Saturday, January 21, 2006
Thursday, January 19, 2006
If Attacked by Terrorists
France vows to bomb itself into submission.
In all seriousness though, Chirac seems to understand on some level that the way to deal with terrorists is to meet strength with strength. Witness bin Laden's latest message. The combination of spin and chutzpah in that tape would make Baghdad Bob proud, and the fact that Osama sees the need to make such a laughable statement, particularly his insistence that al Qaeda is winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, indicates that things are not going well for al Qaeda. Indeed, the reason things are going so badly for al Qaeda is because following 9/11, the Bush administration decided to meet their strength with ours, and in doing so, we have found that al Qaeda cannot stand and fight, never mind actually take and hold territory. As devastating as the Iraqi insurgency may be, its success is predicated upon our perceived weaknesses, not their actual strengths. This could never be said about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union. We had to actually defeat them; with al Qaeda we simply have to keep on doing what we're doing, occasionally swatting at them like a horse swats at flies with his tail.
States like Iran, Syria and North Korea are another matter. We need to figure out how to deal with them effectively, and there aren't any palatable options. As with WWII and the Cold War, our biggest problems are with nation-states. Al Qaeda is just a nuisance to be slapped down when the opportunity arises.
In all seriousness though, Chirac seems to understand on some level that the way to deal with terrorists is to meet strength with strength. Witness bin Laden's latest message. The combination of spin and chutzpah in that tape would make Baghdad Bob proud, and the fact that Osama sees the need to make such a laughable statement, particularly his insistence that al Qaeda is winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, indicates that things are not going well for al Qaeda. Indeed, the reason things are going so badly for al Qaeda is because following 9/11, the Bush administration decided to meet their strength with ours, and in doing so, we have found that al Qaeda cannot stand and fight, never mind actually take and hold territory. As devastating as the Iraqi insurgency may be, its success is predicated upon our perceived weaknesses, not their actual strengths. This could never be said about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union. We had to actually defeat them; with al Qaeda we simply have to keep on doing what we're doing, occasionally swatting at them like a horse swats at flies with his tail.
States like Iran, Syria and North Korea are another matter. We need to figure out how to deal with them effectively, and there aren't any palatable options. As with WWII and the Cold War, our biggest problems are with nation-states. Al Qaeda is just a nuisance to be slapped down when the opportunity arises.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Into the Great White North
Apparently, the United states has a contingency plan for invading Canada. I suspect our primary weapons will be profanity, loud music and the battle frenzy brought on as a result of hearing "eh" aappended to everything.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Disturbing
The New York Times is reporting that Iran has resumed its nuclear program, including uranium enrichment. That Iran is able to do this without fear of repercussion shows the inherent limits of the diplomatic process. Iran has determined that it is in its vital interest to acquire nuclear weapons, and only physical intervention will prevent this acquisition. This isn't necessarily a call for military intervention, even if it would satisfy the demands of some that our forces be withdrawn from Iraq. The military option should not be taken off the table, but there are other ways to exert pressure on the Iranian regime, such as working with dissident groups to undermine the regime from within the country. It's about time we started realistically considering these options and expressing our consideration of them publicly.
Important Column
Spengler delivers another excellent, excellent column on the differences between Islam (and Mormonism) on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other. I do disagree with him on one point, though.
Spengler states:
"It is dangerous to publish anything that Muslims might interpret as blasphemy, as Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, discovered when it published 12 cartoons of Mohammed, some portraying the Prophet in violent acts. Muslim protests and threats caused two of the cartoonists to go into hiding. After Arab foreign ministers condemned Denmark for refusing to act against the newspaper, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered a near-apology in his New Year's address.
"Strange as it may seem, the pope must whisper when he wants to state agreement with conventional Muslim opinion, namely that the Koranic prophecy is fixed for all time such that Islam cannot reform itself. If Islam cannot change, then a likely outcome will be civilizational war, something too horrific for US leaders to contemplate. What Benedict XVI thinks about the likelihood of civilizational war I do not know. Two elements of context, though, set in relief his reported comments concerning Islam's incapacity to reform."
The implication here is that Benedict is making his statements quietly because he fears retribution. This strikes me false. Instead, it seems to me that Benedict made his statements in the forum he did not out of fear, but out of prudence. His opinion on the reformability of Islam is certainly not one to be disregarded lightly- indeed, I am inclined to agree with it, but Benedict realizes that he may be wrong. Furthermore, active Western engagement with Islam, be it American foreign policy or French attempts to restrict the wearing of the hijab by Muslim girls in French schools , are premised on the notion that the West and Islam can be reconciled to some degree or another, and a statement such a statement as the one Benedict made, made by a figure with his standing in a public forum risk undermining these efforts at a time when the jury is still out on this count. In other words, I suspect Benedict hopes he is wrong but fears he may be right and doesn't want to issue what may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. What's more, if he is right, it is essential that people are aware of the irreconcilability of Islam and the West and that steps be taken to ensure that we are prepared to deal with what would be the inevitable failure of Western policy both in the Middle East and Europe.
Spengler states:
"It is dangerous to publish anything that Muslims might interpret as blasphemy, as Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, discovered when it published 12 cartoons of Mohammed, some portraying the Prophet in violent acts. Muslim protests and threats caused two of the cartoonists to go into hiding. After Arab foreign ministers condemned Denmark for refusing to act against the newspaper, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered a near-apology in his New Year's address.
"Strange as it may seem, the pope must whisper when he wants to state agreement with conventional Muslim opinion, namely that the Koranic prophecy is fixed for all time such that Islam cannot reform itself. If Islam cannot change, then a likely outcome will be civilizational war, something too horrific for US leaders to contemplate. What Benedict XVI thinks about the likelihood of civilizational war I do not know. Two elements of context, though, set in relief his reported comments concerning Islam's incapacity to reform."
The implication here is that Benedict is making his statements quietly because he fears retribution. This strikes me false. Instead, it seems to me that Benedict made his statements in the forum he did not out of fear, but out of prudence. His opinion on the reformability of Islam is certainly not one to be disregarded lightly- indeed, I am inclined to agree with it, but Benedict realizes that he may be wrong. Furthermore, active Western engagement with Islam, be it American foreign policy or French attempts to restrict the wearing of the hijab by Muslim girls in French schools , are premised on the notion that the West and Islam can be reconciled to some degree or another, and a statement such a statement as the one Benedict made, made by a figure with his standing in a public forum risk undermining these efforts at a time when the jury is still out on this count. In other words, I suspect Benedict hopes he is wrong but fears he may be right and doesn't want to issue what may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. What's more, if he is right, it is essential that people are aware of the irreconcilability of Islam and the West and that steps be taken to ensure that we are prepared to deal with what would be the inevitable failure of Western policy both in the Middle East and Europe.
Monday, January 09, 2006
And I Thought the Government Couldn't Do Anything About Fuel Prices
Apparently they can. Of course, I doubt it's what most advocates of government action had in mind.
Osama Dead?
Apparently so, according to Michael Ledeen. If this proves to be true, it's good news from a symbolic standpoint. However, I don't know how much of an effect it will have on a practical level. Osama wasn't terribly involved in the day-to-day operations of al Qaeda, and he hadn't exactly been making many public appearances to bolster recruiting. If he is dead, there may be some drop-off in new membership in al Qaeda as a result.
But even if al Qaeda is devastated by his death, Iran has long been the area of greatest concern. Should they acquire nuclear weapons, it seems a near certainty they will use them against Israel, and there is nothing to stop them using elements of, say, Hezbollah, to detonate other nuclear devices in various European or American cities.
But even if al Qaeda is devastated by his death, Iran has long been the area of greatest concern. Should they acquire nuclear weapons, it seems a near certainty they will use them against Israel, and there is nothing to stop them using elements of, say, Hezbollah, to detonate other nuclear devices in various European or American cities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)