International Affairs

Check out the Global Incident Map, showing all the most recent terrorist events worldwide. It's fascinating.

Read this, then read the referenced material, and decide for yourself.

The Saudis bailed out his peanut farm in 1976. The infamous BCCI and Saudi billionaire Gaith Pharaon actually helped with the startup funding of the Carter Center. Carter himself is quoted fulsomely thanking Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the long time ruler of the UAE, for donating half a million dollars. From what is known Carter has received tens of millions of dollars from Arab and Islamic sources. And that, argues Dershowitz, is behind the former President's tireless campaigning against Israel. He says so in the most brutal and accusatory terms: "Carter ... has been bought and paid for by anti-Israel Arab and Islamic money."

I have been catching up on the riots and protests over the cartoons published in a Danish newspaper ridiculing Mohammad, and the paroxysm of protest and anger that has followed in the Muslim world. I honestly don't think that these cartoons are the point; the real reason for these eruptions is that the Muslim world is angry, in

Instapundit quotes a Muslim reader who writes, "It doesn't matter, I'm told. It literally means nothing to them, because in their world, everything should revolve around them and their culture, and God made the world for Muslim Arabs to control." Now, Iran has decided to rename Danish pastries "Mohammedan" pastry. And in the stupidest stunt yet, they're burning Swiss flags outside Danish embassies.

A common argument is that Christians often react like Muslims, for example when they protested "The Last Temptation of Christ. But if that is the case, why are people not burning down the art expo in Madrid where there is a sculpture of Jesus holding a Phoenix missile? Certaintly not because of the Vatican, who takes the side of the mobs by declaring that the right to freedom of expression does not include the right to offend the religious feelings of the faithful.

There are definitely some in the Muslim world who haven't lost their sanity; muslim blogger Big Pharaoh has some frank advice for his peers.

Brit Hume puts it perfectly when he says, "And it is a disgrace not least because of the obvious, howling double standard involved here. The really great sins are ignored. And this trivia is protested." Mark Steyn hits it on the head too (via lgf):

Thus, NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's." On the other hand, the same network, in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has declined to show any of the offending artwork out of "respect" for the Muslim faith.

Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice president's home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.

The propagation of a certain meme type throughout the left-hand side of the body politic is troubling. The meme-type in question is the idea that if you believe something strongly enough, it must be true. Or, to put it another way, sufficiently strong perception of something creates it's own reality.

Chrenkoff addresses one variant of this meme-type when he writes persuasively about how those who claim the threat of WMDs in Iraq are practicing selective amnesia. Belmont Club addresses another when he takes to task those who believe that international terrorism is a 'phantom':

Although the proposition that organized international terrorism does not exist may seem funny, many writers on the Left seriously believe that terrorism is a derivative phenomenon with no independent existence of its own. It is simply a reaction to Western, and particularly American oppression. It is the shadow, as it were, of the USA, which would cease to exist once the solid being that gave rise to it vanished. According to this point of view, it is entirely correct to refer to terrorists as 'insurgents', 'resistants', 'militants' or even 'freedom fighters', because they have no actual violent goals arising from their consciousness except as are suggested to them by their oppressor; entirely correct refer to them as 'phantoms' because they do not exist of themselves, except as emergent phenomenon in relation to the United States.

The common theme here is a willful disregard for facts. Althouse discusses the idea that this is a symptom of something called "framing," in which the frame is the sphere of ideas that can be integrated into a partisan world-view; ideas outside the sphere are ignored or subjected to invective. The frame is the belief-sphere, the meme I was referring to. If one believes strongly enough that it is righteous that a liberal hold power therefore Bush is evil, quod erat demonstrandum. Ideas that contradict that will be suborned or ignored.

Cognitive dissonance is a very uncomfortable thing to go through. I believe that many on the left are undergoing this discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already believe, and new information that contradicts it.

I have been contemplating the War on Terror recently, from the perspective of an observer twelve or twenty years from now, after the broader war against al Qaeda and Islamofascists of every stripe has presumably been won. What would one looking back from that standpoint think was the more successful approach to combating terror? The "War on Terror" approach, targeting state sponsors of terror by military means, as espoused by the Coalition of the Willing? Or what I call the "law enforcement" option, targeting specific individuals and groups with police-type action that has limited objectives, as our friends in western continental Europe say is sufficient for the task?

I believe that an observer from a semi-distant future will say that prosecuting a war against state sponsors of terror may have been necessary at one point, but it was law enforcement-style action that eventually carried the day. This will occur, not because the war on terror will fail, but rather because that it will succeed so completely that all that will be left is police actions.

The number of targets for theater-level military action is rapidly diminishing. The traditional suspects - Iran, North Korea, and Syria - top the list, but few others want to be found in their company. The war on terror is accomplishing it's main objective, which is deterring state sponsors of terrorism. Few other powers may rise to the same level - while many Islamic rebel groups have incorporated al Qaeda methodologies into their tactics, such as Abu Sayyaf in the Phillippines and the Malay insurgency in Thailand, the only one of these that stands a strong shot at gaining nation-state power is Abu Sayyaf, opposed only by the rubble that used to be civil society in the Phillippines.

As we see the number of potential targets for action that occupy a specific geographical territory diminish, we will see the U.S. engaging in more of the type of police action that characterizes the persecution of underground terror cells that operate without the backing of nation-states. The greater U.S. focus on these ventures will be highlighted, and those who publically draw an inappropriate conclusion - that this is what was necessary all along, that military action against renegade regimes was a historical aberration and tactical blunder - will increase. Former Bush administration officials will be seen on Sunday talking-head venues defending the appropriateness of the War on Terror for it's time.

After September 11th, the United States as a nation said that "we shall never forget." As part of that promise, we must keep in our minds the need to make a stand, at this time and in this place. I hope that my daughter looks at me, a dozen years from now, and asks why we needed to wage war on terror when now the remaining terrorists are in detention facilities or on the run from the police. That is what our victory in the war will win for us.

It has taken me some time to rouse my thoughts in this blog on the terrorism that has happened in London. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, for the terrible anguish they must be facing. The list of nations that can stand together in the brotherhood of those victimized by al Qaeda and it's spawn is a wide circle: the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Indonesia, the Phillippines, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq. The US stands in solidarity with our British brethren, as we do with all of these nations, as all men of good will must in this age of chaos and evil perpetrated in the name of most merciful God.

Lee Harris has penned a very insightful article in TCS where he notes that, while for us this is a war, for them it is a blood feud. I disagree with his theory partially because I do believe al Qaeda has conditions it would consider a victory, and as such they work towards an ultimate end. But I believe there is a segment of the gestalt in the Dar al-Islam, particularly the arab areas as those are the ones most influenced by Bedouin ways, that sees this as the blood feud with the Great Satan.

For a counterpoint, both American Future and Daily Demarche point to commentary by Efraim Halevi, which argues the opposite, that we are involved in a third world war.

Particulars:

• American Future rounds up the failures of the British authorities in stopping terrorist organizational infiltration of London.
  
• A rumor is circulating that we recently released one of the involved parties from Guantanamo Bay.
  
• Worth a read is an excellent view from England from one liberal as he tries in an open letter to explain to an anti-war friend of his how theocratic fascism is a real threat, and the war on terror is the real answer.
  
• Exposing the myth of terrorist recruitment being a function of poverty, al Qaeda recruiters in Britain are recruiting educated university graduates.
  
• We should all applaud the writings of two muslims in London decrying the actions of the terrorists in London
  

I am liveblogging the President's speech on Iraq at Fort Bragg. I have been busy enough that I have not kept up with teh advance press on this speech, but from what I understand this is the culmination of a widespread public relations campaign to boost public support for the war effort.

Update: I am very glad that the President is addressing the spread of Islamofascist Wahhabi beliefs within the US and other western countries. Too often this is overlooked in the interest of political correctness, and not offending groups willing to demonstrate violently.

Also, segmentation of the enemy is important, because that is our strategy for victory. The US is playing divide and conquer with the groups that together oppose the US. This is the plan for winning the war. Let's see if the mainstream press highlights that.

Update: The web site the President mentioned is America Supports You.

In today's Washington Times that is a hilarious article about four GIs who guarded Saddam Hussein, and their experiences with him. Saddam's sage advice on women:


On Saddam's dietary needs:

From LGF we read a Jerusalem Post article about a statement by former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar while he was in Israel for the jubilee celebration of Bar-Ilan University. He was shockingly straightforward about the state of European diplomacy vis-a-vis the Middle East peace process:

Tony Blair's electoral victory in Britain means that the Anglo Alliance continues unbroken. Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom remain in close alliance over how to proceed with world affairs. This alliance of the Periphery (in Mackinderian geopolitical terms) has started to consolidate, and will over the next thirty years more or less formally coalesce into the core of a true alliance.

As a side note from Chrenkoff, the biggest non-English speaking member of the alliance, Poland, is also the one with the longest history of constitutional republicanism, after the United States.

The other side of this alliance can be seen in the growing France - Germany - Russia entente under the auspices of a frenchified European Union to order Europe to their ends, a new Continental System. This entente currently defines it's interests in terms of three things: increasingly axiolatic opposition to the United States, legacy attachments to old colonies, and attachment to artifices of the international system that project their power and influence out of proportion to their actual relevance. They pursue China as well, but it pursues it's own interests and refuses to be constrained by any entanglements.

How this bifurcation is shaping up is shown in the debate over the future of NATO. The competing visions of world politics mean that neither alliance is really interested in using NATO as a forum for military action. The EU faction doesn't particularly want to engage in military ventures; they merely want to define the circumstances of the situation so the US will take action where they want it, and to define action that goes against their interests as wicked sin against socialist orthodoxy.

Marc Schulman is right when he notes that Germany is the lynch-pin of the pro-EU alliance. The real question is, will the Schroederist delusion take hold, or will sense return to Germany? Germany is right at home among the formerly-important powers next to France and Russia. That perception may fuel a realignment in the international order.

The second question is how the EU-central grouping of states will respond when action by mature adults is called for. For example, how will they react when rogue states with nukes disintegrate? (from: Chrenkoff)

Instapundit points out a Strategy Page article that lays out the reasons Iraq's neighbors are increasingly supporting it.

Also in the news, LGF points out some reportage by the London Times revealing that Qatar is paying protection money to Al Qaeda, money that is then being used against the US in Iraq.

The WaPo notes that reports of credible terrorist threats against the US are at their latest level since 9/11. American Future makes a good point: "Don't be surprised if this turns into another reason for European anti-Americanism: by making the US more secure, we're making Europe less secure."

I am clearing out a backlog of old European political links. Here goes...

Instapundit is tracking a debate between commentators Mark Steyn and Austin Bay here. I was reading the start of it, Mark Steyn's column in the Chicago Sun-Times that Bush is being friendly to Europe because of their irrelevance. He boils it down:



Austin Bay retorts that Europe isn't dead, that while it just has large sections of gangrene, Eastern Europe is still vital and growing. It's an interesting exchange.

In the mean time, Joshka Fischer is in trouble for immigration issues (from Instapundit). He is being blamed for overly permissive immigration from the east, particularly Ukraine, which is the burning fuse on the powerkeg.

Update: Medienkritik quotes a scathing editorial in the Daily Telegraph (original text requires a login). The editorial is by an American, but it is a bracing assessment of the state of Europe in the pages of one of it's own newspapers.

I think this is instructuve enough about Vladimir Putin that it merits quotation in it's entirety. From Chrenkoff, we see this article in Time Magazine.



Instapundit pointed me to this article over at Oxblog which dissects Bush and Putin's public statements and comes to the conclusion that "Bush really understands what's at stake in Moscow." Let's hope he knows Putin as well as he thinks he does.

Lgf links to an article by the Canadian National-Post reporting that Canada will not cooperate with US missile defense plans. The requirement by Canada that the US must seek permission before firing any kind of missile over canadian airspace is a devilish one. The US is still highly worried about transpolar missile launches: while North Korea would use a trajectory that would come in across the pacific, Iran or any other Middle Eastern power would transit the arctic on it's way to the lower 48.



This is a definite step, because this moves Canada into a position of strategic opposition to the United States. Like France preventing our jets from flying over it on their way to and from Libya, this is a blockade intended to harass us and prevent the US from mounting the most effective self-defense possible. That Canada has bought in to the Euro-Chinese "counterweight" paradigm is deeply saddening. Another parallel is that, when it is needed, the US will do what is necessary and casually override the roarings of Canada's paper tiger. In the end, Canada will pay the price for carrying France's water for it.



For further thoughts, Chrenkoff pointed me at Bill Roggio.

I am aghast... there is an article in der Spiegel that asks, "could George W. Bush be right?" and compares the President's speeches and actions to Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" speech (hat tip: Chrenkoff). it is a very entertaining read.

Update: it's important to remember not all Europeans are like this, as seen in a pro-Bush protest (hat tip: lgf).