Little Red Blog

In his comments on the challenge before the Bush foreign policy team, Gregory Djerejian, questions whether the administration will follow the course of action represented by Pollack-Takeyh framework or that of what he terms the interventionist, such as Michael Ledeen. Ledeen responded in the comments and rightly so.

By way of background, the Pollack-Takeyh framework can be found in Foreign Affairs and describes their model for dealing with Iran’s defiance. The summary of their essay:

Summary: If Washington wants to derail Iran's nuclear program, it must take advantage of a split in Tehran between hard-liners, who care mostly about security, and pragmatists, who want to fix Iran's ailing economy. By promising strong rewards for compliance and severe penalties for defiance, Washington can strengthen the pragmatists' case that Tehran should choose butter over bombs.

First, the term interventionist is, as Ledeen notes, a term used for those advocating military action. Ledeen defends himself well enough on that issue. It strikes me that Djerejian has determined that any effort to hold Iran responsible for its actions or inaction is interventionist. The real trouble with the P-T framework is the requirement that our weak allies join us in a stand against Iran. As I’ve noted before all (the IAEA, the UN, the EU, Russia) have all failed to stand firm against Iran primarily due to their own economic ties to Iran or desire for greater economic ties.

I’m not opposed to the U.S. taking a look at all options. I would loudly oppose any policy that rewards Iran for obeying the law without clear and longstanding evidence of cooperation and compliance. The EU3’s plan, if reworked to significantly punish the Iranian economy, effectively ending trade through UN sanctions with additional significant sticks attached to any nation that violates the sanctions, would be the first step. If agreed to, thereby avoiding sanctions, and after sufficient openness and reassurance that no nuclear weapons program is being developed, then and only then would I favor more open trade with Iran. Of course this ignores the human rights abuses and support of terrorism by the hard-line mullahs.

We are not in a position to permit the carrots first approach for reasons that should be clear to all. Iran’s missile technology, terrorist ties, and advocacy for the destruction of Israel prevents any policy that permits them to either usurp the system or delay intervention until they’ve developed nuclear weapons. Does that make me an interventionist? If that means that we should act in support of the reformist in Iran, that we should act to prevent further delay, and that we should stand by our realization that Iran’s Mullahs must never possess nuclear weapons, then yes, I suppose it does. The alternatives are to do nothing or to feed the camel that bites you.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 28, 2005 6:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief Mohammed El-Baradei chiding Iran for the "confidence deficit" created by Iran’s previous failures to disclose clandestine aspects of its nuclear program aren’t entirely accurate.

The words of the Chief:

Last November, the Secretariat provided to the Board a comprehensive report on the Agency’s verification of Iran’s compliance with its NPT safeguards obligations and its voluntary suspension of enrichment and reprocessing related activities. Since that report, Iran has facilitated Agency access under its safeguards agreement and additional protocol to nuclear material and facilities, and has also provided access to other locations in the country, including a transparency visit to a military site. We have continued to implement the measures of the additional protocol by reviewing declarations made by Iran and conducting complementary access and other verification activities. The Agency has also continued its verification of Iran’s voluntary suspension of enrichment and reprocessing related activities. The Agency has been making progress in two important issues, regarding the origin of the contamination on equipment at various locations in Iran in cooperation with the country concerned, and regarding follow-up on information provided by Iran on its centrifuge programmes. The Deputy Director General for Safeguards will provide more details on our verification activities in Iran. As the Agency continues to work towards completing its assessment of all outstanding issues related to Iran’s nuclear programme, I would encourage Iran to provide full transparency with respect to all of its nuclear activities, by providing in full detail and in a prompt manner all information that could shed light on some of the outstanding issues. In some cases, the receipt of information is still pending, which in turn delays our work. As I mentioned at the last Board meeting, in view of the past undeclared nature of significant aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, a confidence deficit has been created, and it is therefore essential that Iran works closely with the Agency in a proactive manner in order for us to build the necessary confidence and achieve the required degree of assurance.

The IAEA serves a significant purpose in monitoring and reporting on the development and use of various nuclear technologies. What it does not do is hold nations accountable for violating the terms of their agreements or abuse. As I see it, this report simply states in the most diplomatic or tactful terms possible that Iran isn't cooperating. The IAEA will give them more time and it is likely will give them enough time to create nuclear weapons.

Here's what the IAEA has to say about the DPRK or North Korea.

The nuclear activities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), which continue to be outside international verification, remain a serious challenge to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Since 31 December 2002, when at the request of the DPRK the Agency’s verification activities were terminated, the Agency has been unable to draw any conclusions regarding the DPRK’s nuclear activities. The recent declaration by the DPRK that it possesses nuclear weapons is a matter of the utmost concern and has serious security implications, and highlights yet again the importance and the urgency of finding a diplomatic solution through dialogue. The Agency stands ready to work with the DPRK — and with all others — towards a solution that addresses both the security needs of the DPRK and the needs of the international community to ensure that all nuclear activities in the DPRK are exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Anyone feel secure having Mr. El-Baradei on the job?

Back to Iran. In September 2003, yep, 2003 the following statement was made:

Indeed, we urge Iran to take this final opportunity and cooperate fully with the IAEA and to demonstrate a genuine commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Continued failure to do so must result in the IAEA taking this matter promptly to the UN Security Council. [emphasis mine.]

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 28, 2005 3:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Just walked by the television where Fox News decided to interrupt their coverage of the trial, you know which one don’t you, with live coverage of the rally in Beirut. Like many of you, I believe that they, and their kindred "news" sources, are wrong to cover the trial so much.

The unfolding of events in Lebanon should have our attention and our support. More lives are touched by those events than any celebrity trial, despite its sensationalist coverage, will ever touch. The world at large, all its inhabitants, is impacted by the spread of liberty and self-determination. Yet, a people demanding that the son of a tyrant, a tyrant himself, leave and that a government that has supported his presence ceases to, receives only secondary coverage.

Sissy Willis, Capt. Ed, Publius Pundit, and many other bloggers have stepped up to delivering news that serves the truth, spreads the message of support for those involved in the struggle and sheds appropriate meaning to the events of our lives. When experts debate who and what a journalist is, they would be well served to consider more than the professional attributes of journalism. As we’ve seen almost daily, sensationalism supplants significance in our 24-hour news culture.

Previous coverage here, here and throughout the Little Red Blog.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 28, 2005 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a weekly effort to spread the wealth of links, and to find the best of the blogosphere, the Watcher of Weasels has once again made an offer of link whorage. If you've got a post that needs wider readership, follow the instructions found here, and you'll get a share of the exposure. Perhaps you'll even be the non-council winner in this weeks selection of the finest.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 28, 2005 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

No links yet, but it appears that Lebanese Prime Minister Omar Karami has announced his governments resignation. He apparently did so before parliament while protestors demanding a new government not beholdened to Syria called for change from outside the building.

A most promising development.

Publius Pundit and Caveman in Beirut report it first.

UPDATE 10:15 MST: - FoxNews now has the story posted.

"I am keen that the government will not be a hurdle in front of those who want the good for this country. I declare the resignation of the government that I had the honor to head. May God preserve Lebanon," Karami said.

The announcement prompted cheers from more than 25,000 flag-waving demonstrators protesting against the government and its Syrian backers outside the parliament building.

Via Publius Pundit links from Reuters and the Boston Herald add to the story.

This from Reuters.

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Syrian-backed Prime Minister Omar Karami, under popular pressure after the assassination of an ex-prime minister, says his government is resigning.

"Out of concern that the government does not become an obstacle to the good of the country, I announce the resignation of the government I had the honour to lead," Karami told parliament in Beirut on Monday.

Karami made the announcement during a parliamentary debate called to discuss Hariri's Feb. 14 assassination in a bomb blast that killed 16 others. The announcement prompted cheers from more than 25,000 flag-waving demonstrators protesting against the government and its Syrian backers outside.

The resignation was the most dramatic moment yet in the series of protests and political maneuvers that have shaken Lebanon since Hariri's killing.

Many in Lebanon blame Syria for being behind Hariri's slaying and have pressed hard since then for the resignation of the pro-Syrian Lebanese government and for Syria to withdraw its 15,000 troops positioned in Lebanon.

Both governments have denied involvement in Hariri's assassination.

Earlier Monday, Karami asked the legislature to renew its confidence in his Cabinet, which took power in October after Hariri's resignation in a dispute with Syria, the main power broker in Lebanon.

UPDATE 10:45 MST: The story is out. BBC and others now posting coverage.

UPDATE 11:25 MST: LEbanon's The Daily Star has the story up now.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 28, 2005 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As noted in the previous post, Publius Pundit has coverage of events in Lebanon.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, there are stories I've yet to mention specifically, although yesterday's rambling on hope was driven by some of these events. Others, more recent, and just as terrible are the acts of monsters attempting to destroy hope. They will fail.

Iraq - in Hilla, south of Baghdad, a terrorist armed with an explosives laiden car, blew himself up and killed over 100. The initial reports look as if this was a huge blast, not quite on the scale of the blast that killed Rafik Hariri, but larger than what we've seen as a general rule in Iraq.

Also, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, Saddam's half-brother and others were captured yesterday. Amazingly, the AP report doesn't mention Syria, while the initial reports pointed to Syria as playing a role in the capture of al-Hassan.

Iran and Russia completed their agreement on the supply of fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Well... so much for holding out hope that Vladimir would share our concern regarding Iran.

Egypt's tyrant Hosni Mubarak says he wants multiparty elections. Cool... if he means it.

And Israel was attacked Friday night and they believe Syria was behind it.

More on that and other stories after the sun rises.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 28, 2005 6:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It was difficult to rest last night knowing that the people of Lebanon would be awake and once again challenging tyrants.

Publius Pundit had set the stage well, and now has the details on today's demonstrations.

The best news thus far is the pro-Syrian counter protestors have called off their rally. A wise move and one likely to reduce the possibility of violence. Also worth noting is the arrival of David Satterfield in Beirut. He is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs and has already made clear the U.S. position in support of a free and independent Lebanon.

"Rhetoric that threatens violence and instability as a consequence of Lebanon achieving its own sovereignty or independence ought to be unacceptable. They are insulting to the people of Lebanon."

Publius points out that Syrian forces "may", as predicted by Thomas Friedman and Joseph Farah, act at any cost to protect their interest in Lebanon. It would be a huge mistake for Assad to believe that it is possible, should the people of Lebanon, supported by the free world, want freedom. If he is as bad a strategist as many have stated, he may just do it. I for one hope he's wiser and pulls out. Then Syria can eventually join the growing revolution peacefully or Assad can throw them into it as a molotov cocktail.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 28, 2005 5:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So many Arabs, and nearly all Arab governments, despise - no loath - no hate Israel. That hatred and only one other thing guide their every move. Power. They act on their hatred of Israel and thirst for power to such a degree as to make even the simplest gesture of cooperation seem significant. Hence we herald the reforming of the Palestinian cabinet as a breakthrough, or the election of Mahmoud Abbas as a step toward peace. Neither accurately, for the true pressure on Israel stems not from the Palestinian’s. It is the Arab neighbors that reflect the great threat, fuel the Palestinian’s arms with hatred, and, most certainly, possess the power to end the war against Israel.

The most meaningful and impressive aspect of the Iraqi election was the willingness of people to vote, despite threats against their lives, to form a democratic government. Their resolve has been met by continued violence and attacks on the Shi’a during a sacred time of remembrance. The enemy, fed and fueled by the powers in Syria, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, has not diminished in their battle for a return of what never was. That idyllic state whereby Islam ruled the hearts of men and governed the government accordingly has never existed. Yet, their romanticized view of the days of the companions, whether Abu Bakr, Umar, ‘Uthman or Ali, serves their thirst for power, and under the banner of Islam gives them righteous authority to attack their brother, neighbor, and friend for choosing instead to believe in the rights of man, to choose his faith, his government, his life’s work, and to live on the merits of his deeds.

While undertaking a study of the Qur’an (as well as the Hadith) some years ago, I was never left with the belief that Islam afforded its believers with the rightful hatred of any man. Like the Torah, and the Bible, it instead called to our higher, and significantly more challenging, character. Perhaps I was mistaken. For the unrelenting hatred espoused in the Middle East leaves little room for doubt. And no room for interpretation. While the Qur’an may state that there is no compulsion in religion, its adherents clearly compel Palestinian violence, terrorism in Iraq and the most immoral governments on this most un-heavenly earth.

Is it possible that peace may someday come to the Middle East? I’m left doubting my optimism, for it has little basis in reason, little supporting historic evidence, and moreover, little support from those whose efforts it will be built upon. Even so, I do remain an optimist.

Ungrounded optimism is foolish. Despite the email or comments of those who assert that that is indeed what I am, I believe that there are grounds for optimism. None are wishful platitudes of humanities goodness. For humanity is not predisposed to goodness, indeed the opposite is true. It is the goodness that men will bring forth, even against their nature that guides my optimism. Having seen the unprecedented voting in Iraq, I believe that there are men of good will, men who identify themselves as Muslim, that are at this very moment bound by their government, hindered by their clergy, and restrained by years of suppression, readying their plans to support freedom in the Middle East.

What prevents them from being heard, from establishing their freedom, is the governments teetering on the thin margin of power that suppresses the free. This, even if in order to hold power over even worse potential tyrants, must change. The challenge being to make such changes in a manner that prevents ideological tyrants from becoming rulers, and ensures that their governments secure their freedom rather than contain it. Is there reason to believe that the governments of the Middle East support such change? Limited evidence at best. Yet even that, is new and inspiring, for if it has reached the level of the leader, the people are most surely readying for their day.

Our nation, without significant aid from Europe’s old allies, our northern neighbor, or multi-national governing bodies has taken the lead in guiding the Middle East toward freedom. In many ways, this is due to the high price we have paid and continue to pay to prevent terrorism. It also stems from the realization that in today’s world, the light of freedom, more than ever before, is both needed and missing. Why others fail to share in the effort can, and will, be argued until the mission is accomplished. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that someone stands against terror, stand for freedom, and acts accordingly. That is our role, and that we do so should breed optimism in us all.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 27, 2005 5:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hugh Hewitt has once again initiated a Vox Blogoli. Those inclined to opine are encouraged to reply. Being one so inclined I offer my take on the question.

McClellan or Grant? Should the GOP leadership in the Senate push to a confrontation with the Democrats over the filibustering of judicial nominees, and if the Dems filibuster even one judicial nominee, should the GOP move to the "nuclear option" of a rule change, even if Harry Reid threatens a Senate shutdown?

Nominees are sent to the Senate for “advice and consent.” After committee approval, the Senate may debate the nominee, and then the all-important vote. It’s the vote that serves to provide the advice, and potentially, the consent to the President. Only after consent does the President appoint the nominee to the court. Senate Democrats are using Senate filibuster rules to prevent the vote. The tactical reasoning is simple, the votes are there to approve the candidates, and may not be there (most likely aren’t) to break the filibuster given its requirement of 60 votes to end it.

Why make such a decision? The Democrats of late, perhaps since FDR or before, are more attached to their ideological view than they are to the Constitution and the constraints that it purposefully placed on the federal government and the Senate. The same reason that Republicans of all varieties (conservative, neo-con, paleo-con, classical liberal, social or religious conservative, libertarian, etc.) have come together to oppose the modern left, as seen in the Democratic Party. The responsibility to nominate, and appoint, judges rest in the hands of the President. To ensure that this authority is not abused, the Senate is given a role. Today’s Democratic Senators aren’t willing to accept that role; instead they chose to prevent a vote. This behavior, or tactic, is obstructionist, or alternatively a direct affront to the Constitution they swore to defend.

The left, now firmly guiding the Democratic Party, and groups such as the People for the American Way are flatly wrong in their assertion that the Senate is co-equal in the appointment of federal judges.

So, Grant or McClellan? Grant. McClellan has been tried before and has failed. It amounts to appeasement. The Republicans and supportive Democrats should stand firm and demand "NOT ANOTHER INCH." We’ve moved too far from the Constitution, every step farther away relates to another generation, at best, before we again see the Constitution upheld in the Courts and understand by the people. Not another inch.

And finally, a bit of advice for the liberal, moderate and conservative supporters of the Democratic Party. Don’t let these Senators obstruct the rule of law in your name. Our nation needs your political party and the upcoming elections in 2006 and 2008 are going to be impacted by the decisions made this year. If you doubt that, just watch Senator Clinton.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 25, 2005 5:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pennywit's idea for discussion: [HT: The Moderate Voice]

President Bush should appoint a prominent American Muslim as a quasi-official ambassador to the Muslim world.

Why?

• Such an appointment could highlight the diversity of American religious faith.
  
• It could nullify the idea that fighting America is a "holy war" and further highlight that attacking America hurts fellow Muslims.
  
• Discussion of doctrine, religious law, and other religious issues is a large part of Islam.
  
• Such an "ambassador" could publicly contribute to such discussions, if selected from a moderate strain of Islam, could do so with credibility.
  
• The "ambassador" could meet with prominent Muslim cleric's on the United States' behalf. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for example, refuses to meet with non-Muslims.
  
• The "ambassador" and individuals like him could bridge the gap between Christian American officials and religious Muslims.
  

"Appoint a Presidential Envoy to the Arab and Muslim World. John Kerry and John Edwards will appoint a presidential envoy to the Arab and Muslim world. The envoy’s task will be to promote dialogue and understanding by building social, cultural, and economic relations in key nations."

Ambassador Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad, currently U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan, and previously Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Islamic Outreach and Southwest Asia Initiatives for the NSC, has largely served in such a capacity.

The real challenge before us, with regard to building relationships with the Muslim population, here and abroad, stems from their unwillingness to hear (and in the Middle East lack of opportunity to hear) the real message of America's foreign policy. Groups such as MAS and others in the U.S. ignore the existence of Dr. Khalilzad and others because of his support for the U.S. and the war against terror.

Perhaps more can be done, but it strikes me that we've made a great deal of effort to "reach out." It takes two hands to shake hands.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 25, 2005 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My first thought was - two more terrorist leaders caught, sweet! Almost as good as two more terrorist leaders killed. But really it's better, because they'll help us get to Zarkawi.

"Iraqi forces captured the leader of an al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist cell allegedly responsible for carrying out a string of beheadings in Iraq, the government said, and 30 people were killed in a string of bloody attacks, among them three American soldiers.

Also Monday, the Iraqi government said that Iraqi forces had captured a key aide to Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who leads an insurgency affiliated with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network."

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 25, 2005 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The other pic of Dr. Rice, in last nights post, is good. This one is better. Maybe because of the reaction of the troops as she walks by.

[Photo HT: Blaster's Blog via RWN]

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 25, 2005 7:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Votes were cast, tallied and then the winners announced.

The winning council entry, none other than my own, a first for me. The entry is a short piece called Waiting, and like many of my better blog entries…. it was written while I was angry, frustrated or generally peeved.

Fortunately, I didn’t expect to win, and therefore did not come with a prepared acceptance speech.

So I’ll have to wing it. My fellow noble and approved good masters… No, that’s been done. They like me they really like me. No, that too has been done, and done again. It has been a long journey to this moment. Damnation that’s been done! Words are so futile, so feeble. That too!!! Okay, no speech, just my thanks.

Read the other entries, and you, like me, will wonder how I won (...just like the Oscar’s - campaigning, cheerleading and bribes).

The winning non-council entry, from Gates of Vienna, is a critical look at jihad, no longer just for jihadist. It’s a must read.

All the entries, council and non-council, were well worth reading so I highly recommend you check them out in the Watchers den.

As for me, I have some post awards ceremony parties to attend.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 25, 2005 1:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First, deplorable behavior by Colorado's playground bullies er... Congressmen.

Rocky Mountain News - House leaders reminded members of the importance of decorum Wednesday, a day after a vulgar shouting match on the floor.

Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, and Minority Leader Joe Stengel, R-Littleton, stood together as they addressed the 60 House members present.

"The eyes of the state are upon us," Madden said. “The rules say there should be no loud private discussions and we should never impugn the motives of our colleagues.”

Said Stengel: "We need to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Let’s keep civility in the forefront and do the work of the people."

The day before, Rep. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, tangled with Rep. Val Vigil, D-Thornton, over an amendment to a license plate bill.

Cadman called the amendment "garbage." Vigil shot back that Cadman was "garbage."

Cadman then approached Vigil’s desk and told him if he ever pulled that again, "I’ll ram my fist up your ass."

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 25, 2005 12:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The war on terror is indeed global. The initial engagement with the Taliban was a success. Witness al-Qaeda no longer has the security of operating in Afghanistan and the initial tactical effect of the war is therefore a success. In Iraq, the removal of Saddam’s regime was significant if for no other reason than ending the likelihood of further collaboration between Saddam and al-Qaeda or likeminded groups. But there were, of course, other effects associated with that victory. Primary among those was the light shined on Iraq’s neighbors as supporters of Islamic terror and the growing tide of confidence from Middle Easterners to stand against terror and the tyrants that support it.

Syria, having hugely miscalculated its ability to support terror and squelch the Lebanese autonomy movement by taking part in or supporting the murder of Rafik Hariri, may now finally be forced to withdraw from Lebanon. And it’ll do so with Lebanon’s citizens calling for it at a much higher pitch than when it was the U.S. and UN demanding change. Assad’s regime is weakened and is more likely to fall or fall in line without conflict than the Mullahs of Iran are. Still continued pressure is needed to ensure follow through on the troop withdrawal, and moreover should be increased to demand the end to support for terrorist targeting Iraq.

Iran’s isolation has been less successful thus far primarily due to the EU3 and Russia. Both have shown an inability to take the necessary stand against Iranian support for terror and nuclear development efforts. While the movement for reform grows on the streets of Iran, the Mullahs continue to tighten their grip and reinforce their fist. This will likely be the single largest battle of the war on terror; whether diplomatic resolved or resolved on the battlefield, it will require more of our resources and resolve than either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yet the war has other fronts, as the Belmont Club’s Wretchard the Cat notes in recent posts regarding the war in Southeast Asia (Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore). Like you, I’m looking forward to future post regarding Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Sayyaf, Moro Islamic Liberation Front, or any of the indigenous groups supportive of al-Qaeda’s ideology. The latest version of Congressional Research Services report on Terrorism in Southeast Asia, offers significant detail on the spread of the movement through the region, and the ties between al-Qaeda and the region, as well as the as yet unmentioned core of islamofascism, Saudi Arabia.

As many Saudi citizens will tell you, the rulers are significantly not Muslim in their living, yet they use the religion as a means of control and suppression within the Kingdom. They’ve also permitted, and supported, its spread around the globe. This, significantly more Arab than Muslim version of Islam is the prime ideological vain of islamofascism that we fight today, the other being that of the Mullahs in Iran. Whether it be in Virginia, Europe or Southeast Asia, the Saudi financed masjids, mosques and madrassas have not ceased their indoctrination nor have they acknowledged the tie between their teachings and terrorism (the latest CRS report states that no data exist pertaining to the amount of funding from Saudi sources). Last July, I noted the significance of Muslims in non-Arab states becoming more Arab in their view. Given the recent developments in the Middle East, one might think that Arab Muslims are beginning to see the light. And yet, they are only beginning.

Only when Arabs more fully express a willingness to address the terrible strain of Islam behind islamofascism, then, and only then, will we have the real means to address the enemy in Southeast Asia and around the world ideologically. Until then, cutting their financial support out from under them, displacing and disrupting their cells and plans, and killing them on the battlefields of our choice, not theirs, has to be the primary means to achieve victory.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 24, 2005 1:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bryan Preston, of Junkyardblog, writing for TCS, believes that Japan would develop nuclear weapons, if... well read his column for that.

I don’t agree with him. I agree that Japan could rather quickly become a nuclear power, yet I believe that Japan’s constitution, and now cultural, prohibition against offensive force would prohibit it. They know, with all certainty, that the U.S. would protect their interest and our nuclear force would do the job for them. Is it possible that public sentiment could change and that the threat could cause Japan to alter its legal prohibitions and become a nuclear state? Sure. But highly unlikely.

It’s one thing to take a more "hawkish" stance and move toward a more pro-active defense capability and posture, and an entirely different thing to add nuclear weapons to your arsenal. [HT: Mark at Conserva-Puppies]

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 24, 2005 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There are times when the incalculably talented Mark Steyn’s words are too difficult to read. His latest offering, Atlanticist small talk is all that's left, is a masterpiece and at the same time terribly saddening. Steyn shows the nature of the cleaving of U.S. European relations, and moreover, the future of a bureaucratically inclined Europe in an age when values matter more than men are willing to admit.

After reading Steyn, I moved on to read Janet Daley’s Freedom? Why Europe's not bothered, also in the Telegraph. I’m not familiar with Daley’s works, but the truth of her words, particularly her closing comments regarding Europe’s substitution of values shipped to the colonies and fundamental to not only the founding of the United States, but central to the character of our nation still, is simply, dead on.

The United States nearly stands alone in the world today. And as both Steyn and Daley point out, Europe isn’t an enemy; it just isn't much of a friend.

Today, President Bush continued his diplomatic visit and along with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder affirmed that Iran must end its nuclear weapons development efforts. This, like yesterdays NATO discussions, is a continuation of putting the best face on what is clearly a decrepit alliance. And as the EU grows in significance, the NATO alliance will creep further into disrepair until it is no more. The EU, like the UN, is at its best when perpetuating the status quo. And accordingly, both are more likely to benefit our enemies than they are to aid our battle against terror and tyranny.

Tomorrow, President Bush will meet with Vladimir Putin in Bratislava. There will be the same type of glad-handing. President Bush will publicly support Putin’s efforts to fight terror and he will restate, both privately and potentially publicly, our concerns that Putin’s Russia is, as Putin has suggested he prefers, like Russia’s past. Russia, like the EU, has determined that success is measured by economic terms rather than by the values of the nation and the freedom of its people. Hence the ease with which Putin supports aiding Iran in its development of the Bushehr nuclear power plant.

When President Bush comes home, Europe will continue its push to sell arms to China, it’ll continue to lodge complaints at enemies rather than taking up arms or ending trade relations, and it’ll continue to slide into a morass of immoral living, blind to the threat that grows within and across the Mediterranean. Syria, Iran, China, Zimbabwe, Togo, Sudan, Egypt and others are not going to be hindered by Europe. Each nation has but one freedom, they are free of European willingness to stand against them. A less gracious people than Americans might move to free themselves of the responsibility of defending Europe.

Now troubled in the always welcoming traffic jam.

UPDATE: Austin Bay's take is less dire. I like the general thesis of his post, just don't share the optimism about change in Europe or the remainder of Europe's ability to sing a different tune than France. Read it.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 23, 2005 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday I posted the story of an American citizen indicted for plotting to assassinate the President and being a supporter of al-Qaeda. The press reported that Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was a high school valedictorian.

Rusty reports, at the Jawa Report, that the valedictorian attended the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA). Not a public school in Virginia but a Saudi run school that teaches first graders how to condemn Judaism and Christianity as false religions. And lots more.

He notes that the MSM is picking up the details, with a Philadelphia Enquirer report that quotes Daniel Pipes: "It's like the Nazis having little Hitler schools in America during the 1930s."

Excellent work Rusty! [HT: LGF]

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 23, 2005 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times says that Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari is an Islamist.

The headline for Wednesday’s story on his becoming the candidate of choice for the United Iraqi Alliance is more fear mongering than it is truth - "Shiite Alliance in Iraq Wants Islamist as the Prime Minister." The article is just as false as the authors paint the picture of disunity and contentions bickering, as if any nation, including our own, was ever formed without debate, negotiation and compromise. Burns and Filkins knew what they were writing, and they knew that it portrayed the situation in a negative light. Exactly the color if light they desired.

The truths - the United Iraqi Alliance is a majority Shi’a body and it won a majority of seats in the new government. Also the UIA has apparently chosen Dr. al-Jaafari as its candidate for Prime Minister. Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari is the leader of Iraq’s Dawa Party and lived outside Iraq for 20+ years (London and Iran).

But where does the idea that al-Jaafari is an Islamist come from, and why would the New York Times want to make you believe he is an Islamist?

First, a bit of background on the term Islamist. Some rather simple minded folks would say that any Muslim is an Islamist. If so, it would seem rather odd that the headline of a New York Times column would be "Shiite Alliance in Iraq Wants a Muslim as the Prime Minister." That is clearly not what Burns and Filkins meant.

By Islamist, did they mean a Muslim who believes that the state and religion should be one, as in Shari’a Law should rule the land? Or did they mean, Islamist as the less pejorative form of islamofascist? Neither one being a choice that would make American or European readers of the NYTimes comfortable with the selection of Dr. al-Jaafari. And neither one an accurate description of Dr. al-Jaafari’s view.

Dr. al-Jaafari is a pragmatic and realistic politician who clearly values his faith and the traditional faith(s) of his fellow countrymen. He also values freedom. We’ll hear how he’s lived in Iran and how his party is associated with the spreading of the Islamic message, yet what is more important is his words and actions.

While he initially balked at signing the interim constitution, Dr. al-Jaafari did eventually agree, and has since been both an advocate of a federalist styled government, and an advocate of inclusion, ethnic and religious, far beyond what Iraq has known for the last 50+ years. He makes statements regarding the Islamic identity and tradition of Iraq, just as an American president might make remarks about a Judeo-Christian ethos of the U.S., and likewise he insists that the people of Iraq will not have a theocracy, i.e. Iran, instead they will have a government that supports their faith while securing their freedom.

Perhaps once again I am just an optimist. The NYTimes could be right and any non-secular Muslim would be an Islamist and therefore a threat. I just don’t believe that to be the case. Read the column and see for yourself. The photo, included in the column, has the following caption: "Ibrahim al-Jaafari, right, the Shiite faction's choice for prime minister, at a news conference in Baghdad Tuesday. He won only after Ahmad Chalabi, left, withdrew and promised to support Dr. Jaafari, an Islamist." [emphasis mine.]

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 23, 2005 12:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a predictable statement French President Jacques Chirac endorsed German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s call for reforming NATO to reflect Europe’s growing bureaucracy, the EU. Schroeder advocates the EU take a larger role in transatlantic defense and foreign relations. This, of course, is due to NATO’s stubborn tie to individual European nations, none of which hold the political or economic weight of the United States.

Chirac noted that the U.S. and Europe are "real partners." Adding, "so we need to dialogue and listen to each other more." Not yet satisfied, Chirac added "We must also, as the German chancellor has underlined, continue to take account of the changes that have occurred on the European continent."

Chirac, in a Kerry like moment, alludes to the global test: "Wherever we share the same objectives and where NATO is mandated by the United Nations, France will fulfill its obligations."

While the individually sovereign nations of Europe vote on the EU Constitution, Chirac and Schroeder are already moving to limit the smaller voices in favor of a larger unified voice of Europe. Chirac attempts to be respectful of NATO, and thereby the U.S., and the role NATO has played in Europe’s defense. Yet even there, he wholly fails by offering up the virtue of the alliance as "first and foremost a military alliance." This after saying "“European defence is progressing. This development is an opportunity for our alliance, because a stronger, more united Europe, obviously means a stronger, more efficient Atlantic alliance." [Here is the full text of Chirac's comments.]

It is no surprise to those who visit this blog on a regular basis (thank you) that I’m no fan of the EU. What strikes me here is the brazen trumpeting of this message by Chirac while the President is in town. It would be a huge mistake to replace the individual nation members of NATO with an EU body which is clearly not driven by increasing the strength or effectiveness of the alliance. Chirac and Schroeder are interested in being a counter force to the U.S. and as they’ve shown with their nearsighted push to end the EU arms embargo, they’ll do whatever is politically expedient to achieve their aims (not to mention their prior ties to Saddam or current efforts to buy peace with Iran).

President Bush has a better understanding of NATO's role: "Because of Nato, Europe is whole, united and at peace."

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 22, 2005 5:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

He set the standard. 42 others have held the title, few have met the standard.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 22, 2005 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last July, NATO agreed to help with the training of Iraq's fledgling defense forces.

Today, we are told that they've done so again. This time all 26 members agree to support the effort in Iraq either with personnel, financial support or equipment. President Bush remains diplomatic and gracious. I'm not. NATO isn't what it used to be. Not because we've changed but because old Europe, the folks we liberated nearly 60 years ago, and protected for the next 4 plus decades, has changed. They, like the current and previous South Korean leadership, are ungrateful and have failed to learn the nature of tyranny.

Also, the EU is opening its first offices in Baghdad. The EU is training judges for Iraq, and thus far has done so only from the safety of Europe. The opening of the office does not indicate that training will move to Baghdad, it only indicates the future possibility of moving the training to Iraq.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 22, 2005 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a 23 year old U.S. citizen, has been charged with conspiring to assassinate the President and being an al-Qaeda supporter. From the AP:

"The federal indictment said that in 2002 and 2003 Abu Ali and an unidentified co-conspirator discussed plans for Abu Ali to assassinate Bush. They discussed two scenarios, the indictment said, one in which Abu Ali "would get close enough to the president to shoot him on the street" and, alternatively, "an operation in which Abu Ali would detonate a car bomb."

[snip]

According to the indictment, Abu Ali obtained a religious blessing from another unidentified co-conspirator to assassinate the president. One of the unidentified co-conspirators in the plot is among 19 people the Saudi government said in 2003 was seeking to launch terror attacks in that country, according to the indictment."

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 22, 2005 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Get the facts and you too will support Terri Schiavo. [HT: Curtis]

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 22, 2005 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the man who signed the "Agreed Framework" and now possesses nuclear weapons comes the word that North Korea will resume the six party talks if the United States will show "trustworthy sincerity." Kim also added that North Korea would "as ever stand for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and its position to seek a peaceful solution to the issue through dialogue remains unchanged."

Clearly the loon of the north was impressed by the Chinese envoy, Wang Jiarui, as he added "we will go to the negotiating table anytime if there are mature conditions for the six-party talks thanks to the concerted efforts of the parties concerned in the future."

The state department’s initial response is appropriately reserved. Spokesman Lou Finter says "the United States remains ready to resume the six party talks at an early date without preconditions."

Also today, the DPRK denounced Japan's new defense posture as a plot to reinvade the DPRK. Did you laugh when reading that? I did.

"The 'military threat' touted by the Japanese militarists is a far-fetched allegation fabricated by themselves. They have joined in the US hostile policy toward the DPRK and its moves to stifle the DPRK and, therefore, the situation in the Korean Peninsula has reached the worst phase."

On a related note, China expressed concerns today that the U.S. threatens their security on three fronts – east, west and south.

"The weekly [the source for this Dong-A report] says that the U.S. considers Japan and Taiwan as the first encircling net in the east and accordingly tries to strengthen its military alliance with Japan, sell advanced weapons to Taiwan, and push forward the establishment of an air base in Shadidiao.

Also, the U.S. is nurturing Guam as it core military base in Asia, setting the island as the second encircling net. To that end, the country augmented B-52 and B-2 strategic bombing planes, and deployed 64 air-launched cruise missiles to regions other than the U.S. mainland for the first time ever. It also decided to station three attack nuclear submarines at all times and deploy a Carrier Battle Group.

Meanwhile, the U.S. completed the western encircling net against China by setting up its military base in central Asia, while carrying out wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The country currently has 13 military bases in nine central Asian countries, including Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tadzhikistan. Against this backdrop, China faces a direct military threat from the U.S. also on land for the first time ever."

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 21, 2005 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is quite frustrating it is to read editorials and columns by men who firmly believe that by liberating Iraq we’ve advanced the cause of the jihadist. Bob Herman, a columnist for the New York Times, is just the latest in the string of columnist to offer this view. When will these damned fools understand their folly?

Herman’s column includes this:

"So tell me again. What was this war about? In terms of the fight against terror, the war in Iraq has been a big loss. We've energized the enemy. We've wasted the talents of the many men and women who have fought bravely and tenaciously in Iraq. Thousands upon thousands of American men and women have lost arms or legs, or been paralyzed or blinded or horribly burned or killed in this ill-advised war. A wiser administration would have avoided that carnage and marshaled instead a more robust effort against al Qaeda, which remains a deadly threat to America."

Iraq is no loss. It has shown us the extent of islamofascist thought and reach; it has focused their terror and in doing so limited their ability to strike the U.S. It has also removed the potential for a regime capable of providing aid in the form found in Taliban controlled Afghanistan, or worse in the form of weapons of mass destruction.

To say that the talents of many men and women have been “wasted” in Iraq is a horrible and shameful statement of Mr. Herman’s own thoughts on freedom and his own moral misgivings. Those who’ve fought, been injured, or died, to free the people of Iraq deserve so much more from men like Mr. Herman who live safely in the U.S. while they take the battle to the enemy, and draw the enemy to them as well.

The war on terror is global, it is strategic and tactical, and it is ideological. The strategic battle is being won as evidenced by the rising freedom of the Iraqi people who are choosing freedom’s ideals over terror and repression and in the long absence of attacks on the U.S. It’s tactical battles are won on every battlefield we have faced the enemy on, as well as on the streets when they blow themselves up and remove themselves from the battle. Ideologically, however, the greatest victory comes from the presence of purple fingered Iraqi’s, the continued will of the American’s to serve freedom at home and abroad and the movements in the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere to bring Muslims an alternative to the Islam of the Jihadist and instead offer Muslims a chance to stand as free men of faith, voting for their future and against terrorism.

We are told that Jihad is the struggle for that which is holy. Struggle requires will. Where is Mr. Herman's will?

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 21, 2005 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As you know, the President is visiting Europe this week. Here are several worthwhile columns discussing the President’s visit.

Sebastion Mallaby, in the Washington Post, has an excellent opening paragraph. Unfortunately, from there Mallaby dives headlong into a pit of junk science, bad ideas and bad politics as he calls for the President to make nice with Europe on global warming, debt relief for Africa and the international criminal court. The great issues of our time are covered in the first paragraph, and if Europe is on the wrong side of them, why should the President compromise on his, and our, values.

Niall Ferguson, in the Guardian, explains the three issues that will prevent Europe and the US from "making nice" during the President’s visit. The first is Iraq, or more aptly, Europe’s (specifically France and Germany) refusal to take part in the liberation and securing of Iraq. Next up, Iran, or specifically Iran’s nuclear weapons program, human rights abuses and continued support of terrorism and Europe’s (the EU Three) attempts to bribe the Iranian’s into agreeing to greater transparency in its nuclear program. Add to that Russia’s role in developing Iran’s nuclear power facilities and continued confidence in the Mullah’s assertion that they have no nuclear weapons program or the Kremlin's tightened grip on the Russian political and economic system. And finally, the EU’s move to end its arms embargo on China, in place since 1989. We may like to think, as does no less than Ralph Peters, that China isn't on a war path, but the reality is that China isn't on a path of reform, and the embargo was laid as a result of their actions in Tiananmen Square.

Elaine Sciolino, in the New York Times, describes the difference between Europe and the U.S. from a values perspective, even if that may not have been the purpose of the article. Is it poverty that causes terrorism, or the lack of freedom and democracy? Europe thinks it is poverty. Just as they recognize Hezbollah as a political party in Lebanon but not as a terrorist organization, the Europeans are wrong.

Financial Times editors note that the significance of the effort, the historical precedent from Ronald Reagan, and the inevitable challenge in an effort to mend fences on issues that aren’t political.

Gerald Baker, an editor at the Times of London, and contributor to the Weekly Standard, has an excellent column on the President's visit. Read it alone, if you can't read the rest of these.

The President's initial speech in Brussels has been made. The transcript is available here. Or at the White House website where no registration is required. The title of this post comes from the speech.

I will have more as the week passes.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 21, 2005 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Mark Steyn does it again. His must read commentary on the President's visit to Europe is both hilarious and spot on.

Cox and Forkum sum up the irony of the USS Jimmy Carter.

Ruud Lubbers has resigned in an effort to escape the scandle of his inappropriate behavior.

Doug Wead tapes the future president and then allows the NYTimes to hear a dozen or so of the tapes. Next comes the story in the Times.

Spain has agreed to the EU constititution. The voting was light and pro-EU. Too bad the remainder couldn't get out of bed to vote for their nation and against the EU.

Sergey Lavrov, Russia's Foreign Minister, admits that the Ukraine and Georgia are "absolutely sovereign, absolutely equal states in the new geopolitical architecture." Long time coming and certainly timed to ease tensions for this Friday's meetings between Bush and Emperor Putin. Lavrov also added some advice for Western leaders seeking to help former Soviet states:

"Russia wants to respect the interests of different countries - those neighboring us as well as those that would like to be more active in this region," he said. "But ... their interests here and their purposes should be understood and should not contradict the norms of relations between civilized countries."

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 20, 2005 5:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Arthur Herman has an excellent column in the WSJ.

I once lived next door to an Iwo Jima veteran. He had lost a leg on Iwo Jima, had throat cancer of one sort or another, drank beer as a primary source of nourishment, and despite being as stubborn as the summer day is long, he was a gentleman through and through. Tough as nails and sharper than a knife, he was a good neighbor and a fellow Marine.

Clarence is no longer alive. But the memory of him, and the many who served with him on that island will never be lost.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 19, 2005 7:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today, the eve of Ashoura, has seen a marked increase in the number and scale of attacks by terrorist on the people of Iraq, and particularly on Shi’a Muslims. This is Muslim on Muslim violence and yet, the worldwide Sunni population has not stepped forward to demand it stop, to stand between the terrorist and their intended victims or to support the brave American, Iraqi and allied troops who are doing so.

How long must we wait?

Before I go on, I am aware that there are small groups of Muslims, in the U.S. and abroad, who have spoken out against the terrorists and their tactics. Yet they’ve not taken to the streets, the governments (none democratically elected and representative of their citizenry) have remained silent and absent in Iraq, and no cry or call to admonish their behavior has been made. Is it because they fear being next? Perhaps some do, Faud and company for example, but clearly that isn’t the totality of the reason.

For far to many years the Muslim people have silently and not so silently supported the Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel. Having made the arguments that the murder of Israeli people, attacks on the military, government and civilian targets are warranted and even called for by their faith and its demand for struggle against those who oppose the will of God. This jihad has now been turned against fellow Muslims and the voice of the majority is absent.

So I ask again: How long must we wait?

I believe that we’ll have to wait a very long time. Imams, mullahs and sheikhs around the world have abandoned reason, moral and ethical teachings within the Qur’an, and the real and terrible consequences of sitting in silent support of evil. And in response, that evil now strikes at their own. The streets of the world have been filled with men and women who believed they had been wronged, that injustice was being done, and that their voices must be heard. Whether in protest of war, electoral shenanigans, or political corruption the memories are clear. Yet the last time we recall the Muslims taking to the streets it was in celebration of the worst attack ever on this nation. How many Muslims will die at the hand of terrorist before they see the terrible error of their past and present and take to the streets to demand an end to such acts. How long will Muslim children have to wait before their parents and grandparents demand an end to terror in their names or in the name of their god?

I’m waiting, but not holding my breath.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 18, 2005 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post reports that Japan will sign an agreement with the U.S. marking Taiwan as mutual security concern. The agreement to be signed on Saturday aligns Japan with the U.S. and Taiwan with regard to the "common strategic objectives" found in the Taiwan Strait. This along with Japan’s continued move toward modifying their post-WWII developed constitution to permit military actions beyond defense against direct aggression is a welcome move.

Unfortunately Australia, a great ally in the GWOT, has decided not to support the U.S. in our demands that the EU not end its arms embargo against China. Given China’s desire and capability to extend the reach of their military forces, one would think that Australia would take a more cautious stand. Unfortunately, economics are probably driving the deal as trade with China, and the highly valuable sale of uranium to China are taking the drivers seat in this decision. China has thanked Australia for their decision. [HT: Mad Minerva] I'm sure that makes it all worthwhile.

Previous post regarding China's military and economic expansion, the arms embargo, etc. are here, here and elsewhere.

UPDATE: I thought China's response to Porter Goss' comments before the Senate deserved inclusion here. The official response from spokesman Kong Quan.

"The U.S. warning has severely violated the conventions of international relations," Kong said. "The United States has severely interfered with Chinese internal affairs and sent a false signal to the advocates of Taiwan independence."

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 18, 2005 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Watcher's Council has voted and the winners have been announced.

The winning council entry is an excellent post by the Sundries Shack. It is an excoriating review of Kofi Annan's attempt to give the UN credit for the success of the Iraqi election.

The winning non-council entry comes from American Digest. Here we get an excellent look at the not so Indian professor of hatred, Ward Churchill.

There were, of course, many great entries, all of which may be found at in the Watcher’s den.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 18, 2005 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Kofi Annan called Darfur "Hell on Earth." The killing, starvation, and destruction of villages continues in Darfur. Talks to end the non-genocidal movement to exterminate the non-Arab, non-Muslim persons residing in the Darfur region are going to resume. Someday. Not sure when, but they are going to. Really they are. The AP says so. I mean it. Well, they don’t give out a source or anything but they say it. Really.

The AP also says that the trouble in Darfur started when African tribes in the region took up arms. Only then did the Arab's respond in kind. They never mentioned the "janjaweed” by name, or described the conditions that brought the non-Muslim, non-Arab people to the point of defending themselves. Nor does it mention that they are largely Christian and largely black.

The AP has apparently learned much from the UN.

As always, Sudan Watch has all the latest on what has to be one of our most shameful hours.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 17, 2005 10:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Israel has ended its practice of demolishing the homes of Palestinian terrorist. This is a good move. There are times when the hand of vengeance and retribution must be held in check. And Israel’s defense minister has determined that the program did nothing to deter further violence and may have contributed to greater hatred of Israel.

It’s good to see Israel take this step, yet reading the full AP report, by Karin Laub, I was surprised to see quotes from an al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Bridgade leader in Balata. Ala Sanakra states that the demolitions "motivated me to send more people on missions and gave more motivation to our fighters" in a phone interview with the writer. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that reporters can reach terrorist on the phone.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 17, 2005 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Center for Security Policy comes word of another nuclear threat. This one being electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack by means of nuclear detonation high above the U.S.

The Center for Security Policy points out a congressional mandated commission to determine the nature of the threat and U.S. vulnerability. The executive summary from the commissions report to congress is available as .pdf file.

Its clear that a return research, development and testing of nuclear weapons and their potential use (and means to protect against them in any form of use) is necessary. Within the last week I heard in testimony on Capital Hill, trying to remember where and get the source (I believe it was on FoxNews, Shepard Smith), that the U.S. cannot currently manufacture a nuclear weapon (legally and technically). The legal aspect allows for the modification of the current arsenal, hence work on "bunker busters" may be permitted. The inability to manufacter them, test them, and additionally recognize the affect they have on other military and civilian systems is more troubling.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 17, 2005 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Two items to discuss.

• Iran and Syria call for other Islamic states to be "vigilant" against the "U.S. and Israeli plots" to destabilize the region. [source: IRNA and the AP story now available.]


• Russia and Iran are to sign a deal for Russia to provide nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant. [source: Reuters via IranPressNews]

Iran's former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, now head of the Expediency Council, says that Arab states remain vigilant against “U.S. and Israeli plots” to create division among the Islamic states in the region. His comments come a day after asserting the “united front” of Syria and Iran to oppose on “all grounds to confront threats.”

Syria’s Prime Minister Naji al-Otari met with Rafsanjani after arriving in Tehran for a joint Iran – Syria meeting on economic cooperation between the two states. al-Otari also met with current Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.

al-Otari stated that Israel was the “source of instability” in the region and confirmed that Syria would continue its “struggle,” along with Lebanon and the Palestinians, to vindicate its “lost rights.”

Original text of IRNA report. [Originally included due to lack of this link.]

Tehran, Feb 17, IRNA -- Visiting Prime Minister of Syria Naji al-Otari in a meeting with Head of Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani here on Thursday stressed that Damascus was determined to upgrade its economic ties with Tehran to keep pace with bilateral political ties.
Al-Otari arrived here on Wednesday at the head of an economic-political delegation to attend the meeting of Iran-Syria High Committee on Economic Cooperation.
Referring to Tehran-Damascus strong relations, the head of Iran's Expediency Council expressed satisfaction with expansion of political, cultural and economic ties between the two countries.
He said that in light of the current circumstances, further cementing of relations between Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and other Islamic states of the region was of great importance.
Rafsanjani noted that those countries could create a powerful alliance through their close cooperation so that it would benefit the interests of their people.
The EC chairman added that division among regional states was the wish of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel and for the same reason, he argued, countries of the region should "stay completely vigilant vis-a-vis the US and Israeli plots in this
regard."
Rafsanjani also said that Tehran and Damascus could play a key role in Iraq's reconstruction.
Al-Otari, for his part, said that Iraq's occupation only benefitted [sic] the big powers. He added that efforts should be made to restore the country's sovereignty and wealth to their real owners (people of Iraq).
The Syrian prime minister stated that the Zionist regime of Israel was "the source of instability" in the Middle East region and that Damascus would continue its struggle along with Palestinian and Lebanese nations, to vindicate its lost rights. 1394 / 1412

Russia and Iran are set to sign a long awaited, and U.S. opposed, deal for Russia to provide nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Assadollah Sabouri, deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization says the deal will be signed on February 26th, while Russian Atomic Energy Agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev is in Iran. The assumption is that Russia and Iran have agreed on terms for spent fuel to be returned to Russia after 10 years of use. This, of course, is an unsettling development.
---
It should be clear (and is to those who are willing to see) that Iran and Syria are enemies of the U.S. and after the success in the Iraqi elections, are stepping up their rhetoric against the U.S. This is no doubt an effort to draw additional support from islamofascist, ba'athist and anti-American or anti-Israel groups.

Add to that, Russia's inability to recognize the threat Iran poses to world peace, most likely due to their greed. And the window is closing quickly on the U.S., EU, UN and world to take a stand against Iran. While much attention is pointed to Syria, it must be clear that should the Mullah's fall, Syria would most likely quickly come to order (save what now has to be expected in any Arab or Islamic state reforming or being liberated, an "insurgency" of islamofascist).

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 17, 2005 3:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thomas Friedman's response to the murder of Rafik Hariri.

Lebanon must give Syria the "purple finger." I couldn't agree more. If only the French, and the UN would stand as resolute as a purple finger.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 17, 2005 1:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ambassador John Negroponte, currently the top administration representative to Iraq, has been nominated to become the nations first national intelligence director. And Air Force Lieutenant General Mike Hayden, who since 1999 has served as Director of NSA, has been nominated as deputy national intelligence director.

Lt. Gen. Hayden is clearly a strong choice and may signal... and may signal the combined agencies with the type of changes and leadership to expect.

And Negroponte, former Ambassador to Honduras, Mexico, the Philippines, and the UN, as well as serving in various roles with the State Department and as President Reagan’s Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs is likely to be easily confirmed and a capable leader for the agencies in question.

I'd really like to hear Porter Goss' take on the nominations.

UPDATE: The Washington Post has the transcript of this morning's press conference. It includes President Bush's response to questions regarding Syria's involvement in Rafik Hariri's murder and their support for terrorist and Ba'athist holdouts from Iraq.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 17, 2005 9:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The NY Times has a lengthy piece on the development of combat ready robots. It's an interesting look at a portion of our future arsenal. It does, of course, eventual question the idea of robots fighting instead of men, and the doctrine of use that is yet to be developed. The following image is copyrighted by the New York Times Company.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 16, 2005 2:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

How can anyone be so dim? French Defense Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie is urging the end of the EU embargo of arms sales to China. The reasoning… well I’ll let Ms. Alliot-Marie’s words do the talking.

"The lifting of the embargo could be a better protection for us than maintaining it," she said.

"China is rapidly developing its industry, and today our experts say that in five years China could make exactly the same arms that we have today. And they will do it if they cannot import. So maybe if we can sell them the arms, they will not make them. And in five years' time, they will not have the technology to make them."

And - "The embargo was made about 15 years ago, and the evolution of China and of its international relations have been very significant since then," she said. "We cannot have relationships with China in all these fields - economic, medical, research and so on - and conserve the embargo as it is today." [source: FT]

China is developing the technology, manufacturing capabilities and stores of arms on their own. The idea that by selling arms to China, the Chinese will no longer pursue such arms or the means to produce them is ludicrous. It stems from the EU’s greed and nothing more. China wants the arms and the EU wants China’s money (or anyone’s for that matter). The U.K. may be the exception, while they support the removal of the embargo, their contention is that it is ineffective and greater oversight can be achieved through a lifting of the embargo and the creation of an organ for monitoring trade with China.

The Financial Times notes that the U.S. has been quietly opposed to the removal of the embargo, in an attempt to prevent further tension between the U.S. and our European allies. Here, again, the official U.S. policy believes that the EU is somehow friend of the U.S. (See my previous look at China and the EU.)

UPDATE: Porter Goss changed the tone with regard to China, compared to previous years, in his statements regarding Red China's efforts to counter the U.S. before the Senate Intelligence Committee today. It's about time.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 16, 2005 2:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There have been some interesting developments in the Middle East today.

Iran may be six months from having the knowledge to construct a nuclear weapon. Or so says, Israel’s Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom. Iran, of course, continues to deny assertions that they have a nuclear weapons program.

Iran’s Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi stated that Iran would shoot down unknown flying objects, which he had stated were primarily American spying equipment, i.e. unmanned aerial vehicles. Thus, reaffirming Iran’s position since December, 2004.

Additionally, Iran’s Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref has agreed to support Syria on "all grounds to confront threats." This, like the others, is not a "new" development, as much as it is a new statement of what has been the de facto position for some time. It is also telling given Syria’s renewed significance under the microscope given the death of Rafik Hariri. U.S. policy with regard to Syria may now be less likely to achieve a "balanced" resolution of tensions, with Syria foolishly believing Iran levels the playing field. Again the EU and UN must be willing to address the issues with something other than bribes and platitudes.

And then, this morning, Iran startled the world and many Iranians when they announced that a missile fired by an unknown aircraft had caused an explosion near the Bushehr nuclear reactor. They later clarified and stated that the explosion was caused by construction work for a dam.

Here in the U.S., Porter Goss and Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, in a refreshingly direct tone, updated Congress on the threat of al-Qaeda, Iran and islamofascist terror groups aligned with al-Qaeda.

Tensions have definitely increased. I’ll say it again; the EU and UN need to step forward. Similar to the tension with North Korea, the voices most likely to be heard remain either silent or a distant whisper at best.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 16, 2005 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hugh Hewitt points to a significant challenge to Republicans in his brief discussion of the Bush administrations plans to reduce farm subsidies. As a matter of principle, farm subsidies should be cut or eliminated. Despite marketing campaigns that portray them as a means to protect and enable small farms, the subsidies turn out to be nothing more than corporate welfare. Pragmatically, the reduction or elimination of farm subsidies is a dangerous political move that, if handled ineffectively, could result in political defeats across the heartland.

No matter the issue, the challenge for principled center-right conservatives or libertarians (small “l” not the party) is to find the balance between our principles and the pragmatic implementation or not of them. While reading the blogs listed on the sidebar, I’m often struck by the struggle to find this balance and, at the same time, find that I’m unwilling to argue against the principle on almost all occasions (excepting of course when I disagree with it). This, I believe, is because principle is rare in public discourse, and the expression of it is noteworthy. That being said, we must also show our willingness to accept the pragmatic options that will most definitely fall short of our objectives, for our greatest objective has to be to have those who, at least marginally, share our worldview in the hallowed chambers of the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court.

Hugh was on Dennis Prager’s show for the last hour flogging Blog. It was, as you’d expect, an excellent hour even though much of it was Hugh explaining blogs to Dennis, who still doesn’t have one.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 16, 2005 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ralph Cossa, of Pacific Forum CSIS, points to Roh and South Korea, who haven't stepped up to the plate with the North, and says that it's their lead we'll have to follow. As a matter of practicing their "sunshine policy" and later the "Policy of Peace and Prosperity", Seoul has told the North that they can either have nuclear weapons or have economic and political cooperation. As Cossa notes, it's time to see if the South was bluffing.

Ibrahim al-Jaafari, interim vice president of Iraq, former London based physician and leader of Hezb ad-Daawa Islamiyya, looks to be the choice for Prime Minister. He has thus far, at least of late, seemed rational, supportive of U.S. forces being present and focused on the right things (i.e. establishing a secure Iraq and including all Iraqi's).

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 15, 2005 7:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A national journey is underway. And like any journey, a national journey requires the knowledge of not only where one wants to end up, but also, from what point one begins the journey. Who among us would question that the Iraqi people more than any foreign observer or policy maker knows both the starting point of their journey, and where they would like to be?

Our character at the outset of our nation was set and firm. It had been forged by years of economic repression, religious persecution, and various ignoble attacks on the very nature of those who made the colonies their home. No matter what course of action the crown had taken, the character that had developed within the hearts and minds of the colonial leaders was such that their course could be set not just against the crown, but rather toward their own objective. They knew were they wanted to be and where they were.

The setting of the course within, as seen in the founders of the United States, took place prior to the first efforts at creating a nation. Over the years that have come and gone, many within our borders have lost sight of the necessity for such an internal course setting. They represent a hodgepodge of special interest groups lost but for their singular vision for the issue de jour and as such are bound together wandering toward no particular destination. Thankfully, there are those whose course remains firmly set nearly the same as our founders. They defend the true principles held in the founding documents. And in a similar vane, the people of Iraq are soon to set their course and pass on to their progeny the values for which their course should use as guideposts.

We know little of what the course will hold for Iraq. Its guiding values will most certainly be the creation and extension of their various ethnic and religious heritages into a national heritage. Like our founding fathers, the Iraqi people have known repression in any and all areas of their lives. This too will have an impact on their choice of guiding principles and on their aspirations for untangling the biases that have previously caused dissension between them. And with newfound bearing, the Iraqi’s will set out to become that which they’ve never been.

Of course, there are those who are not yet adjusted to the new reality, or who hold no course settings for which to guide them toward something new, seeking rather to return to the old. They too will be heard. The point is that Iraq’s course is to be determined by the hearts and minds of Iraq’s people, putting their values into action, and setting sail on a course of their choice. And to guide them, the course within. We may not know, or ever understand the destination they chose, who around the world understands the American ideal so well as Americans, but our guiding principles should assure us that it is right and honorable that they are at the helm. Finally.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 15, 2005 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Roh Moo-hyun, President of South Korea, is facing opposition to his policies of appeasement with North Korea. Finally! As noted before, I believe Roh’s policies have aided and strengthened the DPRK rather than "bridging the divide" or creating a mutual softening of relations from the North. Also, Roh's military has recently suggested they will participate in high-level military discussions with the North, as a means to avoid accidental clashes.

Japan continues to redefine its defense posture, now permitting the military to utilize its missile-defense system, currently being developed with the U.S., should Japan be under attack. Rather than a pacifist posture, the new defensive posture is well suited for the realities of the world.

U.S. missile-defense systems during testing failed to launch an interceptor rocket early Monday morning. Despite the nay-sayers outspoken opposition, it isn't that bad a thing. Just remember the number of failures during our initial attempts to develope rockets for orbital flight. Time is still on our side, and the effort, so long as we continue it, will be worthwhile.

Bashar al-Assad, Syrian President, condemned the killing of Rafik al-Hariri, yet the government press shifts the blame for the death of Rafik al-Hariri to Israel in a detestable, yet predictable, response.

"What happened was an attempt to shatter national unity in Lebanon, to sow anarchy and divisions which lead to a climate of civil war," said government newspaper Tishrin.

While the opposition to the pro-Syrian government in Beirut openly blamed Syria for the assassination, the official Damascus media in turn pointed a finger at Israel without even reporting the accusations against Syria.

Israel "continues to work to sabotage Lebanon's achievements to try to bring anarchy to the country and to be able to continue its occupation of the Shebaa Farms", a disputed strip of land along the Israeli border, said Tishrin.

Margaret Scobey, U.S. Ambassador to Syria, is being recalled to Washington in response to the terrorist killing of Rafik al-Hariri. Clearly there are those in the Bush administration who remain unconvinced that Syria wasn't involved. Added to the tensions between the U.S. and Syria over Syrian troops in Lebanon and influence in the government, and the concern over the Syrian border being used as a point of entry into Iraq, and well, perhaps the Ambassador should have been recalled previously.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 15, 2005 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Twelve judicial nominees, of the twenty submitted today, are repeat visitors who didn’t receive an up or down vote by the Senate in their previous nomination. President Bush has signaled the Senate that he expects things to be different. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has made it clear things will be different, either by a change of rules or by the so-called nuclear option.

Here are the nominations:

• Terrence W. Boyle and William James Haynes II to the 4th Circuit.
  
• Pricilla Richman Owen to the 5th Circuit.
  
• David W. McKeague, Susan Bieke Neilson, Henry W. Saad, and Richard A. Griffin to the 6th Circuit.
  
• William Gerry Myers III to the 9th Circuit.
  
• Janice Rogers Brown, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Thomas B. Griffith to the District of Columbia Circuit.
  
• And William H. Pryor, who like the others never received an up or down vote, but was appointed during a Congressional recess to a term that expires at the end of the year, to the 11th Circuit.
  

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 14, 2005 5:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I decided to watch Kudlow & Company on CNBC, to see Hugh Hewitt, John Hinderaker, and Glenn Reynolds weigh in on Easongate and the MSM’s continued cover-up of the story, i.e. the real story being CNN’s cover-up of Eason Jordan’s remarks back in November and again at Davos, I was pleasantly surprised to find Ralph Peters and Rowan Scarborough on preceding the bloggers. Peters and Scarborough discussed the election results in Iraq and North Korea’s nuclear admission.

Peters, as expected, was right on point and hilariously blunt in his assessments. They noted, as I did in a previous post, that the NYTimes and Washington Post both paint the picture of the election results as a failure, and Peters, Scarborough and host, Larry Kudlow, noted that it was the "best result we could have looked for." Peters on North Korea:

"North Koreans are dumb." And with regard to their announcement, and the resulting international isolation, it was "as dumb as going into a singles bar and announcing you’ve got herpes."

Next up, Easongate and the bloggers.

The bloggers made it very clear that the story was that Eason Jordan had done it before, meaning he’d claimed that the military target and tortured journalist, and that CNN had covered up his comments, choosing instead to see him go, rather than see the tapes of his comments made public.

They went on to discuss the left’s response and the future of their blogs. Hugh rightly characterized the left’s criticism of the blogs as jealousy, speaking specifically of Lovelady and this unexplainable WSJ Opinion piece, and John and Glenn stated their future interest as the court appointments, offering redress for those slandered (Hinderaker), and science policy and the war (Reynolds).

Haven’t watched CNBC in a few years, and while I’m certain it isn’t all as conservative, or even balanced, like Kudlow & Company, and it isn’t as visually grabbing as FoxNews, it wasn’t bad at all.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 14, 2005 4:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The results of Iraq’s election were released yesterday, and as expected the MSM has joined the likes of Juan Cole in their analysis of the results as somehow unsatisfactory and problematic. The reality is that for the first time in their history, the Iraqi people, no matter their tribal, religious, ethnic or other affiliations had an opportunity to vote, and, in most cases, did. Yes, many Sunni’s didn’t vote. In fact, a vast majority of Sunni’s didn’t vote, but that was to be expected. The Sunni are either supporting the terrorist, or held by fear of the terrorist.

The headlines offered by the Washington Post - Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision - or the NY Times - Split Verdict in Iraqi Vote Sets Stage for Weak Government. Like the press, Cole’s view, that the U.S. lost, in his case because Allawi’s party didn’t win, is wrong. Each of these enlightened expert views would have us believe that ill winds dominate the Iraqi landscape and it would behoove the U.S. to accept our failure and go. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What truth is that? Neither the U.S. nor the existence of U.S. forces in Iraq was the primary point of the vote. It was the beginning of the establishment of a free Iraqi nation. Not a pro-America Iraq or an anti-Iranian Iraq. Neither was the point of this election. Iraq’s election, and the forming of the new government, no matter its make-up is an opportunity. For Iraqi people, not the U.S.

The tired and gloomy response of the media and the expert analyst they call upon is just that tired and gloomy. A more fitting response and analysis would have headlined the opportunity found in the vote. The story would have focused on the self-determination, possibility and freedom it affords Iraq.

The institutions, education, and moral foundations needed to maintain a free and democratic Iraq may not exist to the degree necessary. Yet without them, they will have to forge ahead and construct a nation from a diverse group of peoples. Our response should be applause and encouragement. We should continue to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq, and provide security, until they’ve determined a course for our withdrawal. Instead, our press would have us believe that the only aim of our government in Iraq was to secure our needs in Iraq. It was never the case. Our invasion ended the threat of Saddam Hussein reinvigorating his means of making war and of his colluding with terrorist to attack the U.S. or our allies. After having done so, the purpose has been the establishment of what is now taking form, a free elected Iraqi government.

For once, it would be a marvel of marvels to see the press look at an occasion such as this with the eyes of children. Children, naïve and innocent, see the opportunity, the great expanse of possibility and the joy of building that which had only been a dream. For those nay-sayers who will no doubt ask, but what if it Iraq becomes pro-Iranian or anti-American, my response is simple. They will have chosen that course, and our response to this day, no matter the following course, should remain the same – joy filled and optimistic.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 14, 2005 2:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When looking through the technorati listing of references to Thomas Friedman’s Sunday NY Times column, No Mullah’s Left Behind, I was disappointed to see little refutation of Friedman’s column. And more disappointed to see Glenn Reynolds agreeing with this Friedman statement:

As a geo-green, I believe that combining environmentalism and geopolitics is the most moral and realistic strategy the U.S. could pursue today. Imagine if President Bush used his bully pulpit and political capital to focus the nation on sharply lowering energy consumption and embracing a gasoline tax.

Is the objective to reduce our dependence on foreign (read Middle Eastern) oil, or to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Or both.

The primary issue I take with Friedman’s suggestion is the gasoline tax as a means to alter behavior. The idea of changing our behavior through taxing the consumption of gasoline is abhorrent to me. The proper means to accomplish the objective of reducing fossil fuel dependence, and the attached relationship to despotic leaders in the Middle East, is through altering our own production capabilities and sources.

We have untapped resources in petroleum and we’ve nearly completely abandoned the use of nuclear energy. If we moved toward greater use of nuclear energy for non-transportation sector supply, the cut in fossil fuel usage would be significant, although, clearly 35 percent or more would remain due to transportation requirements. That component could be reduced through means such as Reynolds’ suggestion of hydrogen-fueled vehicles, but the time, and cost, between that solution and now is significant. The first step has to be opening up ANWR and other domestic sources for petroleum based exploration and production.

Whether geo-green or not, the administration needs to act to cut off U.S. backing of repressive regimes in the Middle East, and further, to create a more independent and viable long term solution to our energy needs. Our fear of nuclear technology, the cost associated with alternative fuels, and the lefts environmentalist ideals all serve as constraints to change rather as proponents of change. Another constraint is the attachment to stability. For years our economic policy has been propped up by the idea that through our continued use of Middle Eastern oil we foster stability in the region. This has to go. Maintaining the stability of despots neither advances the liberty of people around the world, nor does it enhance our security.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 14, 2005 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Saud family may have come to power via Islamist ideology, or at least with the aid of it. And may have and still use it to maintain control over their people. But, as I've noted before, the islamofascist are no friends of the Saud's.

Today's killing of Rafik al-Hariri is yet another example of the islamofascists hatred of all things Saud. A group calling itself, the Group for Victory and Holy War in the Levant, has claimed responsibility for the killing. Their statement "For the sake of our Mujahideen brothers in Saudi Arabia ... we decided to implement the just execution of those who support this regime."

al-Hariri had earned a fortune, estimated at over $1 billion, in construction.

UPDATE: It has become clear to most, that Hariri's death was not "for" Saudi Mujahideen. No matter the claim.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 14, 2005 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After reading Barone's piece, linked below, from Newsweek, be sure and read Robert Novak's latest in the Washington Post. [HT: B4B] Despite the criticism below, the column is generally positive.

Dan Kennedy, a reporter and blogger for the Boston Phoenix, questioned whether the Jordan controversy "would have been lifted out of the right-wing-bloggers-go-after-Eason Jordan paradigm if it hadn't been for Barney Frank and Chris Dodd," two Democratic members of Congress who were at the Davos forum and criticized Jordan's remarks. "You get bloggers bringing it to people's attention, but without some additional push from the mainstream, I don't know if you get over the top and actually push out people like Eason Jordan and Dan Rather."

Michelle Malkin called Frank and Dodd for comment. Kennedy makes it sound as if Frank and Dodd brought the journalist into the story. Malkin, being a journalist and a damn fine blogger, brought them into it. Credit isn't something the old-media is in a hurry to give to the new, even in a generally positive piece.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 12, 2005 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

China has both permitted some negative commentary on North Korea’s nuclear admission and withdrawal from the six-party talks, as well as asserted that they will remain in contact with all six-parties while working to restart the now year dead discussions. [HT: Powerpundit]

As I'v mentioned before, I don't believe that South Korea has followed the right course with the North for the past few years, and it appears they are going to continue providing aid to the North. Is it greed, after all the North's per capita GDP is 1/16th that of the South, compassion, being more wealthy and providing charity to distant family, or just an ill advised belief that Kim and Co' aren't that bad a bunch of guys?

Hamas on its best behavior. Good news for all, especially Chairman Abbas.

"Hamas's position regarding calm will continue unchanged and Israel will bear responsibility for any new violation or aggression," Ismail Haniyah

Michael Barone believes that the left leaning blogs have done what many of us have suspected for some time. Helped those they oppose. [HT: Instapundit, who is right that it didn't have to be that way.] Dean, Kerry, Carter, Pelosi, Gore, Moore - after all Bill did to make the Democrats seem not so lefty (post '94, with a Republican House and Senate), the Dems have gone out and become more leftist, more radical and more likely to lose. Save Hillary, Lieberman, and the wonderkund Obama. There is always Koch and Miller, but they've had enough.

Iran is being watched by U.S. drones launched from Iraq. The Sunday Washington Post delivers the story Drudge headlined late Saturday.

As usual, unnamed sources, but easily believable storyline. I for one hope that we have as many eyes on Iran as possible. As for the cat and mouse game of getting them to turn on radar, if that's what they want to call it, okay by me. There are many other advantages to the fly-overs beyond radar recognition.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 12, 2005 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Eason Jordan has resigned!

There is more to do... and, of course, late friday night is the time to resign if you want to limit coverage.

Here's the story:

NEW YORK -- CNN Chief News Executive Eason Jordan resigned late Friday in the wake of a controversy over remarks he made at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, about deaths of journalists in Iraq.

Mr. Jordan said in a resignation note he was stepping down to "prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy" over his remarks. During a panel presentation in Davos late last month, he made remarks that were interpreted by some people present as suggesting the U.S. military in Iraq had deliberately targeted journalists to be killed.

Mr. Jordan subsequently clarified his remarks to emphasize he didn't mean to imply the U.S. military had targeted journalists. In his resignation note, he said his comments during the Davos panel discussion "were not as clear as they should have been." He added, "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists."

Mr. Jordan is a former president of news gathering at the network, a unit of Time Warner Inc. (TWX), but he has not held day-to-day responsibilities for editorial direction or news content since September 2003, a CNN spokeswoman said.

-By Joe Flint and Martin Peers; The Wall Street Journal

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 11, 2005 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been reluctantly, or perhaps, cautiously optimistic, with regard to Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Years of watching the Palestinian terrorist, reading the works of Islamic apologist for their terror, and witnessing the UN's duplicitous support for Palestinians and unwillingness to define terrorism due to the realization that it would have to include Palestinian terror as such. Yesterday, in response to the latest rounds of terror, Abbas fired the heads of security responsible for preventing such attacks.

Today, we learn that he has gone to the Gaza Strip to confront the terrorist leaders, demanding that they stop their attacks on the Israeli people. Whether or not he is successful, it is good news that he is attempting to do so. The steps that might follow should his request not be heeded are difficult to imagine, yet due to his forthright and immediate response thus far, one can remain hopeful.

UPDATE: Krauthammer says more and says it better. [HT: Betsy's Page]

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 11, 2005 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting account of Akbar Rafsanjani, former President of Iran, speaking on the nuclear ambitions of Iran and the adventures of the U.S.

"The Persian Gulf is not a region where they can have fireworks and Iran is not a country where they can come for an adventure," cleric and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told worshippers at Friday prayers.

"It is not acceptable that developed countries generate 70 or 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear energy and tell Iran, a great and powerful nation, that it cannot have nuclear electricity. Iran does not accept this," he added.

Although France produces close to 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power stations, most major industrialized nations derive under 30 percent, U.S. Energy Information Administration data says.

Rafsanjani is often hailed by analysts as a pragmatist who wants to restore diplomatic relations with the United States.

Rafsanjani reiterated Iran could not give up uranium enrichment, a key process in making nuclear fuel, but could work out a diplomatic solution by offering further assurances the fuel was not being diverted to bombs.

"This confidence has to be built in the next few months. When this period this is over, we will, God willing, continue enrichment and nuclear technology," he added, stressing Iran's co-operation with the U.N. atomic watchdog.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 11, 2005 7:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, Dear Leader, and his comrades announced they possess nuclear weapons and that they are no longer participating in multi-lateral talks. Today they announced that to defuse the tension they want to meet with the U.S. That has been their aim all along.

For years, North Korea's leaders, and everyone else's, could count on the U.S. to buy their support, or to bribe them for their support, in many cases that being exactly what the supposed enemy wanted. It is here. The DPRK officials are starving their nation. And the U.S., among others, are key to reversing the economic starvation that the 'Il' leaders have put on the North Korean people.

Should the U.S. participate in bilateral talks? I don't think so. The DPRK having nuclear weapons threatens all the people of the world, even if its the U.S. that recognizes the point of the barrel.

UPDATE: As expected, and appropriately, the Bush administration has refused bilateral talks with North Korea.

"It's not an issue between North Korea and the United States. It's a regional issue," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "And it's an issue that impacts all of its neighbors."

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 11, 2005 7:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Secretary Rumsfeld is in Iraq. Very good, there should be a nearly constant flow of senior level administration officials touring Iraq, speaking with the troops, and meeting with the soon to be announced new government of Iraq.

This line, or something similar, will be repeated often in Iraq. "It is the Iraqis who have to over time defeat the insurgency." And rightfully so.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 11, 2005 7:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The votes have been counted, minus a small number of disenfranchised members, and the winners have been announced. The full results are here.

Sundries Shack offers the winning council entry with Bush Jong-Il. It's well worth the read, if you haven't. The winning non-council entry comes from Victory Soap, and as you might guess, Just. Shut. Up. is excellent. There were several other excellent candidates this week, not mine, including the Wallo World and e-Claire entries. And the non-council entries were excellent also, especially you can see them all here.

Congratulations to the winners!

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 11, 2005 7:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In dealing with North Korea, see previous post, the U.S. under President Clinton and the diplomatic expertise (cough!) of former President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. failed. We now face a real crisis.

And then there is Iran.

As with North Korea, DPRK, the Clinton administratin plays a large role in where we are today. With Clinton's authority, Vice President Gore negotiated with Victor Chernomyrdin, in what was known as the 'GCC', or Gore Chernomyrdin Commision, and the result was that Russia was to sign no further agreements with Iran. President Yeltsin, whom President Clinton had stated had agreed to scuttle the Bushehr light-water reactor deal, never did so. It, along with the centrifuge technology now at the center of the current issues between Iran and the U.S., could have been stopped in 1995. The plant’s construction is now complete, the centrifuges are being used in the process of creating enriched uranium.

Essentially, Clinton and Gore, assured the Russians that the U.S. would look the other way on their existing arms sales to Iran, and as well, we would permit certain defense and satelite corporations to do business with Russian firms, permit the Russians to participate in the Wassenaar Arrangement, and finally, we would only require that Russia not continue arms trade with Iran, i.e. no new deals. For the remaining years of the Clinton administration, the focus became preventing missile technology transfer to Iran.

And just as with North Korea, where Clinton also focused on missile technology development and transfer, Iran has advanced missile technologies now capable of reaching their perceived enemies, and are moving toward ICBM and nuclear warhead additions. (The U.S., nor any other nation has confirmed DPRK or Iranian delivery capabilities for nuclear weapons - ed.).

In essence, both North Korea, and Iran are crises that the Clinton administration turned a blind eye to, and as a result, both are much more capable of terrorizing their neighbors and holding the world to the point of a nuclear gun.

How could we possibly consider any Democratic nominee for the White House, Senate or House as serious on defense and national security issues in the wake of their support for Clinton? Perhaps some will step forward, but as of yet, the only stepping forward that’s been done is by the Bush administration. The President and Secretary Rice are trying to clean up the mess of the Clinton Gore debacle.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 10, 2005 5:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

North Korea has nuclear weapons. Of course this isn’t news, it’s just an admission of the truth. The history of North Korea’s dealings on this issue does not bode well for those who believe that diplomacy will resolve the issue. Diplomacy requires a level of participation and trustworthiness on the part of all involved that North Korea cannot supply.

Here’s a look at the history that leads me to that conclusion, although this is by no means comprehensive in that it does not address the human rights issues or missile technology sales issues relating to North Korea’s trustworthiness, or South Korea’s questionable moves, since 1998, and negative impact associated with them.

• 1985: North Korea Signs the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) but fails to sign an agreement with the IAEA, as required, to permit inspections of nuclear facilities, claiming it will not do so until the U.S. removes nuclear weapons from South Korea.


• 1991: After the U.S. unilaterally removes tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea; the two Korea’s sign an agreement to ensure the Korean peninsula remains a nuclear weapons free area.


• 1992: Initial inspections by the IAEA discover disparities in North Korea’s required declaration of nuclear activities.


• 1993: North Korea withdraws and then reaccepts the NPT, with the assurance of the U.S. against aggression by the U.S. and interference in internal North Korean politics.


• 1994: The CIA concludes that North Korea may have as many as 2 nuclear weapons. The IAEA begins inspections again; discovering that North Korea is wrongfully removing spent fuel from a nuclear research facility.

  After North Korea claims to no longer participate in the IAEA, former President Jimmy Carter negotiates North Korea’s "freeze" on its nuclear weapons program. The "Agreed Framework" between the U.S. and North Korea is signed, negotiated by Robert Gallucci. Under the "Agreed Framework" the U.S. will move to normalized economic relations, provide aid, and agree to the development of light-water nuclear power facilities in North Korea; the North Korean’s agree to eliminating their existing facilities and the weapons program, and to special inspections by the IAEA.

  The focus of U.S./North Korea diplomacy shifts to missile technology proliferation.



• 2000: The U.S. removes sanctions on North Korea, excepting missile technology sanctions and terrorism. This followed the North-South agreement to resolve the issue of reunification. Secretary of State Albright visits Pyongyang, and there are hints that President Clinton will before the end of his term. He does not, and later, March 2001, the NYTimes relates that it was due to Sandy the Burglar, National Security Advisor at the time, not wanting the President to go during a potential "constitutional crisis."


• 2001: President Bush and Secretary Powell readiness for further discussions with North Korea. North Korea claims readiness for "dialogue and war."


• 2002: President Bush’s "axis of evil" includes North Korea, primarily based upon internal suppression of human rights, missile technology proliferation, and support of terrorism. Despite this assertion, construction begins on the first of the light-water reactors (LWR) agreed to in 1994. The U.S. reports North Korea’s admission of possessing an illegal nuclear weapons program, to be followed by an end to oil shipments in support of the first LWR under construction. North Korea restarts its previously closed nuclear reactor, opens closed facilities and expels IAEA employees.


• 2003: North Korea withdraws from the NPT. The date of their withdrawal is hilariously debated as the IAEA says they have to wait three months, North Korea say they original stated their intent in 1993, so its official now. During trilateral (China, North Korea, U.S.) talks, North Korea admits having nuclear weapons. North Korea launches two missiles, their first test since ’98 and their first since agreeing to a moratorium in ’99. North Korea breaks contact with U.N. Command responsible for monitoring the Korean Armistice. North Korean officials tell the Chinese they may test, export or use their nuclear weapons depending on U.S. action. The U.S., North Korea, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea meet for the first time to discuss the issue.


• 2004: The six nations talks occur once more, and agree to further meetings. No further meetings occur, as North Korea demands bilateral meetings with the U.S. and attempt to tie the issue to economic aid.


• 2005: North Korea issues statement that it possesses nuclear weapons and withdraws from further multilateral discussions. [sources: Financial Times, FoxNews, CNN, ACA]

The U.S., along with Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, should move immediately to have the U.N. Security Council demand, with a Chapter 7 resolution, compliance from North Korea. It is unlikely that it will happen, and less likely that if it does, that the sanctions would create a real change in North Korean policy. It would, however, show a global resolve for the economic and diplomatic isolation of North Korea. This too is a dangerous maneuver, as no one can know how Kim Jong Il will respond.

Similar to Iran, the people of North Korea would be the proper means to ending the situation, and the regime. Unfortunately there is apparently even less likelihood that the citizens of North Korea are prepared, inclined or capable of such a move. Isolation will, in this case, lead to further suffering.

Should China truly seek to have the Korean peninsula remain nuclear free, their response will most likely be the key. Thus far, they’ve not yielded a significantly strong enough voice against North Korea, and in all likelihood, they will not. Cutting off aid, in particular oil supplies, and supporting the complete economic and diplomatic isolation of North Korea, even if it never happens, would go along way to show that China is serious in its desire to see an end to the crisis.

A quick and proper Chinese response would go a long way toward relieving concerns I have about their efforts to weaken the U.S. I don’t expect it.

(Other coverage: FT, Xinhua, WaPo, Times of London, Scotsmen)

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 10, 2005 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Projections for Medicare Drug Benefit cost have more than doubled, if the Washington Post is correct in their statement that it could cost $1.2 trillion for the coming ten years. And despite the number of other reports now using that figure, it doesn't appear that the Post has it right.

The Post, at best, failed to grasp the nature of the subject matter, and in doing so didn't recognize the vast difference between a projection based on 10 years of full (and growing) participation and the initial projections based on 8 years of full participation with 2 years of only limited availability. At worst, the Post reported the $1.2 trillion cost compared to earlier estimates of $534 billion with the full knowledge that the $534 billion factored in the savings to the Fed associated with the initial projection, while the $1.2 trillion does not. That figure would have more accurately been reported as $720 billion.

Is there a difference between $534 billion and $720 billion? Of course, but given the two additional years of full participation, it is relatively minor. It is effectively yields a 9% increase in cost, and given the growing base of participants included in the planning, that strikes me as a reasonable number. The same would hold true for a comparison between the $400 billion projection from 2003 (a 28% increase with 3 added years of full participation).

And just so we are clear... I am not, nor have I ever been an advocate of the program, although I much prefer it to the single provider option the Democrats prefer.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 9, 2005 3:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As previously discussed here, the stamp to honor President Ronald W. Reagan is now available. Be sure and purchase them, to use or save.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 9, 2005 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Boulder - Met by wild applause Tuesday night from hundreds of supporters, controversial University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill strongly attacked Gov. Bill Owens and the CU Board of Regents and said he would never back down from his comparison of some 9/11 victims to Nazi Adolf Eichmann.

Looking out on the mass of adoring supporters, with hundreds more listening outside in the cold, Churchill said loudly, "Bill Owens, do you get it now?"

"I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for Bill Owens. I work for you," he told the CU audience.

On Tuesday night, Churchill again emphasized that he was not blaming everyone in the towers for U.S. policies.

"No I did not call a bunch of food service workers, janitors, children, firefighters and random passers-by little Eichmanns," he said. "The reference is to a technical core of empire - the technicians of empire ... obviously I was not talking about these people."

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 9, 2005 3:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Harking back to the pre-election scare mongering of the left, Southern Conservative asks in this week's Homespun Symposium, do we have the right to insist or expect that there will be no draft to fight the global war on terror? Noting the role the draft played in the first two World Wars, the author then asks, what gives our generation the right to expect to abstain from the same duty our grandfathers and forefathers were called to? These questions leave us to examine the very nature of our beliefs, the extent of them, and our willingness to defend that which we hold dear. For my part, this is an entirely worthwhile effort.

The advent of the all-volunteer service began after the Vietnam War. There was even a time, though short lived, where no registration was required between 1975 and 1980. It abruptly ended with the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The volunteers have finally brought peace and self-governance to Afghanistan, or at least the beginnings of such.

In 1985, when I decided to join the U.S. Marine Corps, like nearly everyone else I would meet in the service, it was for personal reasons. Not a single reason, and not without the realization that in doing so I, like those I would serve with, either could, or would, be called upon to serve in time of war. When in 1987, as a young Corporal with just over a year of service, General Alfred M. Gray became Commandant of the Marine Corps, replacing the venerable P.X. Kelley, I was reminded, as were all Marines, that we were warriors first, no matter our occupational specialty or MOS. It was a grand time to be a Marine as General Kelley had worked to rebuild the caliber of the Corps, and General Gray would lead the Corps to refocus on what we did best. Or as Paulie once reminded me, the Marines are trained to kill; it’s the Army that is taught to be all you can be.

Being a volunteer, in August of 1991, the following weekend after the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces, I walked into Master Gunnery Sergeant Montoya’s office and declared - if anyone has to go, I want to. The call came, and I did. My second son was born while I was at Ras al-Mishab in Saudi Arabia. And now, another generation of volunteers has removed Saddam from power.

Does this in any way serve as a means to support the idea that an all-volunteer force will forever meet the needs of the nation? No. It is simply a means to clarify prior to my response, that I speak not as someone who has not served nor as someone who’s children may not. I have the utmost respect and admiration for those who serve today. And in all earnestness, on many occasions, long for a way that I too could serve the great cause that they do.

Last November, and before, when political manipulators attempted to sway the vote by suggesting that a draft was in the works if President Bush was reelected, I like many on the right immediately challenged the assertions and noted that it was the left, Charlie Rangel for instance, who was calling for a draft. But that was politics, or so I’m told.

Should a draft be needed, a highly unlikely event during President Bush’s second term, then I, and other libertarian and conservative members of our society will step up to the plate and support its existence, if for no other reason that it is the responsible thing to do. As would liberals, or at least I would hope. We’ve made no argument except the defense of our nation, and when that defense requires more of us than our volunteer forces can provide, we would provide it. Our history has shown this to be among the greatest American traits.

Other Homespun Responses:

Karin Kydland
Southern Conservative
Major Dad 1984
American Warmonger
Being Thomas Luongo
Nixon's Memoirs
Eric's Random Musings
Ogre's Politics and Views
Bunker Mulligan
Carpe Bonum
The Commons at Paulie World

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 8, 2005 4:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After blogging Bad For Us All, I read Dorian Davis’ The Modern Monarchists at Alarming News. Dorian is writing as a guest blogger for Karol, who is busy with work, and also has a blog of his own.

Dorian’s excellent post deals with the internal enemies of the people and their ascension to power through the courts. Dorian concludes with a Nixon quote, a rare item in this age of political correctness, having already established his point, that a vocal and fervent minority has established itself over the will of the majority and over reason.

Whether in the courts, the press, or the Democratic Party’s leadership, it can only be seen as a sign of the significance the enemies of the United States have made. And from within, for it is from within that we are most likely to be defeated. From within our guard is lowered, we are restrained from defense of reason and virtue alike, and from within we are prohibited to state that others, clearly acting against the nation, are seditious, treasonous or most graciously, wrong and bad for the nation.

Many of the acquaintances and friends I’ve had in my lifetime have been honorably liberal, and likewise conservative. Far fewer have been overtly leftist, or open supporters of radical movements from the left, whether they be environmentalist, abortionist, same-sex marriage advocates, pacifist, socialist, communist or islamofascist. Yet these same good willed men and women have allowed the leadership of their party to take positions that are in line with the most extreme of these views.

As Dorian notes, courts now ignore the views of the people, ignore the real rights of the people, and fabricate rights for those who’ve squealed the loudest. When ELF burns homes or apartments, or the EPA squashes the livelihood of men, where is the voice of the Democratic Party? The reality is that it has become the extreme, and until the aforementioned well meaning liberal voters stand in the face of the extreme left, the nation will see no good of them, nor will it be safe from the vocal minority.

Good men doing nothing. It is bad for us all.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 8, 2005 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An excellent summary of the budget proposal from the Washington Times. [HT: Betsy's Page]

I've not yet completed my reviews, Defense being the only completed portion posted, but will do so.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 8, 2005 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Are we wrong to be concerned that the Democratic Party seems destined to select Howard Dean as their next chair of the DNC? Prior to the election I wrote on several occasions that a strong a viable Democratic Party is essential to the future good governance of the U.S. Not because I want to see them win an election, or regain prominence in the House or Senate, but because the ideas and ideals that are presented to the American people are so strongly influenced by the two parties and the leftist, as opposed to liberal, movement of the Democratic Party means fewer viable alternative viewpoints and greater extremism.

Given that Kandidate Clinton, now serving as a Senator, along with the likes of Kerry, Gore and Edwards will lead the pack for the 2008 nomination. It seems certain that the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left and is secure enough to stay. I say this despite Clinton’s rather obvious attempts to seem more centrist and even hawkish. The reality is that her efforts are a political move to increase her viability in 2008, but doesn’t change the real nature of her politics or her base (which would undoubtedly support her even as a more centrist candidate).

For the immediate future, it’s probably good news for the Republican Party. In the long run, it signals a more permanent shift toward the left and is neither good for the Democratic Party or the nation.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 8, 2005 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Harvey Kushner was interviewed by NRO and this morning was on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. Like Laura, I can only hope that much of what Harvey has to say is wrong. If not, we aren’t tackling, not due to effort, the war on terror as effectively as needed.

The NRO interview is available here. The book, Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States, is available here. [HT: LGF]

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 8, 2005 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Why would anyone be skeptical of Abbas or the Palestinian Authority's recent cease-fire with Israel? Hamas.

During Arafat’s reign it was clear that he could stoke the fires of Hamas and increase the terror brought upon the Israeli people. It was never clear if he could stop it. [Primarily because he never sought to. – ed.] The challenge today is for Abbas to end Hamas’ terror while Hamas openly asserts that the PA alone has agreed to a cease-fire.

Will Abbas take steps to root out and break Hamas’ hold on the Palestinian view, or will he simply wait for Hamas to once again strike at innocents? The answer will greatly influence his ability to negotiate a settlement with Sharon.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 8, 2005 9:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Self tortured into reading the various components of the budget, and any or all other related docs, I’ve come to only one real conclusion thus far.

No one will be happy with this budget, as is. That should be seen as a good thing. And if it weren’t for elections in ’06 it just might have been.

I’m pleased that the President hasn’t tried to please everyone, and perhaps has gone so far as to please no one. Will it work? Don’t know, it’ll depend on the earnestness of the Republicans in the Senate who will have to show the Representatives in the House that they aren’t going to leave them open to attack in ’06. In addition, it’ll depend on the social security debate, if we ever get around to a proposal, and what will certainly be a contentious debate of judicial nominations. If the Republicans have the juice to stand up and be counted, and can force the Dems to stand by the Kennedy/Kerry/Pelosi type remarks, we’ll have so many of, then the Representatives in the House may feel they’re well backed for ’06 and be willing to take a stand on the budget and social security, when the time comes.

As for me, after only reading the defense component and portions of the homeland security and justice components, I’m suitable concerned and therefore able to lend my support. Cautiously... which is a good thing. I think.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 7, 2005 7:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I’ll be reviewing the Departmental proposals in their order of significance (to me). Therefore the first is the Department of Defense.

The Defense budget is $421 billion. Proposed Defense discretionary authority is $419 billion with mandatory expenses of $1.9 billion. This is an increase of 4.8% in Defense spending over FY 2005.

Highlights:

Increased production of unmanned vehicles including the various UGV, UAV, UUV programs, as well as the unmanned combat aerial vehicle. $1.7 billion total for unmanned vehicle programs. Several other higher tech weapons and communications systems are covered as well.

Increase in salary for uniformed service members of 3.1% and civilians personnel by 2.3%.

$613 million for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a higher speed near-shore combat vessel, which looks promising. This is a $153 million increase over FY 2005. DD(X), CVN-21 and Virginia Class Submarines all continue development and procurement.

Continued reorganization of the Army and Navy to form more "modular" or self-contained smaller units, brigade sized, as opposed to the traditional divisions. From 33 brigades to 43 in the Army, and proportional increase in the reserve. Source: Secretary Rumsfeld during briefing. The Marine Corps will be adding two battalions, and a small number of combat and combat support elements.

Continued reorganization under SOCOM with 1200 special operations forces from the military and 200 civilians. $50 million allocated to retain SOF forces.

$416 million to begin the GPI reorganization which will bring American troops, and their families home to the U.S., and cut the number of overseas bases by 300. A 10-year, $3.5 billion effort, but well worth it. This will also have significant impact on base closure decisions for bases within the U.S.

Continued improvement in the acquisition of new systems and technology through the "spiral acquisition" model. Those familiar with technology development methodologies will recognize the benefits, and welcome the new approach. The Army’s FCS is slated to receive components in ’08 versus the entire system in ’10 due to the spiral approach.

Privatize nearly 50% of military family housing, which had been found inadequate.

Significant increases for reservist and guardsmen in education benefits (40%, 109%, and 179%) based on the amount of time on active duty.

$7.8 billion for the Missile Defense Agency.

Concerns –

Slowing down production of the V-22 Osprey.

Cutting the number of F/A-22 from over 300 to 179.

Cutting the number of aircraft carriers from 12 to 11.

At first look, there aren’t many areas where I’m too concerned. Cutting the number of Raptors and speeding the retirement of one carrier aren’t likely to please many of who are concerned with more distant and conventional warfare, or the possibility of such. The Osprey has long had its detractors. More after further reflection, and of course, your thoughts or links are welcome.

Sources: White House OMB Defense Budget, the Secretary of Defense's briefing on the budget proposal, and DoD budget docs available at DefenseLink.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 7, 2005 6:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A few items of news, while I continue reading the voluminous budget proposal.

Togo has a new president and the hollow voice of the UN is screeching in protest to the military backed succession of Faure Gnassingbe, son of the late President Gnassingbe Eyadema. While I can'’t rightly say I'’m pleased, it just strikes me as a clear example of the UN'’s ineptitude. Even Togo stands defiant before the UN.
---
Dollar hits a 3-month high against the Euro. China'’s leaders can’'t be pleased.
---
Israel and the Palestinian Authority are to declare a cease-fire formally tomorrow. Secretary of State Rice has certainly not been the failure the left was hoping for. That being said, it'’s still a long way from cease-fire to peaceful coexistence. Hopeful, yet, I remain.
---
China is going ahead with its first, the world’s first, "pebble-bed" nuclear reactor. Treading where none since the Titanic have gone, it's being called "melt-down proof." It may be that it is safer than the old technology, seems plausible with the few details provided, the claim isn’t one I’d make. Would love to hear from Steven Den Beste on this, but don't expect it.
---
Hassan Rohani after stating that Iran would retaliate if attacked by the U.S., stated that Iran would "definitely accelerate our activities to complete our [nuclear] fuel cycle." Does this sound like the words of a nation with a peaceful nuclear technology program, or one hell bent on developing nuclear weapons?

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 7, 2005 3:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After reading the President's message, overview, and priorities documents (I, II, III, IV, and V), I’m offering some initial reaction to the proposal. On first reading, it is striking that the budget proposal makes clear that performance has to take a lead in determining the continuation of existing programs. While this will meet with some opposition, as performance over intent is an unlikely argument by many in Congress, it offers a glimpse into the thinking of the President and the realities of such an enormous budget.

The budget reflects the improving health of the economy, and that tax revenues are increasing, due to (or for the left, in spite of) the tax cuts over the last four years. Additionally, it highlights, to the President’s credit, the shortcomings of the government in certain areas. These include real property asset management, competitive sourcing, and improper payments. Additionally noteworthy, is the policy statements behind much of the budget, including specifically the administrations policy directions toward taxes, energy, litigation reform and regulatory reform. It was also a welcome thing to see that the budget, and future projections, weren’t based on pie in the sky predictions of future GDP growth, instead settling towards a 3.1% growth for the years ’09 and ’10. The same was done of the productivity gains, which have averaged 4.2% for the last four years, but ongoing projections are at 2.5%.

Yet to come is the specific departmental proposals, and a chance to see if the domestic policy supports the ideal of compassionate conservatism, a safety net as opposed to a hammock, and continued refocusing of federal dollars to an updated and strengthened national defense and security establishment.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 7, 2005 1:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

To what degree has the instant criticism of the budget been based on review and analysis of the actual proposal versus coming from the animosity of the Democrats in Congress to any and everything the President proposes? Exclusively.

And while we are looking at the issue of budget criticism, what about Dan Froomkin’s post at washingtonpost.com where he doesn’t challenge the credibility of the budget based on the merits of the budget, instead offering that its proposed cuts haven’t happened in the past, and that the real message is an impending cut in Social Security benefits. Scare mongering anyone?

The proposal is online, and, as would be expected, large. I’m only a smidgen of the way through it, and will give my impressions, and criticisms, after completing it (or at least the significant components).

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 7, 2005 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Juan Cole is an expert in Middle East studies. And as I've noted several times before, his politics have a much greater hold on his views of the Middle East than his expertise, or that of anyone else, should.

He and Jonah Goldberg are having a bit of a feud. It's quite entertaining, and doesn't bode well for the erstwhile expert. (HT: Instapundit)

Jonah's latest is excellent, as is (isn't it always) the latest from wretchard. It's enough to make me wish I'd been online this weekend.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 7, 2005 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Didn't have time to address these things fully. Thus, a quick walk through missed items of news and note.
---
Lieutenant General James N. Mattis says it like it is. When you are killing those who’ve done naught but evil, when you are fighting for right, it is a fun job. The MSM will no doubt make much ado of his comments. I for one am confident that Devil Dogs know what he meant, and how he meant it. It isn’t taking life that is fun, it's doing what is right.

What he said:

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil, you know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

Erakat wants 20 years of prisoners released. As I’ve said before, Abbas may not be Arafat, but he is not interested, truly, in peace. If he is, he will not last, not with men like Erakat in the majority. The Bush administration is pleased with Israel's gesture. Of course, as it has been far too often in the past, Israel is more than willing to make concessions in hopes that the Palestinians will somehow show a similar response. This is most likely a false hope. But then again, I'm less optimistic about Abbas, and overly cynical of the Palestinian people's desire for peace... over the destruction of Israel.
---
Ward Churchill remains employed, for now, by CU. I remain disgusted by his comments, and hopeful that rather than seeing him mistakenly fired, he’ll resign. Not going to happen. Also equally, okay not quite equally, disgusted by the behavior of those who are supporting him. And, how about this, his membership in the Keetoowah, a Cherokee Indian tribe, is honorary.
---
Alberto Gonzales is Attorney General. And fighting terrorism remains the primary objective. The Democrats made it a largely party line vote, and, once again, showed they are not behind the President or the nation in the greater war on terror. Ken Salazar, an exception, voted for Mr. Gonzales. Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado, thus far, has been much as he campaigned, and I'm pleased and, well, surprised.
---
Eason Jordan hasn’t gotten his due. Yet. The MSM, Washington Times excluded, are giving him a free ride. As is the UN which hasn’t released a video of his remarks. CNN is clearly playing for the overseas anti-American audience, and the remainder of the MSM seems unwilling to confront Jordan or CNN.
---
Paul Volcker and the panel investigating the UN Oil for Food program have released the initial report on their investigation. "A Grave And Continuing Conflict Of Interest" It's not the title, but it should have been. Volcker said that Benon Sevan "repeatedly solicit[ed] oil allocations for a small company called African Middle East Petroleum Co." Sevan is set to have his diplomatic immunity removed. And Annan has not yet been cleared of any wrongdoing.
---
There are many more items worth discussing. After visiting the blogs on the sidebar, I'll have more to say.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 4, 2005 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The votes have been counted.

The winning Council entry comes from Dr. Sanity. Challenger - A Flight Surgeon Remembers. The winning non-Council entry comes from Cold Fury. It's title couldn't be more accurate or concise. Spelling It Out.

There where many excellent entries this week. Visit the Watcher of Weasels to see the complete results and the many other excellent entries.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 4, 2005 7:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm sure I've missed much today. So I'll have some catching up to do, lots of reading, etc. Updates as I go.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 3, 2005 10:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, that was fun. To the folks at TCS, Blogs for Bush, and Take Back the News thanks for sending lots of readers. And to those who came, and one in particular who updated 40+ times, it is much appreciated. Hope you'll come back often.

Good night, for now.

Here's the White House text of the address as delivered

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 2, 2005 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, that was stirring. Next up the Democratic response. But first, either I missed it or their was no discussion of North Korea or Latin America. No discussion of Putin's actions in Russia, think Yukos and post Beslan steps to assert political force. I guess they'll be up for WTO membership shortly.

The Democratic response. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
---

"When I grow up I want to be just like you." Come on... Senator, you can do better than that. The President has extended his hand. What are you doing?

Too many of the President's policies have left us stuggling. Deficit/Debt. The Democratic response, spur research and trade policy.

A Marshall plan for America... Highways and the internet. What have you been smoking Senator.

Health care cost up. What are you doing about it, sir? Groundhog day!!! Arrgghhh!!!

I didn't hear a direct plan for SS, what's the deal, Reid must have ESP.

Moral values.... ahh!!! The new Democratic ideal - moral values.

Democrats will offer real answers... laughable.

Pelosi UP!

National security. Okay... tell us Nancy. The troops rock, that we agree on.

Our future in Iraq - Can't stay, can't leave... "insurgency" come on, t. e. r. r. o. r. i. s. t. can you say it with me "terrorist."

Transfer as soon as possible. No, transfer when the Iraqi's are capable and ready.

She is a loon... you can't rebuild the infrastructure until you've gained a reasonable level of security, and diplomacy would have done nothing to end the terrorist attacks in Iraq.

I can't take it... She claims the President hasn't put together a comprehensive plan, and being the minority leader in the House, where is her plan. Congress has the authority to legislate, where is it.

Democrats - the new Republicans.

What's this, a new G.I. bill?

Thank God its over. Wheh....

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 2, 2005 8:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Liveblogging the address should begin shortly. The introduction of the President nears. As has been the norm for President Bush, this should be an excellent SOTU address, and given Pelosi and others have expressed such disdain for the man, it'll be interesting to see their response. Bluefingers in the chamber, they will no doubt be held aloft at the appropriate time.

---

Excellent intro... Afghanistan, Palestinian Territories, Ukraine, and FREE AND SOVEREIGN IRAQ.

Quick to it. Improve the lot for our children and grandchildren. Stewardship.

2.3 million new jobs. None for me but that'll change someday.

Restrain the spending apetite of the government. Here! Here! But you better follow through.

"Tax payer $ must be spent wisely or not at all." That would be an accomplishment.

Just gotta love watching the Dems while he discusses improving education.

Tort reform. Knew it would be there.

Health care, more control for the individual family, tax credits for insurance, tech implementations, expanded HSA's, and liability reform. The last being the kicker.

Energy - hydrogen, clean coal and ethanol... 4 years is enough. ANWR anyone?

Tax code = archaic. Again, good to hear, but hard to imagine happening.

Reject amnesty and close the border via what policy.... Back it up. No.

Social security - okay, so she's headed for "bankruptcy" someday. Tell us your plan.

As expected - 55+ = status quo. Length of life, benefits increase, 16 to 1. Benefits still rising. Who clapped for that?

2 to 1 and higher benefits to larger number of retirees. 2018 pay out more than in.
2027 $200 billion and by bankrupt by 2042. Boo birds. Rude.

Excellent picture painting with the child 13 years from college, but how to fix it? Open and candid review. List of options... all on the table.

Clearly the President is opening the door to the dems... unlikely they will accompany him. Sorry to say.

And finally, voluntary personal retirement accounts. If for no other reason than the abilty to pass the funds on to survivors, it has an upside. Lot's of regulatory issues. Gradual introduction will be interesting to see. Tie it to the Thrift Savings Plan model. This may, will, have to wait until legislation is drafted.

Amending the Constitution for marriage protection. Don't expect to see it happen but know why its here.

EXCELLENT! Going after the up or down vote on court nominees. Frist, will ensure it happens. BRAVO!

Getting big cheers on the inner city gang life and outreach to youths. 3 year initiative lead by Laura. Good choice.

Ryan White Act renewal.

Expanding use of DNA. Sounds like money. Defense counsel special training for capital punishment cases. Okay.

Freedom from fear... security at home. Too bad its called Homeland Security. We've done this... that... and this too. (BORDERS)

Declining number of terrorist supporting nations. Dems will pervert this one.

He may have been just being polite, but to include the UN as providing assistance in the elections was a gift. Unless speaking solely of Afghanistan. Perhaps.

Conditions that feed the ideologies... I'm not sure I like the "force of human freedom." Of course, I like freedom, just not the wording. The ultimate goal of ending tyranny is huge. Big job.

Not imposing our form of government. Good to make that clear. Key being that governments are representative of their people.

Landmark events. Indeed but don't overly rely on the Palestinian Authority hoss... We've been down that road before. $350 million for the PA. Whoa.

Fight terror and encourage higher level of freedom. Saudi Arabia and Egypt should show the way by, respectively, increasing role of people in government and expanding democracy.

Syria and Lebanon. Hope they are listening.

Iran. Must give up enrichment program, etc. And to the people of Iran, American stands with you. THAT PART IS KEY. Will Europe play along?

BLUEFINGERS held high!!! Hoorah!

"The terrorists are afraid. They are losing." so she and her family voted. Good story.

They've earned our respect. More sir, they've earned our admiration.

Saddam was a real occupation. Damn straight. And the Iraqi voter "Sophia." Not sure of the spelling. Keep applauding, she and her country need to hear it.

Small group of extremist will not overturn the will of the Iraqi people. Excellent.

New phase of our involvement in Iraq. Building the Iraqi forces. U.S. to take a supporting role. The strategy is adapting, the commitment remains!

No artificial timeline for return. Ideolism and character of the service members. Indeed. Unrelenting, Unwavering, Unmatched. We will do everything we can to help (those who've suffered injury) recover. Damn straight. You've done your job Mom, now it's my time to protect you. Marine Sergeant Byron Norwood's family. Don't stop applauding. Don't ever stop....

Very eloquent here. Quoting FDR, sounding like a touch of MLK, Jr.

Excellent!!!

Be sure and let me know how you think I did (email or comments). God bless and good night.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 2, 2005 7:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

TCS and Blogs for Bush offer links to those Liveblogging the State of the Union address. If you aren't near a television (where is that), you can watch online at C-SPAN.

I will be liveblogging the address, and the Democrat's response(s), so long as blogger cooperates.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 2, 2005 5:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If true...

KIEV, Ukraine -- A senior lawmaker on Wednesday called for Ukraine's prosecutor-general to investigate alleged sales of nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and China in violation of international nonproliferation treaties.

The appeal, by Hrihory Omelchenko, follows allegations he made in a letter to new President Viktor Yushchenko. Omelchenko is a parliament member allied with Prime Minister-designate Yulia Tymoshenko and is a reserve colonel in Ukraine's intelligence service.

Yushchenko, who succeeded Leonid Kuchma, has promised a thorough investigation of corruption and misdeeds that allegedly flourished during his predecessor's 10 years as president. Kuchma allegedly sanctioned the sale of sophisticated radar systems to Iraq in 2002, contravening U.N. sanctions.

"I want him to begin his mandate with a clean record," Omelchenko said of Yushchenko.

In his letter to Yushchenko, Omelchenko said an investigation launched last summer "proved that some 20 air-launched Kh-55 and Kh-55M cruise missiles with nuclear capability were exported to third countries" in contravention of international treaties.

"Six missiles destined for Russia ended up in Iran ... six missiles destined for Russia ended up in China" the letter said. It said the sales occurred in 2000-01.

Vyacheslav Astapov, a spokesman for Ukraine's prosecutor-general, said the office began an investigation into the alleged sales last summer and "this year, we received new information."

Astapov also said a top-ranking Iranian diplomat in Ukraine met with Prosecutor-General Svyatoslav Piskun, but he did not elaborate. [source: Seatle Post-Intelligencer, HT: TBTN]

Not good news.

UPDATE: Financial Times - Europe has coverage as well.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 2, 2005 3:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The notion is far too common in our nation today. First, it was does President Bush’s reelection vindicate his efforts in the war on terror, specifically with regard to Iraq. And now, does this past weekends election in Iraq vindicate the war effort. Neither does. In response to this weeks Homespun Symposium question:

Do you think that the elections in Iraq vindicated President Bush's decision to invade Iraq?

The case for the war was based on several points, and the lack of an existing surplus of WMD’s, or active manufacturing of them, does not invalidate any of those points.

From the President’s case for the war, as delivered in his State of the Union address in January of 2003 and elsewhere (HT: OTB):

The threat of a rogue nation with WMD’s for their own use or transference to terrorists is the gravest threat to the U.S. [Something both the President and Senator Kerry generally agreed with during last year’s debates. – ed.]

Saddam Hussein agreed, as a component of the cease-fire to end the 1991 Gulf War, where I served as a Marine, admitted possession of and agreed to destroy his WMD’s. Further, the UNSC endorsed the cease-fire in Resolution 687, requiring Hussein to disclose the locations and manner in which his WMD’s were destroyed, and to verification by the U.N.’s weapons inspectors, which was supposed to last four months.

Saddam Hussein failed to account for his WMD’s, and through intimidation, coercion and various forms of manipulation he attempted to prevent U.N. inspectors from determining the nature and capabilities of his weapons programs and the existing (or destroyed) weapons caches, despite 12 years of U.N. resolutions and the threat of war.

As late as 1998, inspectors found evidence of vast amounts of various WMD’s or the capabilities to produce them, and after Saddam's eviction of UN inspectors in 1998, the U.S. launched Operation Desert Fox against Hussein. If Saddam destroyed the weapons and programs, he did so in continuing violation of international law and the cease-fire agreement, which did not allow for unilateral disarmament but required verification of the destruction of the stockpiles, programs and research associated with WMD’s.

As evidenced by the attacks of September 11th, 2001, we cannot wait until the threat is “imminent” and must ensure that it does not become so. The previous year’s State of the Union address noted that Iraq, along with other Axis of Evil nations, was a “grave and growing danger.” Hence the effort to have U.N. support for the war, as no one would expect or require U.N. support to repel an imminent threat.

Saddam Hussein has murdered, tortured, and oppressed the people of Iraq and started two wars.

No connection between 9/11 and Saddam is evident or suggested, however, it is clear that Saddam Hussein has hosted, supported and protected terrorist and al-Qaeda members prior to 9/11 and afterwards.

Other Homespun Responses:
Nixon's Memoirs
Secure Liberty
Ruah
The Redhunter
Ogre's Politics and Views
Major Dad 1984
Dagney's Rant

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 2, 2005 3:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The average viewer last for 7 minutes.... no further comment. Don't click the link if easily offended by discussion of adult films being broadcast over cable. Or read from bottom up to get the 7 minute reference.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 1, 2005 11:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In response to the comments of a reader, Tim, to a previous post:

Tim suggests that we’ve failed in Iraq and that it is worse than Viet Nam. In summary, he contends that we have shown China that the U.S. can spend $billions fighting "a rag tag bunch of insurgents," that our military has "efficiency" issues related to deployment, and that we’ve failed to learn from our experience in Viet Nam and aren’t learning in Iraq either. As you will see, he also contends that the Iraqi election may have made matters worse, that it should have been - "US: Stay or Go" rather than the selection of essentially a representative constitutional convention. He states that the he suspects the standard of living in Iraq to drop, comparing it to the lifestyle adjustment some made after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And finally, he equates our policy with Soviet style propaganda only replacing "workers paradise" with "freedom, democracy and capitalism." A final quote: "It is not enough to say that the United States has not reached the level of depravity found under Stalin, when we are using the same kind of logic.

[The full texts of Tim’s comments are included for ease of referral (shown as a single entry where, due to haloscan limitations, it was separated into multiple entries, also edited to correct spelling errors, etc.). - ed.](See the comments from Tim.)
---
[Original comment from Tim]

You're right. Iraq is no Vietnam. Vietnam did not have a huge influence over the market for energy. So the potential impact of our failed strategy on the ground in Iraq are worse.

Bush has actually done the enemies of the United States a great favor--he's shown that the United States can spend billions of dollars a week fighting a rag tag bunch of insurgents. Smooth. Imagine how much the US would spend going to war against, say, China.
---
Marvin, [this was erroneously addressed to another reader, James, which Tim later points out]

I was making a narrow point about why a failed strategy in Iraq has more serious consequences than Vietnam. I was not making any points about the comparative threats of what you characterize as islamofascists.

I should have been clearer in my post. My point about the cost of war in Iraq is not a value judgment as to the cost, but as to the efficiency of our operation. No matter what type of warfare, the United States still has major efficiency problems moving material, deploying troops, managing troops and actually fighting. The US has effectively signaled to China that in a full on great power war, we would doubtlessly spend even more than we are currently spending. Whether we could afford that without breaking the US economy is an open question. Regardless of whether the US wants to do something, the fact remains that being unable to pay for it limits our options.

Secondly, this conflict is worse than Vietnam because it shows that the US hasn't learned the lessons of Vietnam. Chris Hitchens has a wonderful article on slate about the differences between Vietnam and Iraq, and he is right that the conditions on the ground differ, but misses the point. The point is that the US response in Vietnam was ineffective and refused to learn lessons from the actual fighting, even though it was suffering major reversals. The same appears to be true today, especially with respect to the efficiency issue. Not to mention the armor issues, and most worrisome, the personnel problems. Among those well-documented problems are care for returning veterans, and staffing/unit/morale problems. Abu Graib is a well-documented example of the latter variety of problems.

To use a Boydian analysis, the US system has short-circuited the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act loop by refusing to orient (no pun intended) itself to the actual situation at hand. That has not changed since Vietnam, and arguably is worse, since we have had almost 30 years to evaluate our mistakes and yet our system seems incapable of learning. This should disturb everyone, because it means that were the United States to face a direct, peer competitor it is not clear that our system could respond effectively. By my standards, exposing our serious weaknesses to America's opponents, and alienating America's allies is a failed strategy.

As to your comment about freedom, I will address that in my response to James, which follows.

James, [this time properly responding to reader James]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment, even in the face of two deadlines. I'll take this point-by-point, and wrap up at the end with some thoughts.
Democracy: I agree with you that having elections in Iraq, even in the form, which we had them, is an improvement over Saddam. Still, elections do not a democracy make. The USSR for many years had elections, and it was certainly no democracy. I think actually, that by increasing the chaos in Iraq we've weakened or destroyed existing civil society. Furthermore, the election also misses the point--why didn't the US have a simple election, one that asked a simple question: US, stay or go? If democracy is about self-determination, it is important for people to make their own decisions. What more fundamental decision can there be than whether foreign troops will occupy one's country?

Freedom: Freedom to vote? What about freedom from fear of having electricity applied to one's genitals? Freedom from fear of being rounded up in the dark of night and sent to prison? Or freedom to chose whether an occupying army stays or goes? Again, I return to my point above.

Capitalism: Iraqi people now have the freedom to live under the Washington Consensus type policies imposed by the United States. All over the developing world people have spoken out strongly in favor of debt relief (complete debt forgiveness), against privatization of public utilities and in favor of what even Pat Buchanan calls managed trade. There is a whole book here, but what we've done is increased the volatility and danger in people's lives for sure. In exchange, we've handed them perhaps a chance to make it big, but in the near term we've given them violence, and gasoline shortages. I suspect that average Iraqis will experience what happened in the USSR, where average standards of living plummeted after 1991. To be fair, some people will get Ferraris. I want to be very clear that I despise marx-leninism; however, that does not preclude me from criticizing the generally proffered alternative. We don't live in a binary world.

Marvin indicated that he thought that freedom is priceless. You have implied that the U.S. has not failed because it brought the "makings of Democracy, Freedom, and Capitalism," as if that somehow excuses the cost of America's effort. This I find most bothersome, because it justifies inhumane actions in the service of an abstract ideal. What I find most distasteful about marx-leninism is that it provided the rationale for any level of violence deemed in service to the abstract idea of a communist utopia. In your writing, and in the logic of the Bush administration, I hear the same type of justification, but used with the words "freedom, democracy and capitalism" replacing the old "worker's paradise." It is not enough to say that the United States has not reached the level of depravity found under Stalin, when we are using the same kind of logic. If the history of the twentieth century should have taught us anything, it is that regimes that employ that kind of logic are capable of any depth of inhumanity.
----

There are many who would just write Tim off as a ignorant leftist kook, and frankly, I’m not sure I’d disagree, especially after having read some of his other writings via his blog and website. It appears that Tim is a student as UC Berkeley. Heh...

In both the comments that Tim has left, he’s mentioned our failed policy in Iraq. I have not been able to discern from either, what failed policy he is referring to. Is it that we are in Iraq at all? Most likely. Moving beyond that, if possible, the next comment he makes is in relation to our spending against a "rag tag bunch of insurgents." Here it is clear that Tim is incapable of recognizing the nature of our effort, or of the enemy. There are many aspects of the terrorist efforts that are reflective of "rag tag," yet this in no way accurately reflects the funding or methods availed to the terrorist nor does it reflect the size or complexity of the effort to secure a nation of Iraq’s size against an enemy that does not engage in combat but instead uses terrorism as its primary means of making war.

It is hard to imagine at this point that Tim’s comment that "No matter what type of warfare, the United States still has major efficiency problems moving material, deploying troops, managing troops and actually fighting" is actually believed. Is there any nation, or has there ever been a nation, which could more effectively, which is more significant than efficiently, mobilize, deploy and attack than the U.S. No. Not even close.

Signaling China that we are inefficient and that war would be costly is appropriately as strained an argument as the previous one. In, as Tim suggest, a “full on great power war” with China the methods, nature and final disposition of the war would be on a vastly different scale than any war, perhaps excluding Iran, against a Middle Eastern nation. Of course the cost would be significant, but the U.S., much more so than China, would be in a position to spend the money, under current or reasonably similar economic conditions, and both the strategic and tactical objectives and means would as well be vastly different. Even those among the respected analysts who are advocating a more rapid modification of current capabilities toward a netcentric warfare methodology recognize that combat with the PLA would likely include both light and heavy force engagement. To suggest that the current security role, or the initial military engagement in Iraq, is indicative of anything we’d face against China is plainly wrong.

The primary lesson of Viet Nam was not tactical, it was political, and that lesson has been well learned. There are, of course, tactical issues and improvements gleaned from every major military engagement, but to suppose, without any evidence that Iraq has been a military failure or that Viet Nam was likewise, is, again, wrong. If the only Viet Nam combatant you are referring to is the non-regular forces, and by some bizarre extension you are suggesting that combat with China may find a similar force, then again you would be missing the point and showing abject ignorance.

Finally, Tim mentions alienating our allies as a component of our failure. No ally of the U.S. was alienated by our taking action in Iraq. We were alienated by their unwillingness to follow through on their support for the resolutions of the U.N. which they each agreed to. Think of France, Germany, Russia and Syria (not an ally) voting for the final resolution, and then failing to deliver when the time comes.

I’ll leave James to comment on the ridiculous remarks Tim made about Democracy, Freedom and Capitalism. Except this… for someone who "despises" Communism, Tim, your comments don’t reflect it. Nor does your admitting that what you like least about it is the use of force to obtain its objective. The most deplorable aspect of communism is its refutation of the moral value of liberty in all or any of its forms.

Therein, perhaps, is the great source of Tim’s discontent. And I should note to Tim, the comments are always appreciated. Even when absolutely wrong.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 1, 2005 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In a previous blog entry, I noted three columns worthy of some attention. The three deal with to varying degrees America’s place in the world, our use of power, in particular soft-power, and the move by much of the world to non-American spawned means of economic, social or political governance. By way of introduction, a brief review of each column, and then my thoughts.

Europe Is the Next Rival Superpower.
But Then, So Was Japan.
by Jonathan Rauch, National Journal

The premise, gained by no more than the title, is that many are proclaiming Europe to be the next superpower, or moreover, that Europe is a superpower. Rauch, to his credit, shows a bit of restraint or skepticism, yet he like, Rifkin, Reid and Leonard, who he quotes, portrays the sense that America isn’t what she used to be or never was. At least not in the use her influence or soft power, and he dutifully derides American culture as "cowboy individualism" while the Europeans are seen as having a communitarian ethos that "better suits the times."

The Bushies’ New Groove
by David Brooks, NYTimes

In a nutshell, Brooks details his impression that the Bush administration has a renewed vigor for building during the second term, as opposed to tearing down, i.e. war, in the first. He notes that the administration has even shown a strong appreciation of soft power for this term and is looking beyond the Middle East. Perhaps because he writes for the Times, he has the obligatory, not sure where they’ll use it (soft power) comment but all else aside, a fine column.

Dream On America
The U.S. Model: For years, much of the world did aspire to the American way of life. But today countries are finding more appealing systems in their own backyards.
by Andrew Moravcsik, Newsweek International

The central thesis: Anti-American sentiment isn’t an aberration and U.S. soft power isn’t as influential as it once was in the face of alternatives from Europe or Asia. There are dubious statements that weaken his argument, and the glossing over, or outright ignoring, of factors that are antithetical to his view. And still, it’s a good read and at a minimum may lead some to ask, what is America’s place in the world.

America’s Place

The reward of guiding men or nations to freedom is seldom, if ever, their eternal gratitude. The effervescent feeling of "free at last" is quickly replaced by the needs and desires of day-to-day life and governance. While many nations, and peoples, are fondly pro-American in their stance in the days following their deliverance from war, enemies at arms, or economic peril, it is wrong to believe that it will last indefinitely. We should neither expect, nor feel shorted, when time passes and those who had been concerned with survival turn a cold shoulder to the U.S. after shifting to the higher challenges of self-governance, foreign policy, or creating economic opportunity.

Whether it is the European nations who survived with American intervention and continued presence, or Japan, whose world view was so thoroughly reconstructed and improved, the evidence of American might was unquestionably clear in the 20th century. Both, however, experienced more than the military capability of the U.S. The American spirit guided our actions as the U.S. strove not to remake them into American satellites, but instead to free them to a course of their own selection. Just as we’ve begun to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is common, even here, to discuss the anti-American sentiment of much of the world. In doing so, I, like many others, often fail to distinguish between those who culturally express disagreement with the U.S. and those who express through economic or foreign policy anti-U.S. objectives. With the advent of the European Union, this is far too easy to do, as much of the EU can be seen as anti-U.S. while the nations that make up the EU are more apt to simply be hands stretching for greater opportunity. France excluded. ;)

We have taken a leading role in the development of freedom and opportunity throughout the world not by our drive, but rather out of the absence of such leadership from older nations or soft powers such as the UN. Of course, national security has led the way in determining where and when we would exert overt force, and diplomatic and economic force have long been the standard elsewhere. As such, how is it that others see our influence waning?

It is simply a matter of the shrinking world. As Drezner notes, there are fewer poor dictators around and therefore fewer people living under the circumstances that most glaringly differ from the life of Americans. This is a sign of success. That those who’ve recently been freed may choose to become more European, Indian, or Japanese in their economic or political being, reflects only on our past success and as a reminder that where we have stepped in, it has lead to much gain.

Should the President’s administration increase its reliance on soft power? Yes and no. Build alliances, strengthen bonds, and compromise when the parties involved are aligned with the interest of those who are at greatest risk. Otherwise, if necessary, stand alone as a light unto others.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 1, 2005 5:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The former chairman of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado has rightfully been the center of much attention given his remarks, both past and present, regarding the attacks of September 11th, 2001. And as of the latest news, he is no longer going to be speaking at Hamilton College. Yet there is a point at which we go to far.

He has reportedly received threats on his life. Too far.

I in no way defend his statements. Yet I do not believe that under the current contemptible tenure system that he can or should be fired. Not that his words aren’t disgusting and inflammatory, but that we who recognize them as such might tumble into the same sort of behavior that he is accused of supporting bothers me to no end. What I’d prefer to see is his remarks widely commented on, ridiculed and subjected to every possible scrutiny. In doing so we maintain our support for the rights of all men to speak their minds, no matter how twisted and sick, and we remove the barrier between his words and truth.

Unfortunately we have long sat idly by and watched men of his ilk become the guides for our children in institutions of higher education. The system of tenure that secures his employment is rightly held in contempt. Just as all systems that reward or pay its employees based on the attainment of an advanced degree, rather than on merit should be. Churchill did not create that system, and he is now, and long has been, protected by such short sightedness.

This ends for me with a sick feeling in my stomach knowing that he will not be fired, and that by calling for him to be, we are not addressing the two issues at hand; first, of course, the deplorable comments he has made and second, the system that has given him prominence while making them. As always, your comments are welcome. If only he would quit....

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 1, 2005 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Victory isn’t found in how, when or even why you leave. As General Ferdinand Foch is reported to have said: Victory is a thing of the will.

There are too many Senators who have not the will to earn Victory. Their belief that an exit strategy equates to success is no more than a cover for their own aims. We leave, Iraq falls to any of a number of woes, and they once again point to the President’s policies as the cause.

The good news comes from Iraq’s own leaders who are so much wiser.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on February 1, 2005 1:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)