as he tells it, drew him back into the arena, inexorably, as if carried by the tide. "I'm getting old. I am old," he sighs. "But I'm still at it, and I'll continue." He adds with a laugh: "I especially get a new surge of intellectual energy whenever my own side, as it has been lately, starts to infuriate me."

Mr. Rago is an assistant editorial features editor at The Wall Street Journal. [My ellipses and emphasis]