Bernard Lewis discredited?

To which Martin Kramer replies "Fie!" More?

Misreading Lewis. Newsweek senior editor Michael Hirsh has a silly piece on Bernard Lewis in the Washington Monthly, claiming Lewis fathered the idea of imposing democracy on Iraq. So read this reporter's summary of a Washington lecture Lewis delivered a few months before the war: Lewis "said flatly that the idea of third parties producing and applying modern institutions in the Arab Middle East is 'unrealistic'. If the initiative is viewed by Arabs as a 'forced change by an external force', Lewis said, it is doomed to backfire, particularly if the democratizing initiative is accompanied by a prolonged U.S. military presence. Lewis said that Israeli forces were initially warmly welcomed as liberators in South Lebanon, but before long, the perfumed rice and flowers that were thrown at them turned into rockets and bombs." Hirsh missed that because he relied exclusively on Lewis's critics, who read Lewis selectively and with malice.
Tue, Nov 9 2004 5:36 pm

Our Memorials

Rightfully thinking of honoring our fallen soldiers, Hugh Hewitt proposed the other day that we encourage Congress to build a memorial in Shanksville, PA, in the field of the first American resistance. Then I read Jonathan Last's response. Evidently, he has visited Shanksville (written up here), and he says that that would be a horrible thing. It seems that Americans (and non Americans) have, spontaneously, been building a memorial, have been making a sort of pilgrimage and leaving behind signs and symbols of gratitude and memory. The local folks maintain and monitor the site. A big, planned memorial would ruin what has sprung up there. (I wish we had pictures!)

There's more. Tonight, Powerline pointed out a website, Fallen Heroes Memorial, dedicated to listing each of our fallen soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq--with circumstances of death, home, and a place for comments for each soldier individually or a bulletin board for all. It is moving, especially comments of friends or comrades of the fallen. Much, if not all, is hard to read. It is gratifying though to see the graditude and good faith of non-Americans' (again) and many of our American youth.

UPDATE: Jonathan Last has kindly left links to photos in the Comments section.

James C. Bennett's Anglosphere

In light of the continuing unraveling of the United Nation's relevance and creditibility, I think it is increasingly important to talk about the alternatives. James C. Bennett's Anglosphere is one of those. I suppose that another would be something called "a coalition of the willing," something that, while it isn't a permanent, formal relation whose existence would stretch beyond the conflicts that sire them, is currently in operation in two places in the world.

I like Bennett's idea, however, because it is not a collective built around race of Anglos, as it is one built upon English ideas of governance, law, and freedom. So, it can (and does) include people other than Anglos. Here's Bennett's book, now available, and he has website too. Also, his essay on it is still available here.

Games Kids Play

I missed this hilarious bit, the other day, when I was scanning Lileks. It's about his daughter, nicknamed Gnat.

My wife is gone for four days on a business trip, and it’s just me and the kid until Wednesday night. Fine by me. Staying at home all day is pretty much my ideal day anyway. But it began at when Gnat crawled into my bed clutching her new Barbie as Erica Doll.

“Wake up , Daddee.”

I checked the clock. Eight. Not bad. Unfortunately, I had gone to bed at 3 AM. After several years away from my old shameful habit, I have become hooked on Hawaii Five-O again. And we’re talking the recent episodes that have that Al Harrington guy. This meant I was two hours shy of the amount of sleep I’d need to make it through the day. But she fell asleep, waking periodically to ask me to get up. “Five minutes,” I said. I got an hour more out of that one. Eventually I woke to hear her composing a little play with two Barbies.

“Erika’s dead,” she said.

“That’s too bad. Are you sure?”

Pause.

“She’s only dead in the dark.”

That was the creepiest thing I’d ever heard her say. OhKAY, let’s get up.

Ron Suskind on Bush's Certainity

For some discussion and rebuttal of Suskind see Donna at Pajama Pundits and Tom Smith. Also, Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO's The Corner has two posts: first responds to the most provocative parts that quote NRO contributor Bruce Bartlett; the second (scroll down 2 posts) takes up Suskind's piece as a whole.

A disappointed Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly offers his own take of Suskind.

UPDATE:
This from James Lileks: "Interesting piece in the NYT: according to Bruce Bartlett , conservative economist, Bush’s worst problem is that he’s a flaming Jesus nut and hence too much like OBL."

And, then, Lileks excerpts a couple of Suskind's key Bartlett quotes and follows with his usual exquisite commentary:

Got that? New York and the Pentagon are attacked, another plane goes down en route to God knows where, and the President makes a great grand crazy leap of logic: this might be war. Directed the relief effort? For heaven’s sake, did the want the Commander in Chief running down to Ground Zero and handing out bottled water? Sir! We have unconfirmed reports of troop movements in Syria, and our satellites have found unusual activity in some Afghan training camps! Not now, you fool! I have to get these sandwiches to the firefighters!

But back to the main point. I guess Bush wants to kill them all because his religious beliefs make him disinclined to be persuaded, and extreme in his convictions. Ergo agnostics want to kill only some terrorists, and atheists don’t want to kill any ? Look. The problem some people have with Bush isn’t that he believes in God, it’s that he really believes in God. To a certain stratum of our intelligentsia, you’re supposed to believe in God like you believe in continental drift, or the tides, or the yearly reappearance of Shamrock Shakes at McDonald’s. The idea that it’s a two-way conversation strikes many as nonsense, proof that we’re dealing with someone two steps removed from worshipping the moon. I don’t say this as someone who gets daily briefings from the Big Guy Upstairs; for whatever reason, I’ve never felt as if God had me on speed dial. This hasn’t influenced my thoughts about religion in the least, believe it or not. I don’t need Carl Sagan showing up at my door to believe there are billions and billions of stars.

It varies, shall we say. For every believer who feels compelled to drop to his knees you have a Gene Hackman-style priest from “The Poseidon Adventure,” yelling at God. Rational people can have many different manifestations of faith, and it’s a failure of imagination to think there’s but one way.

Duh. I know: duh . But back to the point: The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence . Well, yes. Except, well, no . It depends how you define “evidence.” Bartlett seems to think the problem isn’t what you believe, it’s that you believe. No small distinction. It’s almost a spiritual version of George Carlin’s law: anyone driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone driving faster than you is a maniac.

UPDATE:
See this helpful review of several recently published books about Bush's mix of religion and politics.

Intel on Intelligence

A good primer on intel and the intel community's view of itself.

The most remarkable thing at the Oscars last night

With all the recent hype regarding Janet Jackson and Howard Stern's indiscretions or the fear of more political stones (thank you Michael Moore) that might have been cast tonight (of which there was little), I found Aaron Schneider's speech, winner of the Oscar for Live Action Short of Faulkner's Two Soldiers remarkable. Remarkable for the way it alluded to causes of war, specifically WWII and perhaps to the War on Terror.

Though delivered like a machine-gun and running out of time for his speech, it sounded to me as if Schneider compared Pearl Harbor to 9-11, calling them attacks on American soil. He didn't get into details. But I was stirred from the lull his delivery had lead me into, and I got online to see this short was about.

From the official website and a website of one of the actors, Ron Perlman, it looks like this: a story about a small, southern family torn apart by the older of two, inseparable brothers whose patriotism leads him to sign up to defend America after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The younger brother, hardly of age (11, I think), soon follows but out of love of his brother and family. Hence, two soldiers.

At this point, until I get a hold of a transcript of the speech or see the short, it is hard to be sure what Schneider said, let alone meant. But, it was interesting to find that the websites mentioned above seem to want to apply the story to our time. They see some relevance of the WW II story to "our day." Check them out. And I will update more when I get some more info.

UPDATE:
I have just found Aaron Schneider's acceptance speech (at oscars.com) and while he doesn't name 9-11 he does call Pearl Harbor "the first unprovoked attack on the United States," alluding to 9-11 as the second. (Not sure what else could be counted. If somebody knows, let me know.) Here is the fuller quote of the last bit of his acceptance:

. . . our American treasure William Faulkner who wrote "Two Soldiers" in 1942 after the first unprovoked attack on the united states. It's the story of two brothers who fight to preserve their family and country. Like a sibling's love, a soldier's devotion is selfless and unconditional and need not concern itself with the politics of war. I dedicate this to my family and the soldiers who protect our loved ones and the freedoms we celebrate. Thank you.

Violence in the Passion

I hesitate to contribute to the discussion of Gibson's Passion before seeing it, but I came across an observation that seems worth considering when talking about violence in films.

Peter Robinson, over at the Corner, shares some thoughts of one of his friends, Bill Park, "a scholar of film and literature." He says something that seems true to me about the use of violence in films today. Gibson has made a film in the aesthetic film tradition of Samuel Peckinpah and Quentin Tarrantino. Films in which the portrayal of violence begins to look like ballet. It is orchestrated and arranged for different purposes perhaps but it is integral for the film's purpose. Hence, I wonder, doesn't it make Gibson's film the film of Christ for our day?

“[S]hould the flagellation be alluded to, the results shown, but the actual whipping and gouging removed from view? The Greeks never exhibited such sights; the Elizabethans delighted in them. Our own age favors the Elizabethans. Ever since the Production Code was abandoned in 1967, the aesthetic of Hollywood has favored sensationalism, blood spattering and explosions as a kind of ballet of gore. Gibson has merely applied the aesthetic of Peckinpah and Tarantino to the Gospels…."

I am not trying to justify the use of extreme violence in Gibson's film, or in any other. I merely offer what looks like to me as the tradition of film that Gibson (and we too, in a way) is a part of and in which he creates his telling.

Choices for the Super Power

Lots of folks are talking about this speech that Charles Krauthammer gave a few weeks ago at American Enterprise Institute. Looks like a great reflection on the choices "a commerical republic with unipolar global power" faces.

Iraqi scultpure for American Soldier

Here is a heartwarming gesture from the former sculpture of Saddam's busts. Story is included. (Hat tip: Sullivan)

Toppling Saddam a "happy error"--who's next?

The guys over at Powerline pointed out this article (use "laexaminer" for name and password) in the LA Times:

In his Sunday Los Angeles Times column ("The happy error"), Professor Gelernter advocates for the institutionalization of what he calls "the Bush method": "We publish an official list of tyrants we consider it our moral duty to overthrow. The implied next sentence is obvious: Give us an excuse and we'll do it. Play games with the U.N.; show us your true colors. Meanwhile, we might pray for the strange, accidental wisdom to make another providential mistake."

Victor D. Hanson: Weapons of Mass Hysteria

Hanson on recent developments in David Kay's report.

Bush Doctrine as the next Grand Strategy

According to this article from the Boston Globe, there is a historian of the Cold War, John Lewis Gaddis, who thinks that Bush ranks with the great foreign policy Presidents, in that he, like they, has shaped America's foreign policy beyond his years in office. Peter Schramm, over at No Left Turns, has a good overview. And, here is the article (originally in Foreign Affairs) that Gaddis launched this idea in, the basis for a forthcoming book.

UPDATE: Michael Barone throws in two bits in on Gaddis' thesis.

David Brooks on CIA's bad methodology

Brooks says that the problem at the CIA is its method, which aims at determining things scientifically, as if it were the weather service.

John Keegan: Inquiry into Intelligence is fruitless--always open to interpretation

Keegan's column

Lewis Doctrine on the Middle East

According to this article, Bernard Lewis' influence on the current American foreign policy in the Middle East is foundational. It contains a good overview of Lewis', famous historian of the Middle East, work and also a helpful timeline of US foreign policy.

Blair and Hutton on BBC's irresponsible coverage

In a typically eloquent and impassioned speech, Blair follows up Lord Hutton's report on the BBC's false accusations of Blair's administration "sexing up" intelligence that led to the Iraqi invasion.

Read it in full here. Here is the powerful ending, quoting Hutton on the duty of the press.


"In conclusion I repeat what Lord Hutton said in his Summary, at page 322.

'The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media.'

That is how this began: with an accusation that was false then and is false now.

We can have the debate about the war; about WMD; about intelligence. But we do not need to conduct it by accusations of lies and deceit. We can respect each other's motives and integrity even when in disagreement.

Let me repeat the words of Lord Hutton:

'False accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others ... should not be made'.

Let those that made them now withdraw them."

Reformation of Journalism

Jeff Jarvis has the goods.

Victor D. Hanson watch

In a recent isssue of Commentary, "Iraq's Future--and Ours" and, at National Review Online, "The Western Disease", or an intriguing record of conversations that Hanson has had with some Europeans lately, "Stuck on Calypso's Island".