WITHOUT COMMENT

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

CAN WE DEFEAT THE ISLAMISTS?

A very interesting article in the London Times says NO. It's an interesting set of explanations of our weakness in the fight for Civilization. Some of it's "built in" to our world, but some could be changed if we choose to do so. The gist of the article is very pessamistic, particularly as there seems to be little hope that the necessary changes will be forthcoming, any time soon.

1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all;

2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood.

3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States.

4) Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam.

5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand.

6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses.

7) The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not.

8) The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen.

9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries.

10) Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion.

The author expands on these points, and apparently has written a book that might be worth reading. Surely, those who reflexly believe that Democracy is by itself an anodyne for Islamic fundamentalism ought to read the whole thing. Principal among those needing to think this through is our President.

No doubt Democracy would help millions of these wretched people, but it's not a guarantee to help us defend ourselves from them...and that's the whole point, isn't it?

Personally, while I'd like them to be happy, I really don't care if they are, so long as they stop trying to kill us. If they don't stop, I really don't care what we do to prevent them from doing so....at least till we're out of bullets, when I'd be more willing to negotiate this point.

AN INTERESTING PROPOSAL

An interesting and very well thought out suggestion for a telecommuting Congress....It's worth reading the whole thing


I suggest the House and Senate be urged to adopt new rules and encourage, or even require, members to use modern communications technology to conduct more of their work from their home districts and less of it from Washington, DC. My theory is that if members spent more time with the voters back home than they spent among the political game players back in Washington DC, Congress will eventually both look and act quite different.

Such technology is already widespread in the private sector. The technology was good enough some twelve years ago that a client of mine who owned a European based securities trading company with several employees was able to run it from Colorado, visiting his office in person maybe once every month to six weeks.

...My personal suspicion is that a number of very bad things have happened because the personal relationships that develop over our long Congressional sessions are currently far too strong. In the very worst cases, getting along with other members of Congress seems to have taken a higher priority than representing the folks back home.

...The all-too-human need to get along with those one sees regularly helps feed the spending beast, too.

...Over time it would begin to work changes on the very culture of Congress by altering both who is attracted to run for office and how they conduct themselves afterwards.

THE CONQUEST OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Want to know how it happened? Here's part of the answer.

An important piece on Vanderluen's blog ought to be read in its entirety, as he writes from a perspective of an apostate lefty that most of us can't share. Here's the gist of it. Read it all.

WHEN I WAS VERY YOUNG, majoring in marijuana at the university, hanging out with the Progressive Labor Party, and skipping through the clouds of tear gas on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley, I was convinced that any war that would send my long-haired, sensitive, poetic and acid-tripping self off to wade through rice paddies in Vietnam just had to be wrong, wrong, wrong . ...

Time and chance also makes the list of those Americans still dedicated to becoming life-long friends of countries and movements dedicated to the destruction of AmeriKKKa shorter every year. Yet most still live and thrive in the place they hate the most. They have made prosperous lives for themselves in local, state and national governments and politics, as well as in academia, the entertainment world, and the media. Greying now they still continue in their quest for an enemy of their enemy to make their friend. They are the American Left and, risen from their impoverished conditions in 1968, they have now tenure, high position, or acolytes from which they draw comfortable stipends. Of late, they've taken more and more to coffee klatches with Islamic fundamentalists who, if they don't have the armies to bring about the destruction of the United States, have at least shown they've got enough hate to kill Americans here and abroad retail and wholesale. Besides, they're out shopping for a nuclear weapon and some smallpox, so what's not to like about these guys from an American Leftist's point of view?

...If it were only the denizens of these fringe groups that supplied the ideological cannon fodder of the American Left, it would be a small matter to marginalize them since their very mindsets marginalize them from the square numbered "1." Indeed, just a few years ago, they could only exist within the rarified environment of on-campus humanities and ethnic-studies departments. Once removed from these hyperbaric chambers, their failure to thrive in the world outside -- absent a position in various media companies and Washington Wonk Tanks -- was assured. They were, if not really useful idiots, harmless idiots.

Sadly that is no longer the case. Recently a very large and significant American institution has stripped down to the buff and made itself freely available to the tender mercies and tough love of the American Left. Indeed, the capture of this group is the single significant achievement of the American Left in decades. With the elevation of Howard Dean, the canonization of Hillary Clinton, the deification of Ted Kennedy, the renovation of Nancy Peloisi, and the self-defenestration of Barbara Boxer, it is clear that the political base of the American Left has now migrated from the fringes of our political arena to the dead center of the Democratic Party. And it is there to stay.

The American Left now controls the political party that calls upon the allegiance of nearly half of the country. It is the political party that is the Plantation Party of African-Americans. It is a party that holds its members now not with the plans of what it will do for them in the future, but with the fading memories of what it did for them in the past when it was a great and honorable party. The American Left will remain in control of this Party's shell since it has brought with it not only its failed ideology and all the rag-tag constituents of the Stupid Undergrounds of America, but the very fuel source of these groups itself -- Bush Hate. And on the Left today, Bush-Hate, more than money, is the new mother's milk of our darkening politics. With Bush-Hate money can always be had. Throw that out of the Democratic Party and what money there is currently coming into the party will surely flow away.


...The conquest of the Democratic Party by the American Left which has now been consummated and will shortly be consolidated is, of course, bad news for the Democrats and for the country as a whole. A vital two or even three party system is essential to the long term balance of the Republic.

But this doesn't bother the Leftists of the Democratic Party at all. They are too busy counting the loot. And there is loot to be had.

The American Left receives many things from their conquest, not the least of which is the damage it does, axiomatically, to the United States. They also receive money, lots of it; especially when you think of the low funding levels the American Left has had for most of its existence. Their plunder also includes Organizations, many, as well as access to local, state, and national unions in the public and private realms. Add in mailing lists tens of millions of names long as well as websites and online acolytes by the thousands. And, most important of all, they now have open access and control over sitting Democrats in Washington and the state legislatures. With money and organizations to win elections, the American Left now has the power over elected Democrats to instruct them to support and advance some decidedly non-centrist, non-liberal, but classic Leftist agendas. In a very real sense, the conquest of the Democratic Party gives the American Left a base that it could never hope to win, and will now probably never win, at the ballot box.

Even though this regrettable transformation of the Democratic Party leaves it much smaller than it would otherwise be, it makes the American Left much bigger than it ever thought it could be. Those who have lingered all these years in the thick bong smoke of the 60s now have their fantasy within their grasp. They have made the enemies of George Bush and the New America at home and abroad into their friends and it is, at last, "Springtime for Lefties!"

Of course, it is a crowning irony to note that the proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." was originally an Arab proverb, as were, indeed, the fuming chillums of 1968's Not-So-Great-Generation.

But hey, as me and my hardcore leftist friends said way back then, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em."

THE ENTIRE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN A NUTSHELL.

The Democrats have proposed a four point strategy for Iraq. So far as I know, this is the first time they've done so. The President's Chief of Staff has responded. Point by point
.
Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.

First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.

Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.

Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.

Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Bolten
Chief of Staff

There's nothing left to say. Let's go down and dirty....vote right now. Saves a jillion dollars and let's us "move on." We'll live or die on this issue. Sacrifice our country or save it. Money where your mouth is. Your life and your children's lives, in the balance.

Decide.

For me, I've decided. I'm locked and loaded, and I'll fight the bastards here, when they come.

REFORMATION COMING?

Despite the many problems of Europe, most of which follow from their acceptance of the Welfare State as a model for the future, there are hints of a New Reformation. Here's a piece from a French website, The Toqueville Connection.


French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy appeared almost certain to lead the right into next year's presidential election, after a triumphant party congress which concluded Sunday in Marseille with a blistering attack on the "generation of May 1968".
Speaking before 7,000 young members of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), Sarkozy, 51, said modern France had been betrayed by the left-wing ideals that took root after the 1968 student uprising, and called for a society built around "a reassertion of the value of work".
"(The generation of 1968) inculcated everywhere -- in politics, in education, in society -- an inversion of values and a political correctness of which today's young people are the principal victims," Sarkozy said to applause.
"The truth is that the students of May '68 were the spoiled children of 30 years of prosperity. You are the children of crisis. They lived a life without constraints. Today you are picking up the bill," he said....
...Sarkozy drew the strongest applause Sunday when he attacked the "dependency and welfare" culture epitomised by the Socialists' 35-hour week, and promised to bring unemployment down to five percent in five years by "giving work back its true value, because it is work that creates work".
"I propose reducing taxes on labour, so that employment plays a greater part in economic growth. I propose that people should earn more if they work more ... I propose replacing the language of redistribution with the language of growth," he said.

It remains to be seen if the Welfarized French will save themselves. It doesn't look good from the perspective of the recent student riots in support of maintaining the status quo, but there's a general election coming.

We'll see.

JEEEZZZUUSS, MR. PRESIDENT

More than half the people of the United States don't understand that we're at war and fighting for the survival of our civilization.

The reason for this is that our President does not behave as though he means it. He talks the talk, and walks the walk in his policies, but as a leader, his behavior lacks the seriousness of a warfighter.

After years of unremitting attacks from liars like Joe Wilson and the New York Times, he still cannot fight back. He answers are coherent, and his words are genuine, but a fighter fights back.

Here's Mr. Bush making nice with one of the nastiest public figures in Washington....the Michael Moore of the White House press corps, Helen Thomas. Jeezzzus Mr. President....she needs to be shunned, not kissyfaced.

As a consequence of squishy-nice tolerance of his tormentors, the President may have lost the moment in terms of continuing our long term defence.

Mark Steyn writes

If you go back to September 2001, it's amazing how much the administration made happen in just a short space of time: For example, within days it had secured agreement with the Russians on using military bases in former Soviet Central Asia for intervention in Afghanistan. That, too, must have been quite a phone call. Moscow surely knew that any successful Afghan expedition would only cast their own failures there in an even worse light -- especially if the Americans did it out of the Russians' old bases. And yet it happened.

Five years on, the United States seems to be back in the quagmire of perpetual interminable U.N.-brokered EU-led multilateral dithering, on Iran and much else. The administration that turned Musharraf in nothing flat now offers carrots to Ahmadinejad. After the Taliban fell, the region's autocrats and dictators wondered: Who's next? Now they figure it's a pretty safe bet that nobody is.

What's the difference between September 2001 and now? It's not that anyone "liked" America or that, as the Democrats like to suggest, the country had the world's "sympathy.'' Pakistani generals and the Kremlin don't cave to your demands because they "sympathize.'' They go along because you've succeeded in impressing upon them that they've no choice. Musharraf and Co. weren't scared by America's power but by the fact that America, in the rubble of 9/11, had belatedly found the will to use that power. It is notionally at least as powerful today, but in terms of will we're back to Sept. 10: Nobody thinks America is prepared to use its power. And so Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad and wannabe "strong horses" like Baby Assad cock their snooks with impunity.

...Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Bush and the neocons. In reality -- a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted -- it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment. In late September 2001 the administration succeeded in teaching a critical lesson to tough hombres like Musharraf and Putin: In a scary world, America can be scarier. But it's all a long time ago now.

There may be a way to recover, but it'll take an agressive and combative attitude at home and abroad. The U.N. needs to be ignored....as do the French...and our "friends" the Chinese and Russians need to be made to understand that unless they work with us, we're going to mess up their sandbox, too.

War is hardball. But hardball across the board doesn't seem to be Mr. Bush's forte.

And we'll be the losers for it.

IT'S NOT JUST POLITICS

It's simple for people who live and breathe politics to think that this war and the questions surrounding it...tactics, costs, the definition of America and what it is to be an American...is an abstract issue, all cocktail party banter, quips by clever guests, another pinot grigiot? But it's not an abstract at all. In Europe, where the "rubber hits the road" it's a blood sport.

The murder of a young Pakistani woman by her Muslim father has sparked a fierce debate in Italy about how to deal with the "clash of civilisations".

Hina Saleem, 21, was reported missing last Saturday by her boyfriend...She told the manager of the pizzeriawhere she worked as a waitress that she had been summoned home to meet a cousin who was passing through. Then her mobile phone went dead.

When the Carabinieri broke into the house in the region of Brescia in northern Italy, they found Hina's bedroom spattered with blood. In the garden, buried under a metre of soil and with her jeans and blouse soaked in blood, was the body of the missing girl. Her throat had been slit.

These are real matters. Hina was a real girl. Anybody need an illustration of what these people do to homosexuals? Think about what's at stake here, folks.

It's not just politics.

NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED OF DECENCY

We're busy nowadays, having new grandchildren...seen here....but just to keep up the momentum in momentous times, I'll repost someone else's comments which I find useful. Here's a post from a Libertarian Kind Of blog, called Samizdata, that I like to read from time to time.

Where are the fauxtographs?
Thaddeus Tremayne (London)

If laid end to end, I wonder how far the column inches about the recent war in Lebanon would extend? Would they stretch right around the earth? Would they extend to the moon and back? Perhaps they would only reach as far as Sudan:

Two years ago, the then American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said that the killings in Darfur constituted genocide.

Since then, the number of deaths through violence, starvation and disease in Sudan's western region has risen to at least 300,000, and of those displaced to about two million.

Despite the fact that genocide is a crime under international law, both the African Union and the United Nations have proved powerless to stop it.

Notwithstanding these horrifying statistics (which dwarf even the most overwrought claims about Lebanon), the response of the "world community" is very close to pin-drop silence. Apart from the occasional bloodless and anodyne article (such as the one linked to above) the MSM could not seem to care less. Where are the lurid photographs of dead Sudanese babies? Where are the demonstrations by "anti-war campaigners"? Where are the human shields? Where are the demands for a ceasefire? Where are the calls for a change of foreign policy? Where are the Nazi Germany comparisons? Where are the..ahem..'intrepid' Western reporters with cry-me-a-river expressions on their faces? Where are the Church groups organising boycotts?

The answer is the same in all cases and there are no prizes for getting it right. No, the real question is why? Why the ocean of indifference to a sustained programme of mass murder and ethnic cleansing that is, by modern standards (and perhaps by any standards) horrific? It seems that the plight of impoverished Africans is enough to precipitate an avalanche of rock concerts and celebrity blubbing while hundreds of thousands of murdered Africans causes not even the thinnest batsqueak of protest.

I am just speculating here, naturally, but could this conspiracy of silence have something to do with the fact that the perpetrators of this real atrocity are Arab Muslims? Depressingly enough, I think the answer is yes. If even the Telegraph article I have linked to above is too timid to actually identify the aggressors (preferring instead the safe and neutral term 'rebels') then claims of ignorance or laziness simply will not do. I don't imagine there would be quite this level of caginess if it was the Israelis who were laying waste to Darfur.

In my opinion, Darfur is kept off the radar screen because it is too embarrassing for the bien pensent. Having adopted the narrative of Arabs/Muslims as victims of oppression they are pretty much obliged to ignore or dismiss any evidence that might undermine that view (such is the mental paralysis induced by narrative). Besides, Africans living in the West seem disinclined to blow up airliners, so there is no need to waste precious air-time deliberating about the 'root causes' of their anger.

The horrors of Darfur cannot be excused by reference to Israeli or American 'occupation' and so it is locked away in the attic like a mad relative. Yes, it is ugly and unfair but at least we know for sure that there is not one single shred of decency or honesty in the entire (and preposterously misnamed) anti-war movement.