The Noble Pundit

Why Democracy Is A Bad Idea

Solvenia went to the polls today. On the ballot, a measure to restore the rights of ethnic minorities who were "erased" from the country's records following the breakup of Yugoslavia. The measure was overwhelmingly defeated with 95% of the voters voting to deny the existence of the minorities.

"It is a manifestation of racism, intolerance and extreme nationalism," said Tanja Rener, a sociologist. "The mere holding of the vote is a loss for democracy and human rights and a victory for those who preach about blood and territory."

Actually, Ms. Rener is wrong. The vote is an absolute victory for democracy. It is also proof of why democracy is a bad idea -in Slovenia, in Iraq, or America. Democracy is the tyranny of the mob.

The mob voted to deny basic rights to those different then themselves. They have voted to continue having a people without a nation living amongst them. This really is not all that unusual. It is part of human instinct. We tend not to trust those different than ourselves in any way. So given the chance to deny them, human nature will make it happen. America and to a lesser degree Western Europe are abberations in this respect, not the norm. The result of this vote should have been completely unsurprising to all but the ignorant.

This is exactly what will happen in Iraq if we were to institute a pure democracy. The Shi'ites would vote out of existence the Sunnis, the Kurds, the Christians, and anyone else within striking distance of their military. Pure democracy as a form of government is a failure.

What Iraq and Slovenia need, and America and Western Europe has, is a representative republic.

The matter of the rights of the "erased" never should have gone to a popular referendum. Instead, Slovenia needs the rarest of rare people: the Leader.

Not a leader like George Bush who can rally people in time of trouble. Not a leader like Tony Blair who can persuade his people to join an unpopular cause. Not a leader like Bill Clinton who gives the people what they want.

No. They need a Leader like a José Aznar or Yitzahk Rabin. Someone who will sacrifice his career in the case of the former or his life in the case of the latter to pursue a course he believes to be right, good, and in the best interest of his people - despite whatever beliefs they may, in fact, have themselves. True leadership involves making unpopular decisions, sometimes wildly unpopular ones. Real leadership has long term payoffs, not short term ones, which is why it is usually so politically distasteful. Voters have very short term viewpoints. Leaders must look beyond the noise and find the true calling.

The "erased" in Slovenia will never get their rights back through a popular vote or even a Parliament. If a Leader comes along who believes in their cause though, it might just happen.

But true Leaders are incredibly rare. Ronald Reagan came close, I might even be persuaded that he was a true Leader, but I don't think he quite made it. Winston Churchill was a Leader. Neville Chamberlain was not. Israel has had many Leaders in its short history, probably more than all other nations combined in the same time frame. Great leaders abound, but truly Great Leaders are a rare commodity indeed.

Democracy suffers because it is never able to spawn and benefit from such a Leader. Republicanism, whether it be the American model, the British Parliamentary one, or the Israeli model are all capable of taking advantage of the rare opportunities presented by such men. Therein lies their comparative strength as opposed to mob rule.

The ethnic minorites of Slovenia need a Great Leader, not a referendum.

Contrary to the statements of Ms. Rener, the vote in Slovenia was a triumph of democracy - and all that is wrong with it.

What do Moroccans Have Against Spain?

Spain is holding 15 people, most of them Moroccan, over the March 11 attacks.

Plus, a least one of the four to partake in today's group suicide was Moroccan. And several other Moroccans are being sought in connection with 3/11. Starting to sound an awful lot like Morocco is becoming Spain's Saudi Arabia. My question is why?

Are they still upset about the whole expulsion of the Moors thing? The Inquisition? The failure of the Spanish Armada to defeat Britain, thereby allowing the British to expand their dominion through dominance of the seas which in turn allowed for the establishment of the American colonies which after a revolution became free and eventually the world's sole surviving superpower which humiliated the vanguard of Islamic zealotry in Afghanistan?

I really don't know the reason. At least I know that the Saudi's hate us because we saved their collective butt from that pious Muslim, Saddam. But why do the Moroccans apparently have such a problem with the Spanish?

Maybe they insist on speaking Spanish in the supermarkets of Casablanca. That's certainly put some unstable people in Florida on edge....

There Is A Silver Lining Here

I'm sure that there are a large number of people who are snickering at the collapse of the Arab League Summit. And it does have a decent "what were they thinking?" snicker factor involved.

But at the same time, as I read some of the quotes from Arab officials, I have to believe that there might be the faintest glimmering of a silver lining.

Tunisian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hatem bin Salem said Sunday that his government's decision gave "another chance" to the Arabs to resolve their differences. Had the meeting gone ahead, "the summit would have come out with formalities, and regretfully, would have been the subject of ridicule by Arab and world public opinion."

"Certainly this is not one of our best moments," Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa acknowledged. "The Arab system is not in a good shape."

Arab summits of past have always seemed to be events at which Arab leaders would get together, make bold and lofty pronouncements, and then go home, chests puffed out, with nothing having actually been achieved.

But this time, the Tunisians have at least showed some understanding that they needed to come up with something more than just ridiculous statements. They may still come up with some outlandish idea, but at least they are starting to understand that words alone are not enough.

Even the head of the Arab League came up with an observation that, while not surprising to the rest of us, is a breakthrough for the Arab world. The Arab system is in bad shape. Acknowledging a problem is the first step in fixing it, right? Well, it has finally been acknowledged.

Now they may decide that they are in bad shape not because the League is made up primarily of tyrannical dictators and sociopaths but because of the Will of Allah or the Israelis. But, for the moment at least, they have recognized that there is a problem and the opportunity for it to be analyzed and corrected is now before them.

Yes the failure of the summit does have a humorous element to it, but this time there is some reason, however faint, for hope.

Now let's see how they handle it.

If Appeasement Works, Why The Fear?

Luxor Air Banned From Flying in France

Now I'd certainly be concerned if a MD-83 (which is actually a fairly small airplane - holds about 140 people and flies relatively short range routes) came flying over downtown Orlando at 660 feet. But then again, America has stood up to the terrorists and called their bluff. The terrorists want to make us pay for not caving.

But France has, true to their history, all but surrendered. They have paid the Dane-geld. If the precepts of Chamberlain, and not Churchill, were correct what does France have to fear?

Actually, quite a bit. And I think that the French government realizes it, too. That's why they have taken such a drastic action against Luxor Air instead of conducting a proper and just investigation of the flight crew. The fear is real - and so is the failure of appeasement.

The State of Arab Democracy? There's Such A Thing?

The AP has out a wonderful article, A Glance at State of Arab Democracy. Arab Democracy? What the.... Such an animal exists? So I decided to take a little closer look.

Here's the scary thought: Algeria is the closest to a functioning democracy in the Arab world so far.

Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are all monarchial governments. Libya, Syria, Sudan and Yemen are all dictatorships. Egypt professes democracy, but has one candidate on the ballot and he gains a Soviet style 90%+ share of the vote. Lebanon is effectively the southern province of Syria. The Palestinian Authority is a functional dictatorship without a nation. Tunisia is very similar to Egypt and the United Arab Emirates in a multi-monarchial society.

This is not intended to be a slam on any of the governments over there. It's merely pointing out that none of them are true democracies.

The astute reader will also note the absence of two of the big power players in the region: Iran and Iraq. Iran is not even close to be a democracy, but it is also not Arab. Iraq, as we all know, has been a dictatorship up until now, but in a few more months should be becoming the only functioning Arab democracy - whether it will be successful or not is yet to be seen.

The most important thing to remember here is that simply because many of these nations allow the people to vote on parliaments or advisory councils does not mean that they're a democracy.

As of this point in time, the state of Arab democracy is that there is none. Until Iraq votes on June 30 for its new government, it simply doesn't exist in that world.

That is the painful truth of Arab democracy.

Sharon Indicted

Israel is now facing a difficult decision as a nation. The chief prosecutor has drafted an indictment against Ariel Sharon in relation to some long-standing corruption charges. Personally, I believe that a trial should go forward, with some contraints.

Normally, when a national leader gets accused of some minor crime, I am of the opinion that the trial should be postponed until after the expiration of the term of office. The sexual harrassment charges against Bill Clinton were a good example. They were important, but they did not cast doubt on his ability to effectively govern the nation. The investigation should not stop, and should there be something like perjury, then that should be pursued, which is why I was glad that Clinton was impeached.

But a charge like corruption does cast doubt on the ability to govern. As such a trial should move forward and the charges heard and judged as soon as possible.

That being said, since this would be a trial involving a national leader, there do need to be some considerations paid to the fact that he still needs to be able to conduct his business of governing as unfettered as possible. Perhaps what is needed is a time limit on the length of time during which he can be required to testify, or maybe an independent panel to monitor his responsibilities as prime minister and his responsibilities to attend the trial and to make a determination of when the trial is taking too much away from his primary responsibility.

But the trial needs to go forward. The Israeli people have a right to know if Sharon is legally corrupt or not. Corruption is a big deal for a national leader.

I hope that the Israelis figure out how to move this forward. Maybe it would provide an example to the French for handling Chirac.

Freeloading: A Universal Trait

After having spent most of the last six years dealing with one freeloader or another begging my other half for "help" it is nice to see that someone else has a similar problem, albeit on a larger scale.

One overstayer, Muhammad Tam from Nigeria, told Okaz newspaper recently that he had stayed in the Kingdom after Umrah to wait for Haj.

"It is very expensive for me to travel back home and back again to Saudi Arabia to perform Haj," he said.

Now that Haj season has ended, Tam wants the Kingdom to fork out for his trip home as he is currently broke. "I want to go back but I don’t have the money," he said. "I wish they would send me at their cost."

"I wish they would send me at their cost." That is priceless. Poor me crying leeches do exist everywhere, not just around my little neighborhood.

I feel so much better now.

The Effectiveness Of Appeasement

The French have been less than enthusiastic about standing up to the Islamic extremists in recent times, preferring a policy of appeasement to confrontation.

It doesn't matter. They are now reaping the fruits of their labors.

The Dane-Geld comes to mind, yes it does....

UPDATE:

It doesn't look like the German's have done any better with their brand of neo-appeasement. If appeasement can't save you from assassination, what good would it be?

Unrighteous Indignation

Your 16 year old brother gets sent off to blow himself up. When you find out, how do you respond? Do you rail at the handlers who attempted to murder your kin? Do you express outrage and horror at the attempted act? Not if you're Palestinian.

In that case, you rail at the handlers: "The ones who sent him are stupid, because the army will give him two slaps and he will tell them who sent him."

Ah, yes, that wonderful expression of unrighteous indignation.

Never mind that the kid was seduced into attempted suicide: "Abdu told soldiers of his dream of receiving 70 virgins in heaven, which his dispatchers had promised him, and said that he had been tempted by the promise of sexual relations with the virgins."

Never mind that he was paid the handsome sum of 100 NIS (approx US$23). Never mind the sickness in believing that this would make him "a hero."

Nope, nothing wrong there! No if you're brother Hosni, you get pissed because they took your gullible brother who "has the intelligence of a 12 year old."

Given Hosni's response, I am having a little trouble completely buying Mom's indignation:

"Hussam left home this morning to school, and this was the first we hear of what happened," Tamam Abdu told Reuters from the family home in Nablus, just north of Hawara. "This is shocking. To use a child like this is irresponsible, forbidden."

I really want to believe that she is saying it is irresponsible to blow her child up, but at the same time I have to wonder if she didn't mean that it was irresponsible to send him out with a vest that wasn't remotely detonated. Given the warped minds possessed by quite a few, it raises some doubt about the veracity of the statement.

I will be interested to see how the Palestinians react to this latest setback to their cause. This is now the second child who has attempted to hit this checkpoint - and the second one to have failed.

Is there any question as to whether or not the handlers will decide to take care of things themselves? Will they decide that it's just not working to send a child to do a "man's job" (as if suicide terrorism can be called a "man's job")?

Does anyone actually believe that they would even consider self-immolation? Especially when it's that comfy sitting around sending others off to their untimely deaths?

Sorry, but I don't believe that to be in the murderous mindset.

Unfortunately, so long as the bombers families get more upset that the handlers chose the family idiot than the fact that they were murdering your brother/sister/child/parent/etc., I don't really think that anything will change.

Unrighteous indignation is just wrong.

Britain Talks...

...but will Spain listen? I kind of doubt it.

And We Were Worried About Just A Missile...

A few days ago I briefly touched on the events surrounding the damaging of the nose cone on a Trident missile as it was being removed from the USS Georgia. Now I thought that was a bad situation, even though there was never a risk of detonation or even a radiation leak.

But the Russians have taken this all to a new level. Forget damaging a nuclear missile, the Russians are warning that The Pyotr Veliky is in such condition that it may explode. The ship carries two reactors and as many as 10 nuclear missiles (bearing in mind that the Russians were never as big on nuclear safety as we are to begin with).

If this thing decides to go "boom" there could potentially be quite a bit of fallout, both politically and physically.

The Russians need to make a real, arms length assessment of the ship, if for no other reason than for the PR value gained in doing so. If the ship is truly safe, they should have no problem demostrating such. If it is unsafe, it would give them an opportunity to remedy the situation before they lose their Northern Fleet flagship.

Just as the American people deserve a report on the events surrounding the USS Georgia incident, the Russian people deserve an explaination as to the true state of The Pyotr Veliky.

A representative government, which is what Moscow still claims to be, owes its people no less.

Turning Up The Heat

As if the events of yesterday weren't quite enough...now Israel is going right along with the escalation of tensions between themselves and the terrorists. I'm not terribly surprised at the escalation on the part of Hamas - can't really expect any less from such a "charitable" organization. But did we really need Israeli tanks rolling through Palestinian streets already? Preemption is a good thing, but this might be too much of a good thing....

I did see one escalation of pressure that I believe is long overdue. Arafat and his ilk have needed to be on notice that their brand of terrorism won't be tolerated. In going after Yassin, Arafat, Saddam, and Osama it may seem as though everyone is targeting the Old and Infirm Martyr's Brigade, but you can best kill an organism by decapitation. Taking out the leadership is an excellent move as the lower levels of the organization seem to have a self destructive property about them. Get rid of the top and there is no truly capable underlings to take over. Sure there are some folks that have some sense, but the quantity and quality is lacking on the whole.

The next few weeks and months should be interesting as this whole situation plays out. Hopefully this time will be one of the last.

Rhetoric Threatening To Spill Over Into Suicide

Israel did something bad today. They eliminated a problem to their nation, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, but they did it in a very public and violent manner. Hamas, the Palestinians, and Al Qaeda (the usual suspects) are somewhat understandably upset.

This is not to say that the Israelis were completely out of line in removing Yassin as a threat. To the contrary, I believe that based on his previous history, he was a legitimate leadership target in a war that neither side seems to want to really fight in. Three missiles might have been a bit much, but once you're dead, what does it matter if it's once, twice, or three times as dead?

Hamas has come out quite expectedly and announced that they will ratchet up the pressure on Israel, threatening to "get revenge for every drop of blood that spilled." As much as I believe that the death of Yassin will not be a bad thing for the world in the long term, I can understand the degree of anger on the part of the group. Yassin was their founder. He was an important figure in their organizational history. Despite my feelings about Yassin, I believe that Hamas does have a solid grounding for emotional venting.

So long as it stays emotional venting. But that won't happen. Hell, it's already progressed beyond that point. Violent outbursts have already begun and will continue for the foreseeable future.

This, of course, is nothing out of the ordinary in the Israeli/Palestinian civil war. I normally don't believe in the whole "cycle-of-violence" stuff, but I'm beginning to believe that it describes the Middle East situation pretty well. Hamas sets of a bomb; Israel retaliates with three well aimed missiles; the Palestinian people go off on a suicidal rampage. And so the civil war continues.

Except that this time, Hamas seems to be wanting expand at least the rhetorical fight. No longer content with just verbally assaulting Israel, they have now taken their war of the words into battle against the US.

Threatening to attack the US is one thing and not a very bright one. Remember, this is an organization that claims to be a charity. How often do you see the Red Cross or the United Way threatening calling on all philanthropists to join in retaliation against a group they don't like? Calling for death doesn't seem very charitable now does it?

But it is one thing to talk stupid; it is entirely another to act it.

It Hamas carries through on their threats, or they enlist the help of Al Qaeda they will only then realize that they don't have a clue as to what it is like when the Gates of Hell open. To actually carry through on the acts that they are proposing would be to invite Death over for dinner.

If they think that the Israelis came to us asking for permission to execute the attack on Yassin, imagine what it would be like if the US told Israel that it was free to eliminate the terrorist threat in its territories. Hamas, the Al Asqa Brigade, the Palestinian Authority - all would cease to exist in a matter of days. Arafat wouldn't have worry about hiding out like a Saddam wannabe - eating Snickers and leading his head lice (assuming they don't revolt). It's kind of hard to hide in a pile of rubble - at least not while you're alive.

Hamas and the Palestinians have a right to be upset about the death of Yassin. An unnatural death - I wouldn't go so far as to call it untimely - is always cause for despair. Certainly, meeting your end at the hands of three personally targeted gunship missiles can be called unnatural. Mourning and anger are perfectly reasonable and acceptable emotions.

It is only when those emotions boil over into rages of hate that it becomes a problem.

If Hamas keeps fanning the flames and they pour over, it will be a case of suicide by stupidity, or stupicide.

(Also, if anyone can dig up the answer, I'm curious as to what kind of missile exactly was used in the attack. For some reason the idea of "(blank), the ultimate in anti-wheelchair weaponry" just strikes me as morbidly humorous. I must be too tired...)

Profiling Is Bad

Gee, in the past I've supported the idea of profiling as a way to more effectively use of policing and security resources. But then I see articles like this that point out the extremes in profiling gone bad.

Fro some reason, I'm thinking that someone's parents forget to teach them that "sorry" isn't always enough. There are some mistakes that are forever. Assassination is one of them.

The supreme irony here is that there is a decent likelihood that the murderer in this case was, at least once, sprung free by his victim's father. I don't agree with the father's having supported terrorists through providing them legal defense, but this is much too high a price to pay.

The most sickening part though is this:

"We will consider him as a martyr like hundreds of Palestinians killed by Israeli occupation forces," the al-Aqsa brigades leader said...

So, they kill him and, along with a letter of apology, the best that they can offer the family is to act like their child was killed by the Israelis.

What???

The Israelis did not kill this young man. They had nothing to do with his murder! This was a case of hate motivated murder gone bad.

Sorry doesn't make it right. Sorry doesn't make it better. They took the life of another person simply because they believed he was a person whom they hated for purely racist reasons.

Maybe profiling does have some problems....

Another UN Success Story

In the Sudan Islamists have raped 100 women in an attack on the Christian south.

Now the UN is involved in the Sudan, trying to broker a ceasefire in the civil war. A UN official who was in Rwanda (the site of another genocidal success story) has declared himself "totally shocked" at the horror of the ethnic cleansing in Sudan. The UN's biggest concern? Not the lives lost or the evilness of the actions in Sudan. No, they are more concerned that the genocide may undermine the peace talks as they are coming to an end.

So it's ok to murder, maim and rape so long as it doesn't affect the talks? What kind of inane, perverted policy is that?

Why do Sudanese Christians have fewer human rights than anyone else? Is murder not the ultimate deprivation of human rights? Is not systematic terroristic rape not one of the worst violations of human rights? Why does the UN go out of its way to protect the "rights" of oppressors, murderers and thugs, while ignoring those of the Christians?

I'm starting to think that it is a religious bias. The UN seems to be enamored with protecting the rights of Muslims at the expense of everyone else.

In very few places around the world are the Muslims an oppressed minority, denied their basic human rights. In far more places they are the oppressive majority.

Saudi Arabia. Iran. Sudan. Yemen. Egypt. Tunisia. The West Bank and Gaza Strip. Syria. The list goes on of places in which the Muslims are systematically violating rights and oppressing the people.

Yet all that anyone ever wants to talk about is the Israelis building a fence around their territory. We talk about the indignities of profiling. We talk about the horrors of there being restrictions on the numbers allowed on the Temple Mount. We talk about the prisoners - the people who violated the law and are paying society's price for having done so.

Ignored are the Christians of Sudan, Tunisia, or Iran. Ignored is the hatred that spews forth from Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Indonesia. Ignored is the fact, undisputed by the Muslims, that we are engaged in a war of survival for Christianity and Western culture.

These are all inconvenient nuisances to the moral relativists. These are all points to be brushed aside as irrelevant by the appeasement crowd. These are all lies to the people who believe mulitculturalists who insist that we simply don't understand.

But we do understand. Every person with a well grounded moral compass understands. Oh, we might want to believe to siren's song of the peace-through-surrender crowd, but we innately know better. There can be no peace with a group that only seeks your death. None.

The UN still hasn't figured this out yet. The UN still believes that words are the way. In their twisted thinking, a peace agreement that will be violated almost as soon as it is signed is more important than protecting the dignity of the hundreds of women who are raped or gangraped every day by the very people with which Annan's group is negotiating.

A peace agreement with the Sudanese will be like Oslo with the Palestinians. The words are golden; the actions irrelevant. So believes the peace-at-any-cost crowd.

Their song is sweet and their Kool-Aid tart. Everyday fewer and fewer people seem to be able to resist the temptations of their ways.

I fear the day when they finally hold reign over the rest of us. It will be a dark, surrenderous day indeed.

The World Is Getting Scary

While I was looking for things to write about tonight, I noticed something. The world is becoming exceedingly more violent than it has been in the past, at least perception-wise, it is.

We have Syria fighting with the Kurds, with security forces killing more and more of the Kurds.

Zimbabwe has charged the mercenaries from last week with violating their security law by attempting to procure rocket launchers and grenades.

The Nigerian government is clashing with Islamofascists (maybe they can put the scam-mailers on the front lines?).

Kosovo is returning to the days of ethnic violence.

Georgia is desperately trying to avoid an armed conflict with the breakaway province of Adzharia.

The Allies in Afghanistan are conducting Operation Mountain Storm.

The Spanish are starting to discover evidence of an intelligence and law enforcement failure similar to our pre-9/11 failures.

And yet the EU appeasers still haven't gotten the clue. They seem to be more concerned with justifying and passing a "solidarity clause" than actually fighting terrorism.

And, of course, al-Qaeda is making more of their usual threats.

I know the world is a dangerous place, but this is perhaps a little more dangerous than normal. Too many hot spots in too small an area near the global powder keg.

The European Reaction To 3/11?

So here we are four days after the attacks in Madrid and the initial European reaction is starting to become clear. And to say that it is less than intimidating would be an understatement.

High level security talks? Proposals for a "solidarity clause?" A decision to make a decision at the end of the month?

Not exactly a steely resolve to bring the parties responsible to justice. Yes, it took a while for the determination to be made after 9/11 as to who we needed to go after.

But there was no need for a "solidarity clause" to be voted on by Congress. Every state in the Union stood behind New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania without question or debate. We did not, as a nation, ask for permission to from anyone to defend our interests.

We just looked at the situation and decided what needed to be done. And we did it. At its root, it was that simple.

But that is not the course of action being taken by the EU. They are dithering and delaying, all the while giving the terrorists more time and more opportunity to consolidate, to plan and to potentially attack again.

Now understand that this is not intended as a criticism of the Spanish themselves. I don't agree that they did the right thing with the election results over the weekend, but in the end my opinion matters as much over there as theirs does over here.

The new Spanish government has a right to show that they have the ability to do what is right for Spain. I don't believe that they will be as stalwart a friend as the Aznar government, but that does not mean that they won't be able to act in the best interest of the Spanish people.

The problem I see is that the new government seems to be more interested in trying to refight the debate over the propriety of the Spanish involvement in the war on terror. There is a big debate ongoing about whether or not being involved in the war will tick off al-Qaida or other Muslim extremist groups.

Unfortunately that is a rather useless debate. The question is no longer how do we avoid pissing them off, but how to we react to their anger? It's like trying to find the source of the fire instead of fighting the fire as the building burns around you.

Prime Minister elect Zapatero has a difficult task before him. He has already stated his intention to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq (but with an escape clause for that promise - a smart move), but he cannot afford to withdraw Spain from the war on terror. The events of the eleventh have brought Spain to the bank of their Rubicon. They must decide what their course will be. Do they turn back and give the terrorists a moral victory? Or do they commit themselves to the war in every sense?

The new Spanish government has a grace period in which to formulate their response. How long is that period? Who knows. It might be a week; it might be a month.

But the EU has no excuse. If the EU wants to pretend that it is on an equal footing to the US then it needs to react to an attack on one of its members like the US would (and has) to an attack on one of its states.

So far, all the attacks of 3/11 have generated from the EU proper is the every feared "scowl of disapproval." Not exactly the best response to invoke fear or deterrence.

(Cross posted over at We The People, a group blog to which I have been invited as a new contributor)

Arrogance & Elitism

Canada is understandably concerned about the recent revelations of a Trident-IV getting damaged while being removed from the USS Georgia a few months back. That's fine. I am concerned also. I can understand why the Navy did not come out and announce the event, but someone in the Department of Defense should have. Especially since no one was ever really put at risk by the accident. It would have avoided the current fallout from the unexpected and heretofore unknown revelation. Had it been announced, there would not be the discussions of a possible coverup floating around like they currently are.

Now I understand that Canada is out ally and that they had a right to know about the issue, just like all Americans had a right to know also. But it really pisses me off when they attempt to lecture us:

"The whole issue of transparency in government is fundamental to our democratic system. I think when something is covered up it is pretty outrageous." (Libby Davies, Canadian Parliamentarian from Vancouver East)

I'm sorry, but that just sounds extremely smug and elitist. You can be upset and searching for answers, but the tone implied in that comment is offensive. Canada's government is no more perfect than ours and Mrs. Davies needs to get off her high horse and realize that.

After this incident is investigated and concluded, Mrs. Davies needs to made a persona non grata on US military bases. In the past she has led citizen inspection teams; that needs to stop. US officials hostile to the United States military have a right to inspect bases as they see fit. That's part of their oversight duty. Foreign officials that are even seemingly hostile to the US military should not be allowed on our bases. The US base at Bangor may affect Mrs. Davies constituents, but that does not automatically confer upon her some right to visit the base.

But in the meantime, I would like to know how in the hell someone managed to leave a ladder in the tube and how it was missed until the missile hit it. I know that I don't have all the details, but that seems like a gross oversight to me.

I too, would like answers. I just don't see the need for arrogance in my demanding them.

The Bombings In Spain

I haven't really commented on the terrorist attacks in Spain yesterday, but I think that they do deserve a special mention.

3/11 will become Spain's version of 9/11. The fact that the carnage and the human toll is but a fraction of 9/11's is a tribute to the effectiveness of the war on terror. The very fact that the best that the terrorists could do was to pull off multiple, nearly simultaneous attacks against an extremely soft target (and rush hour rail service in a major city will always be soft, has to be to move that many people efficiently) really speaks to how weak the terrorists are.

Spain responded today with protest marches, a period of silence and the beginning of three days of mourning.

Since the bombing occured there have been accusations flying around that the Basque separatist group ETA was possibly responsible, but then there are the counter arguments that say that it would be completly out of character for them.

Given the immediate denials of responsibility by ETA and the reaction of the people of the Basque region - joining the rest of Spain in silence and the beginning of mourning - I believe that ETA was most likely not the culprit in this case.

First off, if ETA organized and executed this attack it would be bordering on organizational suicide. If ETA is responsible they will very likely be facing the full wrath and fury of not only the Spanish government, but also the Americans, the Brits, and quite possibly even the French.

If a global terrorist organization like al-Qaida has been made to reel from the onslaught, what could the only possible outcome for a regional group like ETA be? Only complete annihilation.

For ETA this type of attack would not further their purpose in any way, shape, or form. There is no upside, no warning or message that could possibly be sent outside of "Kill me!" No upside; all downside: not too bright.

But when we look at it from the point of view of al-Qaida things make a lot more sense. It is an attack fraught with symbolism. 3/11. 911 days after 9/11. Spain - a nation that has already once thrown off the yoke of Islam. Spain - a nation that steadfastly stood beside the US after 9/11.

Plus it would "prove" that al-Qaida still existed as a somewhat dangerous entity. For the murderous thugs, it could be viewed as a morale boost.

Not to minimize the tragedy of 199 dead and over 1400 more wounded, but if this is the best the al-Qiada can do it only serves to show how far they've fallen. They have gone from glorious suicide missions of unparallelled deviousness to imitating the Palestinians.

Now I am a firm believer in the concept of asymmetrical response. If they killed 199 Spaniards I believe that the Spanish have a moral justification for rooting out these rats by the thousands. If each bomb was denotated by a suicide bomber, they will claim a glorious achievement in having killed 20 infidels for every martyr.

If that's the case, we need to create 200 martyrs for every innocent Spaniard (or Peruvian or Honduran or Pole or Frenchman, Chilean, Cuban, Ecudorian, Colombian, Morrocan, or Guinean) who was murdered in cold-blood on the morning of March 11th, 2004.

This is not a time to be concilliatory. This is not a time to desire negotiations. This is not a time to assume that we can reason with the unreasonable.

al-Qaida understands death and fear. They "fight" for a religion they don't understand. They "fight" for a man who is nothing more than a manipulator of the Jim Jones or David Koresch ilk. They don't understand logic or reason, but they certainly understand that their "friend" met martyrdom as a screaming, bloody mess from the .50 cals that cut him apart. They understand that the contrails high up in the sky mean that tons upon tons of explosive metal are above to indiscriminately martyr them or their friends. They understand fear and they understand death.

The only way we will ever truly defeat al-Qaida is to make it simply too risky to become a member. When potential terrorists watch as their role models are dying not as valiant warriors, but screaming and writhing in excrutiating pain inflicted by an enemy that often can't even be seen, that might help to influence more than a few loons to go off and become sand castle artists instead. Will we influence all of them? No. But eventually the pool of prospects will start to realize that it is they who are dying in horrific ways while the same master manipulators and liars keep trying to recruit them. Eventually the truth of the intent of the organization, the accumulation of power and wealth by a few at the expense of the many, will become painfully obvious.

It is disheartening to think that another nation has had to suffer the tragedy of an attack like this. It is even worse to think that it was a stalwart ally like Spain that was the nation. No one deserved this.

Unfortunately it probably won't be the last time it happens. More friends will suffer and die at the hands of this living evil.

We owe it to the memory of all those who have died to fight the good fight against these terrorists, to protect our homes, our nations, and our futures.

It's Amazing What Some People Still Do

Via Donald Sensing who got it from Sgt. Stryker

As I recently mentioned, I went to see The Passion and like many was astounded at the brutality of the cruxifiction scene (I've still got to weigh in with my overall view on the movie, besides just saying that I was suitably impressed). And like many, I assumed that such barbaric practices had fallen by the wayside - even in barbaric locales.

But no. Apparently our friends in Saudi Arabia still practice it. As do the murderous loons running the civil war in the Sudan.

I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised by the depths to which man will dive in order to inflict pain and suffering on his fellow man. I find it interesting that both nations noted here are Islam. I know they like symbolism, but isn't this a little overboard?

I've never been a big fan of the Saudis, but the fact that they would resort to cruxifiction really makes me question whether or not their friendship is worth the price. We claim to support human rights around the world (and generally do an excellent job of doing so, despite the rhetoric of Amnesty International), but how can we befriend a nation that still does this? Doesn't that support the claims that we are a hypocritic nation?

For me, this is just more proof that we need to dump the Saudis. There simply isn't enough good that comes out of the relationship - even considering the oil. Keep in mind, they need us to buy oil just as much as we need to buy it. If we shift and buy from others instead, it may hurt our economy, but it will destroy theirs (and will probably lead to the downfall of the Wahhabist regime. I'm really starting to believe that even an Iranian style fundamentalist regime can't be that much worse that the corrupt House of Saud).

Cruxifiction is a step too far as far as I'm concerned. It's time to end the facade of good relations with the Saudis.

It's really too bad that Bush 41 had such a "great" relationship with the House of Saud. I think that relationship will prevent Bush 43 from doing what is right.

How To Tell That You're A Failure As A Terrorist Leader

So, you're the tyrannical leader of a terrorist organization. One of your senior advisors - one that was good with the PR BS that you have to conduct with the West in order to keep the funding flowing - gets assassinated while leaving work. What's a good terrorist to do?

Well, if you're Yassar, you hold an urgent meeting and give an EU like scowl of disapproval, maybe even going as far as to call the act "dirty."

Now I probably would have also included the words "dastardly" and "despicible," but then it might sound too much like an episode of Rocky and Bullwinkle.

But what kind of leader are you if the best you can do is to hold a meeting? Yassar is no longer "a man of action." He is now "a man of angy congregations."

It's funny that a sociologist would be talking about the loss of confidence in social institutions when the PA is proving itself to its citizens to be such an impotent, corrupt institution. Why would people lose confidence in an organization like that, especially when it starts taking crisis reaction tips from the EU?

The assassination is a tragedy - no one deserves a summary execution like that - but Yassar's response is comical. It is one of the few ways in which he could have made the situation worse.

Why Negotiation Won't Work

Pravda has an interesting interview with a wannabe terrorist who was caught trying to get entrance into Jerusalem for the purpose of killing Jews. One of the oddities about this particular terrorist is that she is female. But it wasn't the revelation of the "reward" that female martyrs supposedly get (they become a mermaid), rather it was some of the other admissions that caught my eye:

"I am sorry I could not conduct the act of terrorism", she says. (emphasis mine)....

"I was dreaming of making myself a sacrifice for Palestine. Our only weapon - people like myself. Take on a belt with explosives and blow oneself up". .....

What were you thinking when you were going to take the belt filled with explosives?

I was going in a taxi from Jenin to Skhem and trying to imagine what this would be look like. I was not scared - those willing to explode themselves have no fear. I was thinking how many people would die. I was trying to figure out what would happen if I succeeded and what - if I failed. I was calculating how many Jews I should kill to consider this a success and justify my death.

And how many?

As many as possible. When I was in a taxi, I closed my eyes and was dreaming of killing more than one hundred Jews. Two hundreds would be even better. I was thinking only about this. To sacrifice myself to make hundreds of Jews dead.

I have spent part of the last few days reading through Victor Davis Hanson's Ripples of Battle [Buy From Amazon] (which I finally got a copy of) and the first battle he analyzed was Okinawa - a battle famous for its suicide attacks.

In that chapter, he pointed out the abject futility of the kamikaze efforts. He illustrated the complete useless waste of human life. He also pointed out that after a point, suicide attacks only serve to unleash the awesome destructive fury of a mobilized and ingenious West. He pointed out that this not only happened at Okinawa, but again on 9/11. I've got to believe that the Palestinians are fast approaching that point with the Israelis.

Until this attitude of the Palestinians changes, this "I want to kill as many Jews as possible," there can be no hope for a negotiated peace. What's even worse is that the Palestinians don't even seem to be trying to hide behind a veil of quasi-legitimacy anymore - they are freely and willingly admitting that they are attempting to commit terrorism.

Here's betting the Israelis go full bore at the Palestinians, long before the Palestinians accept the right to existence of the Israelis.

The Iranian Revolution Continues (To Fizzle)

Yesterday the Iranians voted their conscience by going someplace other than the polls in record numbers. According to the Telegraph, the Iranian interior ministry is reporting the voter turnout at 50.6%. I thought that in these great revolutionary states, like Iran, Cuba, the Soviet Union, were supposed to achieve voter turnout rates of 99% as a matter of course.

It's nice to see the Iranian people voting by their non-voting. Even the EU has started to take notice that the Iranian Revolution is not a revolution of the people. The less perceived popular support, the less external support and acceptance the regime will be able to fall back on.

I Do Love Irrational Pride

Got to love the Russians sometimes. Two days in a row they couldn't get an ICBM to launch and now they're out boasting about their new smart missile that can maneuver in flight, rendering our missile defense impotent.

Sorry, but I'm not real worried. I realize that the missiles they were trying to launch were older ones, but with the launches being that public, I find it hard to believe that they were just generic tests. Putin had to have believed that there was an excellent chance of success or else he would have put himself in such an embarassing position.

Plus there is a difference between being able to simply move around and being able to detect and react to an incoming threat. The first is simple, the second a much more difficult proposition and one which I find it hard to believe that the Russians, given their current economic state, would be willing to build into a one-time use vehicle.

Of course, maybe I'd feel a little different if they could get a missile that actually seemed to be able to fly straight. This almost sounds a bit like trying to sell a bug as a feature....

Iran Calls For Muslim Common Market

This is lovely. At the opening of the D-8 Summit of Developing Muslim nations, Iran has gone and called for a common market and also common foreign investment rules for the group. The nations in the D-8? Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Nigeria.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty much all those nations, with the exception of Turkey, are not exactly what the average person would view as nations hostile to terrorists.

The idea itself of a common market is great and all, but what are they really going to trade? Oil? Sand? Terrorists? Weapons? Bomb-making techniques?

Look at the nations involved. Turkey and Pakistan are the two most economically advanced in the group, as such they have the least need for the group. Malaysia and Indonesia, if they could ever get the extremeists under control, would be in a similar situation. Egypt is mainly a tourist economy now, much to the chargrin of the fundamentalists. Nigeria seems to excel in fraud better than anything else (I found out today that the scam-mails they send out have an autoresponder that asks for more information. I have an autoresponder set up for the email for this site and I got an autoresponse to my autoresponse. But they obviously don't read too far as they think my name is "blog.")

Iran, I'm guessing, is simply looking for a common weapons market. It's getting tougher to smuggle in all that stuff needed to build the Bomb. Besides, Iran, more than any of the other nations, has a very limited export potential to their economy: oil, sand, or revolutionary extremeists. I'm guessing that Iran is simply looking to lower the tarriffs on imports so that they can free up more hard currency for their North Korean nuke techology.

And I'm not really sure how Bangladesh might fit into all this. I honestly don't know enough about the country to have any idea as to what they might produce or need, and therefore can't really determine how they might fit into a common Muslim market.

Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical about this. Maybe I should look for the positive, that Iran is making some of sort of attempt to act in a normal, responsible manner. But I look at the news that has been coming out of these nations over the last few years and I really have to wonder....

Looks Like The Cold War Isn't About To Heat Up Again - Yet...

The military manoeuvres are said to be the biggest to take place in the post-Soviet period.

You know, in a way this should make me happy, given recent events in my life. A return to an arms race like we had particularly during the Reagan years would be extremely beneficial to me.

But instead, I'm feeling a little bit of relief that the Russians can't get their sub launched ICBMs to fire right with now a second misfire in as many days.

I really kind of grew up during the Reagan years, the end of the Cold War. I remember, as a kid, looking to the sky and wondering if the missiles were already in flight (I thought about a lot of weird things for a kid. Many of them were probably weird for an adult to, but that's beside the point). I remember the first time I saw the B-1B bomber and the pilot was boasting that his plane was the reason we could sleep soundly at night. I remember quite a bit about the fear that the Cold War could instill in an impressionable kid.

I don't want that for my kids.

I don't want them to fear MAD (I only want them to fear me when I'm mad). I don't want them to truly understand the book Alas, Babylon. I don't want them to know what it is like to live knowing that another nation has enough nuclear warheads pointed at you to annihilate your country 10 times over.

I don't want them to know another Cold War.

What concerns me is that the Russians seem to be thinking that they might be able to play a bit of catch-up here. It almost seems as though they think the technological gap is small enough that they might be able to close it. That's not good.

That is the effect of the massive defense cuts we've had. That's the effect of our not continuing to push the envelope. Reagan proposed a 600 ship Navy; we're now on the brink of having less than 300 ships at sea. The Army, the Marines, the Air Force: they're all stretched to their limits also. Our front line fighter jet, the F-15, is Vietnam Era technology. Our premier standoff weapon, the Tomahawk cruise missile, is old enough to have played a role in Tom Clancy's book Red Storm Rising (a book copyrighted in 1986).

It may be too late, but we need to make a more serious commitment to our national defense. Our greatest advantage is the technology gap we've created. It must be maintained. Our soldiers are the best in the world. Don't they deserve the best weapons we can give them?

How Many Different Laws Are There?

First we had the violations of international law. And we had war crimes violations (which implies a law of war). Now we have the Red Cross trotting out violations of "humanitarian law" as a way of trying to force Israel to tear down the West Bank Wall.

Funny, but I don't remember having studied about the humanitarian violations of the Berlin Wall. I don't remember reading about the UN General Assembly taking the Soviet Union to the International Court in the Hague to gain a non-binding resolution that the Iron Curtain should come down. So why does this seem that it is just some fabricated appeal to the utopians who believe that the law should exist and is required to be followed, regardless of its existence.

But probably the most offensive part of the whole article was this:

The ICRC said it recognized the right of Israel -- which says the barrier is meant to stop suicide bombers and has already thwarted dozens of attacks -- to take measures to defend the security of its own population.

And ICRC official Balthasar Staehelin said that if the barrier were moved back to the Green Line -- the boundary before Israel seized the West Bank in the 1967 Middle East War -- "that would solve many of the problems as far as we are concerned."

Has this man got no clue? Does he not comprehend the stated goal of most of the terrorist governmental and chartiable organizations over there, to throw the nation of Israel back into the sea? Moving back to the Green Line would solve many of the ICRC's problems, but certainly wouldn't make anything any better for Israel. In fact, it would only serve to make the country less defensible.

Plus, that offer was basically already made by Israel. It was the Palestinians who rejected it. It was the Israelis who have made every serious overture, most of the unilaterally, for peace. It is the Palestinians who keep the human bomb factories running day and night.

The Red Cross is supposed to be a neutral organization, but it is starting to act otherwise. If they are not careful, the ICRC is going to squander their facade of humanitarianism to become nothing more than another politically motivated entity.

We're Heading For Nuclear Destruction???

One more quickie before I head out the door for work.

World May Be Headed for Nuclear Destruction-ElBaradei

Gee, isn't it supposed to be a part of his job to help staunch the proliferation of nuclear weapons? He's out there complaining about proliferation, but what are his solutions? Make it "impossible" to withdraw from NPT? Strengthen inspections and export controls?

Doesn't he realize that anyone serious about building a Bomb is going to laugh at these proposals? It's kind of like throwing a single bucket of water on a burning skyscraper.

Maybe I would feel better if he were suggesting inspections enforced by the threat of force. Maybe I would feel better if he were suggesting to involuntary elimination of suspected nuclear proliferation sites. Maybe I would feel better if his organization had any kind of track record worth feeling better about.

I fear that Dr. El Baradei's prophecy is accurate, but that he is absolutely the wrong person to try to change it.

Does The UN Not Study Its Own History?

A UN envoy in Iraq has agreed in principal with a Shi'ite Ayatollah that Iraq should suffer direct elections, altough he did indicate that conditions must be right.

Has he not looked at the General Assembly to see how a direct democracy functions - or more correctly, fails to? Has he not seen the injustices that eminate from that august body? Does he not realize that replacing Saddam with a direct democracy is simply replacing one big tyrant with many little ones?

On anything outside of small, local issues, a direct democracy is a recipe for failure. The US government would most certainly fail if we were to change from a Republic to a direct democracy. Technically, it is feasible. But we would lose sight of our ideals. The tyranny of the majority would ignore the lofty goals set by the Founding Fathers in an effort to satisfy an immediate desire. For anyone not in the majority - which will be everyone given the breadth of issues facing us today - life in a direct democracy would be every bit as oppressive as life in Castro's Cuba or the theothugs Iran.

The Greeks proved the ineffectiveness of a direct democracy over 2000 years ago. The UN General Assembly is consistently reinforcing many of the downfalls of direct democracy - most notably the oppression of the minority by the majority. For a UN envoy to be nearly totally ignorant of those lessons is appalling.

If we want Iraq to become a more tolerant society, with protections for minorities similar to what we have in the US, we need to stick to our plan to introduce the Iraqi people to a republican form of government.

Otherwise, we are just reloading the powder keg.

French Military Sales Must Be Down

For Saddam to get captured in his tiny little hole must have really been a blow to Jacques Chirac, as he is now going to push for a lifting of the arms embargo on China.

He claims that the embargo, placed in response to Tiananmen Square, "makes no more sense today."

I guess we really shouldn't be too surprised. Human rights violations are not of great concern to Chirac, unless he can somehow figure out a way to pin them on the United States. He thought that Saddam was fine, and now he is implying that China has reformed its violating ways.

Very little has really changed in China. There are still rampant human rights violations taking place. Look at the current media articles coming out of the region. Remember, this is the country that still has forced population control. But there are certainly no human rights violations taking place....

If Chirac wants to lift the embargo, that's fine. Some things have changed since 1989. Maybe there is a valid reason to lift the embargo (although it would almost certainly intensify the Far Eastern arms race). A debate would not necessarily be a bad thing. But in any discussion, there must still be a recognition and debate about the state of human rights in China. Anything less would be intellectually dishonest.

Chirac seems to be once again demonstrating that he is more interested in selling weapons to whomever, rather than holding true to his rhetoric on human rights.

When Relativism Goes Too Far

A bioethicist in the UK - one on the board of the British Medical Association - has declared that there is no difference between aborting a full grown fetus or killing a child who has already been born if they have birth defects. Given that abortion is legal in the UK he is essentially calling for, as the cartoon South Park once put it, retroactive abortion.

He claims that the retro-abortion should be legal only "soon" after the child is born. Who defines soon? Who defines what exactly constitutes a defect qualifiying of retro-abortion? Will it only be the parents that are able to decide, or will any medical professional be able to decide it would be in the person's best interest to be retro-aborted? How soon after birth is soon? A couple days? A couple decades?

This is absolutely ridiculous. What the doctor is proposing is the legalization of murder. He may want to try to twist the truth to make it more palatable, but in the end, murder is still murder.

To think that this guy is a bioethics professor, along with being a member of the BMA ethics committee, is appalling. If he cannot understand the moral implications of murdering children that some might find to be, errrr, undesirable tells me that he has no moral compass whatsoever. The last group to follow through with the elimination of "undesirables" was the Third Reich. Certainly only a very, very few would believe that Himmler and Hitler had the right idea, yet this loon is suggesting implemenation of a small portion of their plan.

Ignoring the moral questions surrounding abortion, there most certainly are serious moral implications associated with retro-actively aborting children. No amount of relativism can change the fact that murder is wrong. To say or suggest otherwise demostrates a sinister streak a mile wide.

I hope, I hope, I hope that this guy comes out and explains how this is all some big misunderstanding, but for some reason I don't see it happening. Too bad that some people just seem to believe that murder should be ok.

Legalizing Sex

Ireland has announced plans that during their turn in the EU Presidency they plan to introduce a measure to ban paying for sex throughout the EU. Specifically, one of the proposals would remove some of the various porn groups, like Swedish-based Private Media Group, from the EU stock exchanges.

I have no problem with trying to restrict obscene emails. I'm even ok with restricting prostitution in the EU (although I have much stronger philosophical issues with that). But for the government to come in and deliberately order the delisting of a company is over the line.

When an investor is researching an international stock for possible inclusion into a portfolio they examine two seperate categories of risk: company and country. The company risk is the normal risk that we associate with every company, i.e.: are they making money? Do they have good management? etc....

Country risk, on the other hand, takes into account governmental interference in the capitalist market. In other words if a nation is prone to nationalization or arbitrary delisting of unpopular industries for political purposes then it will eventually lead to a higher cost of capital for all companies engaged in any business in that particular nation. With the global economy becoming more and more interconnected, this seemingly industry specific assault will have much broader, unintended consequences.

If the EU truly wants to rid itself of the porn industry (which I'm not sure is a good move. Yes, it is undesirable and distasteful, but it also employs a large number of people and has a massive customer base. Say what you will about it, but the purchasers of porn are legion.) then they need to start by outlawing the content, not the company. If a company like Private Media can survive under the new laws of legality, then so be it - give them credit for adaptabilty. If not, they'll wither away on their own without the worst consequences of government interference in the market.

I don't think it's right to try to legislate morality, but if the EU wants to try, more power to them. Better for them to try than for us to experiment.

I just hope that they don't really screw it up and accidently invoke the laws of unintended consequences.

Are The Chinese Headed For A Crash?

The CIA has released a report warning that China could be headed for a "crash" in the near future (link to the CIA report instead of a summary).

I tend to think along similar lines and could see an invasion of Taiwan as a reaction to a worsening domestic situation in mainland China. I also think that such an event could be the catalyst to a major conflict in the Pacific. That would certainly not be a good situation, to say the least.

I found the article originally on Free Republic and I thought that one commenter had an interesting comment:

If China becomes economically unstable, how in the hell would it help solve the problem by unifying with Taiwan by force? (question posed in an earlier comment)

That won't do anything but accentuate the crash and extend it into the distant future. But, as you mention, it would distract the populace from their bankruptcy. China has chosen to buy the large military items, especially Navy ships, rather than create an infrastructure to build them internally. This might indicate that China has short-term military goals and perhaps they don't plan for a necessity for a long-term projection of force through the Navy. They may be relying on their nuclear deterrent to keep China safe from major foreign powers. China's industrial expansion would be limited by two factors. One, China is a little short of oil. Two, the rest of the world might tire of buying cheap plastic electronic toys.

Posted by RightWhale, comment #13

I think that it is a very interesting point that China is buying technology rather than developing it. I hadn't really considered that point, but it does bear some serious consideration and thought about why they might be doing this. After all, their only real, substantial threats by water would be the US, Australia, or Britain and the latter two don't seem to come into conflict with mainland China anywhere near as much as we do. So why buy a navy?

If China really does experience a wreck, the worldwide ramifications could be substantial. Maybe the CIA is wrong with this assessment, and I certainly hope they are, but I'm also glad to see that they're considering and surely planning for the possibility.

What Is Moammar Up To?

This is interesting. Libya approached the US and Britain about dismantling some of its weapons programs, in an unconditional and verifiable manner. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but what is Moammar up to?

I know that he's been trying to rehabilitate himself in the world community. I know that he took responsibility for Pan Am 103. I know that this is a momentous step forward for him, and one that's fraught with risk. But why is he doing it?

I know he wants to have sanctions lifted and that he wants to distance himself from the spectre of international terrorism. But it seems to me like the man is beginning to protesteth too much.

I'll give Moammar credit. More than any other Arab leader he seems to catch the direction of the winds in Western politics. He seems to be able to strike just that right balance where he's a thorn in the West's side, but not enough to warrant any real action (since 1986, at least).

But the spotlight isn't on Libya right now. It is focused on Syria and Iran. There was no real pressure on Moammar to conform to international norms as no one really viewed him as a significant threat at the moment. There was no great outcry for him to surrender his weapons programs. So why do it?

I worry that Moammar is one of the better manipulators of the region. He may have recognized, particularly after the recommencement of hostilities in Iraq, that he has no earthly hope of truly threatening the West - at least not through conventional means, or even conventional unconventional means, like chemical, biological, or nuclear programs. Surely he's realized that the most effective manner for threatening the West is through small, al-Qaida like, plausibly deniable terrorist cells.

But finding funding for those types of cells isn't easy, even for Moammar. So how to free the money from the treasury while winning Western brownie points?

Dismantle your weapons programs. Or even better yet, bring in the inspectors, find a way to cry poormouth, and get the West to fund the dismantlement themselves - all in the name of good global citizenship, of course.

Pretty Machiavellian, but not a bad idea if you're in Moammar's position. So how should we react?

I say, play the fool. If he asks for money to dismantle the programs, find a way to fund it. But unlike the fool, we need to step up our monitoring to make sure that he's not ramping up terrorist production. Give him a little benefit of the doubt - he has been trying for a while to rehabilitate. Trust, but verify need to be the watchwords of the day, and the best way to effect that is through engagement.

He wants the sanctions to be lifted? Lift them. Let his kingdom get exposed, for good or for bad. Let his people meet with, work with and deal with Westerners and Americans on a daily basis. Perestroika didn't work too well for the Soviets, and chances are Moammar won't fare much better.

I want to believe that this is a step in the right direction. I want to believe that Moammar is truly committed to becoming a functional member of world society. This could be one of the great bloodless victories of the war on terror.

If Moammar is being honest in his intent. Trust, but verify.

Arafat Won't Be Celebrating Christmas This Year

The Arab News is reporting thatIsrael has again Barred Arafat from making a trip to Bethlehem for Christmas. More specifically, they said he could go, they just couldn't guarantee that he could return to Ramallah.

For some reason, I just don't see Yassar as the kind of guy who has the spirit of Christmas in his heart. The holiday is already commercialized enough as it is, we certainly don't need it to become politicized anymore than it already is. If Yassar has to stay home and doesn't get to participate in the festivities, well that's just fine. It's not like he's a Christian. He's probably just going to look for a gift from the EU anyways.

I know that I'll be one very disappointed Christian when I don't see Yassar's terrorist mug staring back at me this year in the televised services at the Church of the Nativity. Very, very disappointing, indeed.

As an aside, I'm curious as to what possessed the Arab News to chose to run the particular picture they did in conjuection with this article. They're taking about Arafat and Bethlehem, yet run a picture of a kid shot with a rubber bullet in Balata. What gives with that?

Should Saddam's WMD Equal Life For Him?

DEBKAfile is speculating that Saddam will try to trade his WMD secrets for his life. Personally, I don't particularly care for the idea, but DEBKA does throw out some interesting scenarios regarding Assad of Syria.

DEBKA is working on the assumption, gathered from their sources, that the US has a reasonably good idea as to the general location of the weapons in the Syrian desert. This would, of course, complicate the search for the WMD and could be a reasonable explanation as to why none have turned up in Iraq so far.

But is confirmation of our suspicion sufficient grounds for letting Saddam live? In my opinion, no. Look back at the mass graves. Look back at the pictures of kids of Halabja. Think back to the horrors of his torture chambers. Does the man whose government used a people shedder really deserve to live out the rest of his life in a natural manner after he unnaturally ended so many others? I don't think so.

But the decision is not mine to make. If Bush and Co. decide that trading Saddam his life for accurate information then so be it. That's why they get paid the big bucks for making decisions and I sit here pontificating for free.

Perhaps the capture of Saddam can lay the groundwork for the fall of the Syrian dictatorship. Perhaps. If we try to trade life for information, I certainly hope it does.

I said yesterday and I'll say it again, we have an obligation as Americans to conduct our affairs surrounding Saddam with a higher standard than the norm in the region. Machiavelli cannot be our guiding author. We must hearken back to the ideals of Jeffers