Debka: US, Israeli special ops teams active. 'DEBKAfile Reports: US and Israel beef up counter-terror warfare with crack intel-sniper units behind enemy lines. In Iraq, the 42nd Infantry Division’s 173rd Long Range Surveillance Detachment is deployed with dozens of snipers. In Gaza Strip, Shimshon Battalion 92 undertakes intel-targeting missions against small Palestinian terrorist units.' (Debka)
"Outposts of tyranny." 'In our world there remain outposts of tyranny and America stands with oppressed people on every continent... in Cuba, and Burma (Myanmar), and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe,' said Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice in her opening statement delivered at Senate confirmation hearings last week. (Free Iran)
Gillian "Scully" Anderson marries. 'Former "X-Files" star Gillian Anderson has married longtime boyfriend Julian Ozanne,' CNN reports. 'The couple exchanged vows December 29 at a friend's beach house on Lamu's Shella island, off Kenya's Indian Ocean coast, People magazine said Tuesday. The ceremony, which included hymns sung by a Kenyan choir in Swahili, was attended by immediate family and a handful of close friends.' (CNN)
2005-01-19
2005-01-18
Truth and Hate
A few remarks on media coverage of the Armanious / Garas family murder in New Jersey.
Welcome to readers looking for more information on the killings of Hossam Armanious, Amal Garas, and their two daughters in Jersey City last week. Before you scroll down to read my original post on the killings, I want to share a couple of thoughts on how the mainstream media like AP/CNN and the New York Times have whitewashed the hate-crime aspect of these killings.
First of all, notice that, most glaringly, neither account makes any mention of the fact that the victims had received death threats prior to the murders.
CNN, which finally deems the story newsworthy (now that there's some juicy stuff to report about a religious hostility at the funeral), daintily says that "a theory that a Muslim angry over Internet postings was responsible for the slaying of an Egyptian Christian family is just one of several under investigation." Their story goes on to say:
So now we have one of those handy vague quantifiers - "some" - to suggest that "some" irresponsible people have "embraced as fact" the possibility that religious hate played a part in this brutal killing. The real problem, and the ONLY problem as CNN sees it, is the "anti-Muslim backlash".
If you read the reports carefully, the investigators are saying that the killings definitely occurred "in the course of a robbery" because a robbery did in fact occur - money and valuables were taken (although initial reports said otherwise). They are NOT saying that robbery was the motive. It is entirely plausible to suspect that the robbery was incidental to the killings - or even a deliberate "red herring" - especially in view of the death threats that Armanious had received, and especially in view of the fact that investigators were known to be examining the transcripts of his chatroom disputes with Muslims. But if you relied on NYT and CNN, you'd never know any of that.
The media are right to refrain from jumping to conclusions, they are right to reject anti-Muslim prejudice, and they are right to call attention to the brave, good-hearted Muslims and Christians who are refusing to listen to the message of religious hate. But they are profoundly, fatally wrong to whitewash the evidence for a religious hate crime in New Jersey.
By deliberately obscuring important evidence of religious hate, the media are not doing anyone any favors. Not the Muslim world, which must honestly confront this evil in its midst. And certainly not the American public, which deserves to be kept informed of the threat from islamist violence - which has not grown less real since September 11.
"Are non-Muslims censoring themselves?" asks Irshad Manji in The Trouble with Islam (p. 189). She goes on to recall a newspaper article about Islamic extremism in Denmark, which a well-meaning non-Muslim friend had at first criticized as "stereotyping all Muslims". Manji writes that she responded, "I think they're bringing really troubling stuff to light."
This is exactly why the MSM is destroying its own credibility. By deliberately ignoring the reality of islamist violence, it is giving credence to the suspicion that it is at best tolerating, and at worst actively abetting, religious hate.
Welcome to readers looking for more information on the killings of Hossam Armanious, Amal Garas, and their two daughters in Jersey City last week. Before you scroll down to read my original post on the killings, I want to share a couple of thoughts on how the mainstream media like AP/CNN and the New York Times have whitewashed the hate-crime aspect of these killings.
First of all, notice that, most glaringly, neither account makes any mention of the fact that the victims had received death threats prior to the murders.
CNN, which finally deems the story newsworthy (now that there's some juicy stuff to report about a religious hostility at the funeral), daintily says that "a theory that a Muslim angry over Internet postings was responsible for the slaying of an Egyptian Christian family is just one of several under investigation." Their story goes on to say:
But the theory -- embraced as fact by some -- has touched off a new round of anti-Muslim sentiment in a city still stinging from a post-September 11 backlash.
So now we have one of those handy vague quantifiers - "some" - to suggest that "some" irresponsible people have "embraced as fact" the possibility that religious hate played a part in this brutal killing. The real problem, and the ONLY problem as CNN sees it, is the "anti-Muslim backlash".
If you read the reports carefully, the investigators are saying that the killings definitely occurred "in the course of a robbery" because a robbery did in fact occur - money and valuables were taken (although initial reports said otherwise). They are NOT saying that robbery was the motive. It is entirely plausible to suspect that the robbery was incidental to the killings - or even a deliberate "red herring" - especially in view of the death threats that Armanious had received, and especially in view of the fact that investigators were known to be examining the transcripts of his chatroom disputes with Muslims. But if you relied on NYT and CNN, you'd never know any of that.
The media are right to refrain from jumping to conclusions, they are right to reject anti-Muslim prejudice, and they are right to call attention to the brave, good-hearted Muslims and Christians who are refusing to listen to the message of religious hate. But they are profoundly, fatally wrong to whitewash the evidence for a religious hate crime in New Jersey.
By deliberately obscuring important evidence of religious hate, the media are not doing anyone any favors. Not the Muslim world, which must honestly confront this evil in its midst. And certainly not the American public, which deserves to be kept informed of the threat from islamist violence - which has not grown less real since September 11.
"Are non-Muslims censoring themselves?" asks Irshad Manji in The Trouble with Islam (p. 189). She goes on to recall a newspaper article about Islamic extremism in Denmark, which a well-meaning non-Muslim friend had at first criticized as "stereotyping all Muslims". Manji writes that she responded, "I think they're bringing really troubling stuff to light."
There's more than one way to exploit Islam. Some Muslims exploit it as a sword, and they're goons for doing so. But just as many - or more - Muslims exploit Islam as a shield, and that's destructive too. It protects Muslims from self-inquiry and non-Muslims from guilt. (The Trouble with Islam, p. 190)
This is exactly why the MSM is destroying its own credibility. By deliberately ignoring the reality of islamist violence, it is giving credence to the suspicion that it is at best tolerating, and at worst actively abetting, religious hate.
2005-01-17
Let's blogroll!
Baldilocks recalls some words on immortality.
LaShawn Barber reflects on the entitlement mentality of the "liberal elites".
Roger L. Simon wonders why the "most important American political figure of the Twentieth Century" doesn't have a place on Mount Rushmore.
Armed Liberal at Winds of Change presents us with a certain letter. It is addressed to each one of us.
LaShawn Barber reflects on the entitlement mentality of the "liberal elites".
Roger L. Simon wonders why the "most important American political figure of the Twentieth Century" doesn't have a place on Mount Rushmore.
Armed Liberal at Winds of Change presents us with a certain letter. It is addressed to each one of us.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Violent clashes rock Pars Abad. From SMCCDI:
SMCCDI (Information Service)
Jan 17, 2005
Violent clashes have rocked Pars Abad located near the western town of Ardabil.
Reports are stating about tens of injured and possible deaths as angry crowd retaliated to the brutal attack of Islamic regime's militiamen. Several public buildings and security patrol cars were damaged and burned by the residents.
Slogans against the regime's leaders were shouted by the residents.
More and more Iranians are rising up in front of Mullahcracy's injustices without fear for their lives. Groups of young are re-forming under various names with target of retaliating to the governmental policy of brutality.
Donna M. Hughes: Misogyny and the Mullahs
Donna M. Hughes tears into the Iranian misogynarchy in this piece in FrontPage:
Read the whole thing at the link.
And don't forget to visit the Free Iran homepage.
The ruling clerics energize their followers by preaching hatred of their chosen enemies: the liberal west, women, moderate and liberal Muslims, and non-Muslim religious groups, particularly Jews. Their deepest prejudice is for women. Islamic fundamentalists loath women. They hate female shapes, which must be hidden under tent like garments. They hate their female voices, so women are banned from singing in public. They hate their female minds, so women are prohibited from holding decision making jobs. And most of all, they hate their female sexuality, which they claim is a corrupting force on earth.
They hate liberal culture and democracy because women are allowed to dress, travel, speak, think, and even sing, freely. They believe that women’s freedom and equality are what has corrupted western culture, and that is why they must purge it and its representatives from their land.
The Khomeini-crafted theocracy granted dictatorial rule to the supreme religious leader ‑ velayat-e-faqih – thereby creating an unreformable system because all significant powers of the state are held by the supreme religious leader and his appointees in the Council of Guardians. Khomeini crowned himself as the first supreme leader; after his death, the religious reign was passed to the present supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The clerics’ version of sharia law imposes a crushing system of gender apartheid on Iranians based on the premise that women are physically, psychologically, intellectually, and morally inferior to men. Men are legally granted all decision-making power within the family, including control of the movement and employment of women and the custody of children. A public dress code or hejab is mandatory and violations result in reprimands, arrests, whippings, imprisonment, and even summary executions have been documented. All public activities are segregated, and women are banned from attending sporting events in which men’s legs are uncovered. Women are banned from associating with men who are not their relatives. The age of marriage was lowered to nine years of age for girls. Polygamy was legalized. And stoning to death became a legal form of punishment for sexual misconduct.
The clerics made laws on how to control, punish, torture, and kill women and girls. Misogyny and violence against women were institutionalized.
Read the whole thing at the link.
And don't forget to visit the Free Iran homepage.
Morning Report: January 17, 2005
New Jersey family slain. A family of Coptic Christians - Hossam Armanious, his wife Amal Garas, and their two daughters - were murdered last week in their New Jersey home. The motive for the killings is still the subject of much speculation, but possible motives may include robbery, religious hate, or terrorism. Dreams Into Lightning is monitoring developments here.
Journalist says Iran attack planned. Seymour Hersh, a veteran journalist, has stated that the Bush administration is already planning attacks against the islamist regime in Iran. 'Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," ' according to the CNN report. The New York Post reports: 'U.S. commandos are hunting for secret nuclear and chemical weapons sites and other targets in Iran, and have a plan to turn the hard-line Islamic country into the next front in the war on terrorism. "It's not if we're going to do anything against Iran. They're doing it," an ex-intelligence official tells this week's issue of The New Yorker. Since at least last summer, the U.S. teams have penetrated eastern Iran, reportedly with Pakistan's help, the magazine said.' Hersh's article in the New Yorker reveals that 'The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term.' (various)
Zhao Ziyang dies. China's reformist leader Zhao Ziyang died on Monday at the age of 85, the BBC reports. Zhao was purged from the Chinese regime after opposing the use of force against pro-democracy demonstrators in 1989, and he remained under house arrest until his death. The nonviolent 1989 demonstrations ended with a bloody crackdown by the government in early June, which left hundreds and possibly thousands dead. (BBC)
India train fire was accidental, committee finds. A fire that claimed 59 lives on an Indian pilgrim train was accidental and not caused by a gasoline bomb, according to a committee headed by retired Supreme Court Justice U. C. Banerjee. The Press Trust of India reports: 'Contrary to Sangh Parivar's contention that the Godhra train blaze that killed 59 Kar sevaks triggering wide-spread communal riots was a pre-planned conspiracy, a retired Supreme Court Judge has said it was "accidental" fire.
Heading a high-level committee appointed by the UPA Government, Justice U C Banerjee also ruled out the possibility of any inflammable liquid thrown from outside the coach.' The February, 2002 tragedy was believed by some to have been caused by a bomb thrown by Muslims targeting the Hindu pilgrims; the incident sparked widespread anti-Muslim riots that killed more than 1,000 Muslims. The Hindu nationalist party BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) was quick to object to the Banerjee committee's findings. The Times of India says: 'Disproving the claims of Gujarat Police and right-wing groups, including the Bharatiya Janata Party, Justice UC Banerjee committee said on Monday there is no evidence to prove that the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was set on fire from outside. ... Survivors of the accident told the commission that the kar sevak s, who had crowded into the compartments, were also cooking food within the train. Banerjee said most people died due to asphyxiation in the over-crowded train.' Dreams Into Lightning will continue to follow this story. (Press Trust of India, Times of India)
Debka: Al-Qaeda vs. Fatah. The March, 2003 liquidation of al-Qaeda cell leader Farouq (Abu Mohammed) al-Masri in southern Lebanon was rumored at the time to have been the work of Israeli agents. Fast-forward to January 15, 2005: a new Debka report claims that 'an unusual al Qaeda communiqué appeared on various jihadist websites asserting that an exhaustive probe conducted into the murder of “our brother Muhammed Al Masri” had elicited ironclad proof of an assassination conspiracy by Lebanese domestic security service and the Fatah’s Ein Hilweh command. The former was said to have provided the bomb vehicle, while Fatah smuggled it into the camp and parked it along al Masri’s route from mosque to store, detonating it by remote control. Having assigned guilt, the al Qaeda statement added, “We warn Fatah-Lebanon that we intend very soon to avenge the blood of our brother Al Masri. This warning is addressed to the entire Fatah command and leadership hierarchy in Lebanon - from the highest to the lowest commander.' Analyzing the communique, Debka concludes that 'The statement is therefore taken as a declaration of war by the global jihadist al Qaeda on the Palestinian Fatah for control of Ein Hilweh, a strategic location commanding South Lebanon’s Mediterranean coast. It was issued the day that the new Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas was sworn in to take Arafat’s place in Ramallah.' (Debka)
Journalist says Iran attack planned. Seymour Hersh, a veteran journalist, has stated that the Bush administration is already planning attacks against the islamist regime in Iran. 'Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," ' according to the CNN report. The New York Post reports: 'U.S. commandos are hunting for secret nuclear and chemical weapons sites and other targets in Iran, and have a plan to turn the hard-line Islamic country into the next front in the war on terrorism. "It's not if we're going to do anything against Iran. They're doing it," an ex-intelligence official tells this week's issue of The New Yorker. Since at least last summer, the U.S. teams have penetrated eastern Iran, reportedly with Pakistan's help, the magazine said.' Hersh's article in the New Yorker reveals that 'The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term.' (various)
Zhao Ziyang dies. China's reformist leader Zhao Ziyang died on Monday at the age of 85, the BBC reports. Zhao was purged from the Chinese regime after opposing the use of force against pro-democracy demonstrators in 1989, and he remained under house arrest until his death. The nonviolent 1989 demonstrations ended with a bloody crackdown by the government in early June, which left hundreds and possibly thousands dead. (BBC)
India train fire was accidental, committee finds. A fire that claimed 59 lives on an Indian pilgrim train was accidental and not caused by a gasoline bomb, according to a committee headed by retired Supreme Court Justice U. C. Banerjee. The Press Trust of India reports: 'Contrary to Sangh Parivar's contention that the Godhra train blaze that killed 59 Kar sevaks triggering wide-spread communal riots was a pre-planned conspiracy, a retired Supreme Court Judge has said it was "accidental" fire.
Heading a high-level committee appointed by the UPA Government, Justice U C Banerjee also ruled out the possibility of any inflammable liquid thrown from outside the coach.' The February, 2002 tragedy was believed by some to have been caused by a bomb thrown by Muslims targeting the Hindu pilgrims; the incident sparked widespread anti-Muslim riots that killed more than 1,000 Muslims. The Hindu nationalist party BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) was quick to object to the Banerjee committee's findings. The Times of India says: 'Disproving the claims of Gujarat Police and right-wing groups, including the Bharatiya Janata Party, Justice UC Banerjee committee said on Monday there is no evidence to prove that the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was set on fire from outside. ... Survivors of the accident told the commission that the kar sevak s, who had crowded into the compartments, were also cooking food within the train. Banerjee said most people died due to asphyxiation in the over-crowded train.' Dreams Into Lightning will continue to follow this story. (Press Trust of India, Times of India)
Debka: Al-Qaeda vs. Fatah. The March, 2003 liquidation of al-Qaeda cell leader Farouq (Abu Mohammed) al-Masri in southern Lebanon was rumored at the time to have been the work of Israeli agents. Fast-forward to January 15, 2005: a new Debka report claims that 'an unusual al Qaeda communiqué appeared on various jihadist websites asserting that an exhaustive probe conducted into the murder of “our brother Muhammed Al Masri” had elicited ironclad proof of an assassination conspiracy by Lebanese domestic security service and the Fatah’s Ein Hilweh command. The former was said to have provided the bomb vehicle, while Fatah smuggled it into the camp and parked it along al Masri’s route from mosque to store, detonating it by remote control. Having assigned guilt, the al Qaeda statement added, “We warn Fatah-Lebanon that we intend very soon to avenge the blood of our brother Al Masri. This warning is addressed to the entire Fatah command and leadership hierarchy in Lebanon - from the highest to the lowest commander.' Analyzing the communique, Debka concludes that 'The statement is therefore taken as a declaration of war by the global jihadist al Qaeda on the Palestinian Fatah for control of Ein Hilweh, a strategic location commanding South Lebanon’s Mediterranean coast. It was issued the day that the new Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas was sworn in to take Arafat’s place in Ramallah.' (Debka)
2005-01-16
The Real Peace Movement: One More Vote, One More Voice
Big Pharaoh reports on an online conversation he had with a Sunni Iraqi the other day:
Notice that the Iraqi is now beginning to realize that his voice matters, especially when he understands who his real enemies are. I am hoping that many conversations like this one are taking place in Iraq and beyond.
GM [Big Pharaoh]: Hi, are you Iraqi?
AB: yes
GM: Great, whom will you vote for?
AB: I will not vote. They are all against my people.
GM: who are they?
AB: The people in this elections, they are agents of America and Israel.
GM: Well, I think that Israel is much better for Iraq than Syria and Iran!
AB: Where are you from?
GM: Egypt
AB: Egyptians are Sunnis, I am a Sunni too and all those people in this election are against Sunnis. See what they did to our people in Fallujah.
GM: Allow me to disagree with you. Those who are against Sunnis are those Baathist/Wahabi/Salafi terrorists who are killing their fellow Sunnis just because they want to vote. Many Sunnis want to vote but they are afraid lest those criminals kill them. As for Fallujah, I do not blame the Americans or the Iraqi government for what happened, but I blame the Baathist/Salafist/Wahabi terrorists who turned this city into a base to kill fellow Iraqi policemen and slaughter innocent people. Sunnis should not repeat the mistake that Shias did over 80 years ago.
AB: What did the Shias do 80 years ago?
GM: Right after the 1920 revolution, Shias decided to stay away from the political process, they boycotted the whole thing. As a result, they were kept from power until the day Iraq was liberated from Saddam. Do you want Sunnis to fall into this trap? Now the terrorists want you to stay at home on January 30, will you listen to them? The vast majority of Iraqis believe in this process and it is time for Sunnis to know that their total control over Iraq is over and they have no other option but to share Iraq with the Shias and Kurds.
AB: You know, you convinced me to vote. I live in a Shia dominated area and I will vote.
GM: Good. It is good that you live in a Shia area because it will be more secure.
Notice that the Iraqi is now beginning to realize that his voice matters, especially when he understands who his real enemies are. I am hoping that many conversations like this one are taking place in Iraq and beyond.
A new Old Europe?
Democracy for the Middle East hasn't been in a particularly Anglophilic mood lately. No doubt this hasn't helped any. But DFME did a double-take yesterday with The Times of London's harsh reaction to a recent terrorist attack on Israelis.
Meanwhile, across the Channel, Last of the Famous reports that French TV anchor David Pujadas launched an unprecedented, blistering attack on France's response to the tsunami disaster - while presenting the American efforts in a very favorable light. (Hat tip: LGF and Discarded Lies.)
Well, these may be steps in the right direction. But as Roger L. Simon discovers, we've still got quite a ways to go.
Meanwhile, across the Channel, Last of the Famous reports that French TV anchor David Pujadas launched an unprecedented, blistering attack on France's response to the tsunami disaster - while presenting the American efforts in a very favorable light. (Hat tip: LGF and Discarded Lies.)
Well, these may be steps in the right direction. But as Roger L. Simon discovers, we've still got quite a ways to go.
Modifiers and the MSM
Just a few thoughts to keep in mind when you're reading, or listening to, the legacy media.
Have you ever noticed how often they use vague quantifiers like "some" and "many", especially when they're talking about public opinion? But of course you have - Dreams Into Lightning readers are a smart bunch. So you've already figured out that that's an easy way for the "journalist" to introduce his or her own opinion into a story, without having to defend a more stringent assertion, e.g. the claim that said opinions represent a majority (which would require the word "most").
(You'll notice that I've just used a vague quantifier - "often" - but that's only because I'm inviting you to verify the phenomenon for yourself.)
How many is "many"? If "some" are saying A, how many others are saying B? Who decides what views are represented by the "numerous", the "several", the "number of"? What is that number, exactly?
Oh, but I'm wasting my virtual breath here, because you already know all this.
Just do me one favor, though - next time you get a chance, point it out to someone else who follows the mainstream media.
Have you ever noticed how often they use vague quantifiers like "some" and "many", especially when they're talking about public opinion? But of course you have - Dreams Into Lightning readers are a smart bunch. So you've already figured out that that's an easy way for the "journalist" to introduce his or her own opinion into a story, without having to defend a more stringent assertion, e.g. the claim that said opinions represent a majority (which would require the word "most").
(You'll notice that I've just used a vague quantifier - "often" - but that's only because I'm inviting you to verify the phenomenon for yourself.)
How many is "many"? If "some" are saying A, how many others are saying B? Who decides what views are represented by the "numerous", the "several", the "number of"? What is that number, exactly?
Oh, but I'm wasting my virtual breath here, because you already know all this.
Just do me one favor, though - next time you get a chance, point it out to someone else who follows the mainstream media.
Morning Report: January 16, 2005
Graner gets 10 years. Army Specialist Charles Graner was sentenced to 10 years for his role in the Abu Ghraib torture/abuse scandal, Command Post reports. CNN reported that 'Many Iraqis reacted angrily on Sunday to news that U.S. soldier Charles Graner had been sentenced to 10 years in jail for his role in prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib jail, saying he should have faced harsher punishment.' Similar sentiments were expressed by many Americans, such as Blackfive. (Command Post; AP via CNN; Blackfive)
Sharon: Gloves off for IDF in Gaza. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made it clear he expects more than words from newly-elected Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, freezing relations with the Palestinian National Authority until the PNA can see its way clear to get serious about stopping terrorism. In a recent bulletin from Debka, 'Sharon tells Israeli cabinet: Army ordered to step up military actions “without restrictions” after weekend surge of Palestinian terrorist attacks in and around Gaza Strip. He accused new Palestinian leadership of taking no action against terrorists. Friday, Israel broke off contact with Abbas after 6 Israeli deaths - 3 from Sderot - at hands of Palestinian suicide bombers at Karni goods crossing from Gaza to Israel.' (Debka)
DDT reconsidered? The recent tsunami tragedy in southern Asia has brought fears of a malaria outbreak - and renewed debate over the acceptability of the use of the now-banned pesticide DDT, as Winds of Change reports. (Winds of Change)
Iraqi government publishes names of terrorists. MEMRI reports (January 13): 'The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights published the names of 99 Arabs and Iranians who were arrested for planning or taking part in acts of terrorism. The list comprises 26 Syrians, 14 Saudis, 14 Iranians, 12 Egyptians. 4 Palestinians, 8 Jordanians and 5 Tunisians as well as individuals from numerous countries.' (Al-Mashriq, Baghdad, 1/15/05, via MEMRI)
Russia: Bushehr construction completed. Also from MEMRI: 'Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, in a recent meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush, said the construction phase of the nuclear units of Bushehr atomic power plant had been completed: 'Russia's fundamental stance is that nuclear material will be delivered to Iran when Iran and Russia sign a contract for returning spent nuclear fuel to Russia.' (Iran Daily, 1/13/05, via MEMRI)
Jakarta: Benchmark, not deadline. Indonesia's government has back-pedaled from its earlier statement that foreign humanitarian troops must leave the country by March 26, the BBC is reporting: 'Indonesia has denied saying that foreign troops involved in the tsunami relief operation must leave the country within three months of the disaster. Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono said 26 March was not a deadline for foreign military personnel, but a benchmark. He said that by that date, Indonesian authorities aimed to be able to take over most of the relief effort. The minister was speaking after talks on Sunday with visiting US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.' (BBC)
Sharon: Gloves off for IDF in Gaza. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made it clear he expects more than words from newly-elected Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, freezing relations with the Palestinian National Authority until the PNA can see its way clear to get serious about stopping terrorism. In a recent bulletin from Debka, 'Sharon tells Israeli cabinet: Army ordered to step up military actions “without restrictions” after weekend surge of Palestinian terrorist attacks in and around Gaza Strip. He accused new Palestinian leadership of taking no action against terrorists. Friday, Israel broke off contact with Abbas after 6 Israeli deaths - 3 from Sderot - at hands of Palestinian suicide bombers at Karni goods crossing from Gaza to Israel.' (Debka)
DDT reconsidered? The recent tsunami tragedy in southern Asia has brought fears of a malaria outbreak - and renewed debate over the acceptability of the use of the now-banned pesticide DDT, as Winds of Change reports. (Winds of Change)
Iraqi government publishes names of terrorists. MEMRI reports (January 13): 'The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights published the names of 99 Arabs and Iranians who were arrested for planning or taking part in acts of terrorism. The list comprises 26 Syrians, 14 Saudis, 14 Iranians, 12 Egyptians. 4 Palestinians, 8 Jordanians and 5 Tunisians as well as individuals from numerous countries.' (Al-Mashriq, Baghdad, 1/15/05, via MEMRI)
Russia: Bushehr construction completed. Also from MEMRI: 'Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, in a recent meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush, said the construction phase of the nuclear units of Bushehr atomic power plant had been completed: 'Russia's fundamental stance is that nuclear material will be delivered to Iran when Iran and Russia sign a contract for returning spent nuclear fuel to Russia.' (Iran Daily, 1/13/05, via MEMRI)
Jakarta: Benchmark, not deadline. Indonesia's government has back-pedaled from its earlier statement that foreign humanitarian troops must leave the country by March 26, the BBC is reporting: 'Indonesia has denied saying that foreign troops involved in the tsunami relief operation must leave the country within three months of the disaster. Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono said 26 March was not a deadline for foreign military personnel, but a benchmark. He said that by that date, Indonesian authorities aimed to be able to take over most of the relief effort. The minister was speaking after talks on Sunday with visiting US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.' (BBC)
2005-01-14
Barnett: the Gap and the Map
Thomas P. M. Barnett sets forth his theory of global connectedness in his March, 2003 article The Pentagon's New Map:
Barnett points out that the "rule set" which defines thriving, free societies today is something that Americans often take for granted - forgetting the long, bitter, and ongoing struggle within our own nation for the ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality. He also reminds us that the line between Core and Gap is always shifting, and that "the direction of change is more critical than the degree." Joining the Core will not guarantee immediate peace and prosperity, but it can be counted on to make things gradually improve over time. Leaving the Core, on the other hand, will swiftly and surely make things worse.
For many years, US strategy focused on the model of fighting a large national army (say, the USSR or Red China) and wrote off threats from smaller nations and nonnational entities as "lesser includeds", meaning if we could counter the greater Soviet threat, we could certainly handle the lesser ones. The shortcomings of this model were illustrated on a certain Tuesday morning a few years ago.
Another fallacy, which still holds sway among many on the Left, is a notion of "benign neglect": as Barnett puts it,
But why the Mideast? Barnett argues that "the Middle East is the perfect place to start" because "what is most wrong about the Middle East is the lack of personal freedom and how that translates into dead-end lives for most of the population—especially for the young." Furthermore, the Middle East has evolved into a kind of bully culture in which only an external power can act as the catalyst for reform.
Barnett's prescription is three-fold: '1) Increase the Core’s immune system capabilities for responding to September 11-like system perturbations; 2) Work the seam states to firewall the Core from the Gap’s worst exports, such as terror, drugs, and pandemics; and, most important, 3) Shrink the Gap.' He contends that "shrinking the Gap" means exporting security, in the form of "the attention paid by our military forces to any region’s potential for mass violence." It also means robust private-sector investment, particularly in the poorest areas such as Africa; but "it all has to begin with security, because free markets and democracy cannot flourish amid chronic conflict."
I think one very important feature of Barnett's analysis is the theme of empowerment. Empowerment for the peoples of the Middle East, because it rejects the assumption (common among pampered liberals in the West) that Mideasterners are unable or unwilling to govern themselves in a democratic society. Empowerment for Americans, because it affirms that we can use our enormous economic and strategic power for good rather than for evil. And empowerment for all the nations of the world, because it affirms that we live - we must live - in an increasingly global society, one in which it is in our own best interests to look out for one another. Nowadays this is called "neo-conservatism"; the old-fashioned term for it is "enlightened self-interest". No matter what you call it, the time has come to live up to our responsibility as citizens and as human beings. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers.
Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.
Barnett points out that the "rule set" which defines thriving, free societies today is something that Americans often take for granted - forgetting the long, bitter, and ongoing struggle within our own nation for the ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality. He also reminds us that the line between Core and Gap is always shifting, and that "the direction of change is more critical than the degree." Joining the Core will not guarantee immediate peace and prosperity, but it can be counted on to make things gradually improve over time. Leaving the Core, on the other hand, will swiftly and surely make things worse.
For many years, US strategy focused on the model of fighting a large national army (say, the USSR or Red China) and wrote off threats from smaller nations and nonnational entities as "lesser includeds", meaning if we could counter the greater Soviet threat, we could certainly handle the lesser ones. The shortcomings of this model were illustrated on a certain Tuesday morning a few years ago.
Another fallacy, which still holds sway among many on the Left, is a notion of "benign neglect": as Barnett puts it,
The knee-jerk reaction of many Americans to September 11 is to say, “Let’s get off our dependency on foreign oil, and then we won’t have to deal with those people.” The most naïve assumption underlying that dream is that reducing what little connectivity the Gap has with the Core will render it less dangerous to us over the long haul. Turning the Middle East into Central Africa will not build a better world for my kids. We cannot simply will those people away.
But why the Mideast? Barnett argues that "the Middle East is the perfect place to start" because "what is most wrong about the Middle East is the lack of personal freedom and how that translates into dead-end lives for most of the population—especially for the young." Furthermore, the Middle East has evolved into a kind of bully culture in which only an external power can act as the catalyst for reform.
Barnett's prescription is three-fold: '1) Increase the Core’s immune system capabilities for responding to September 11-like system perturbations; 2) Work the seam states to firewall the Core from the Gap’s worst exports, such as terror, drugs, and pandemics; and, most important, 3) Shrink the Gap.' He contends that "shrinking the Gap" means exporting security, in the form of "the attention paid by our military forces to any region’s potential for mass violence." It also means robust private-sector investment, particularly in the poorest areas such as Africa; but "it all has to begin with security, because free markets and democracy cannot flourish amid chronic conflict."
I think one very important feature of Barnett's analysis is the theme of empowerment. Empowerment for the peoples of the Middle East, because it rejects the assumption (common among pampered liberals in the West) that Mideasterners are unable or unwilling to govern themselves in a democratic society. Empowerment for Americans, because it affirms that we can use our enormous economic and strategic power for good rather than for evil. And empowerment for all the nations of the world, because it affirms that we live - we must live - in an increasingly global society, one in which it is in our own best interests to look out for one another. Nowadays this is called "neo-conservatism"; the old-fashioned term for it is "enlightened self-interest". No matter what you call it, the time has come to live up to our responsibility as citizens and as human beings. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers.
The President's Words
Yesterday, I treated myself to the Presidential (Mis)Speak calendar. Now even President Bush's strongest supporters (and I count myself as one) know that the Chief has a certain, er, way with words. If you don't like the President, then his peculiar locutions won't make you like him any better. If you do, then such gems as "Is our children learning?" and "Families is where wings take dream" are just part of his appeal. In any case, it never hurts to keep a healthy sense of humor.
On a more serious note, though, my AOL News screen is carrying an AP story reporting that the President has expressed regret for his infamous comment of July 2, 2003, "Bring 'em on."
It's about time. This is probably the single worst thing President Bush ever said. Directed at the enemy militants killing American soldiers in Iraq, it sounded like an open invitation to attack Americans.
In typical MSM fashion, the article confuses the issue. First there's a gratuitous reference to the President's recent refusal "to identify any mistakes he'd made during his first term." I don't blame him for that; he wasn't claiming that he hadn't made any mistakes, but he was asserting his right to acknowledge his own shortcomings in his own way and in his own time. He was also declining to give the press a stick that he knew they would beat him with at the first opportunity. The AOL item also offers a sidebar poll on the merits of "Bush's style of tough talk". Good grief, aren't they tired of that phrase yet? I certainly am.
"Bush's style of tough talk" isn't the problem, and never was, except for the feckless copycrats who rule the press. The problem with "Bring 'em on!" was not one of style but of substance. The President simply had no right to say this. A defiant invitation to do battle - along the lines of "Do your worst!", or "Take your best shot!", or "Go ahead, make my day!" - is perfectly appropriate when one is risking only one's own safety, for example in a brawl or a gunfight. But for a President who lives in Washington and enjoys the full protection of the Secret Service, while young American men and women are daily sacrificing their lives in combat abroad, it is disgraceful. I have the highest respect for President Bush's service in the National Guard, and I believe he has every right to be proud of his performance as Commander-in-Chief. But he must never forget, not even for a moment, that it is other Americans who are being asked to risk their lives in this war. A common soldier, if he's feeling cocky, may be permitted to taunt the enemy to "bring it on"; but the President cannot do this.
I trust that President Bush will keep this lesson in mind as he prepares to begin his second term.
On a more serious note, though, my AOL News screen is carrying an AP story reporting that the President has expressed regret for his infamous comment of July 2, 2003, "Bring 'em on."
It's about time. This is probably the single worst thing President Bush ever said. Directed at the enemy militants killing American soldiers in Iraq, it sounded like an open invitation to attack Americans.
In typical MSM fashion, the article confuses the issue. First there's a gratuitous reference to the President's recent refusal "to identify any mistakes he'd made during his first term." I don't blame him for that; he wasn't claiming that he hadn't made any mistakes, but he was asserting his right to acknowledge his own shortcomings in his own way and in his own time. He was also declining to give the press a stick that he knew they would beat him with at the first opportunity. The AOL item also offers a sidebar poll on the merits of "Bush's style of tough talk". Good grief, aren't they tired of that phrase yet? I certainly am.
"Bush's style of tough talk" isn't the problem, and never was, except for the feckless copycrats who rule the press. The problem with "Bring 'em on!" was not one of style but of substance. The President simply had no right to say this. A defiant invitation to do battle - along the lines of "Do your worst!", or "Take your best shot!", or "Go ahead, make my day!" - is perfectly appropriate when one is risking only one's own safety, for example in a brawl or a gunfight. But for a President who lives in Washington and enjoys the full protection of the Secret Service, while young American men and women are daily sacrificing their lives in combat abroad, it is disgraceful. I have the highest respect for President Bush's service in the National Guard, and I believe he has every right to be proud of his performance as Commander-in-Chief. But he must never forget, not even for a moment, that it is other Americans who are being asked to risk their lives in this war. A common soldier, if he's feeling cocky, may be permitted to taunt the enemy to "bring it on"; but the President cannot do this.
I trust that President Bush will keep this lesson in mind as he prepares to begin his second term.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)