Byron York on Alcee Hastings

Here it is.

One Senator Left Behind

"Wait for me guys!"

The Way of a War-Weary Democracy

This is discouraging. VDH's post at The Corner this afternoon.

A Lot at Stake in Iraq [Victor Davis Hanson]

Much of the debate over Iraq is framed over "perceptions" of power. That is, if we fail, others will immediately capitalize on the newfound sense that the United States is weakened and a window of opportunity has opened up. Lose in Iraq, the conventional wisdom goes, then Iran will accelerate its nuclear acquisition, Syria and Iran will be even more emboldened, Latin America will go even harder left, China will carve out a wider swath, and so on.

But, in fact, I fear it could be worse than that the perception of impotence that galvanizes enemies. If we lost in Iraq and fled, it would not be the perception at all, but the reality of power that would be gone, in the sense the United States would never in our lifetime intervene successfully again on the ground abroad-convinced it would inevitably lose.

I think we are also close to seeing the permanent end of any Anglo-American military collaboration. And there would be legitimate questions raised also whether the U.S. military could win any future war—given the knowledge that, barring some instantaneous victory, the American public would not allow it the time or the latitude to destroy its enemies.

Instead, the blueprint for any further American involvement is the current investigations of Marines in Haditha, the hysteria over an Abu Ghraib, flushed Korans, Bible-quoting generals, and all the other media headline stories that drowned out what we were doing in Iraq. Al Jazeera might prove to be more powerful than the 101st Airborne not just through its shaping of public opinion in the Middle East-but far more here at home in scaring Americans with its power to shape public opinion in the Middle East.

When Mr. Bush contemplates what to do about Iran, he knows—and he knows Iran knows—that we are on the verge right now of a tired American public that winces at the very thought of the media storm, political fury, and wild partisan charges that would accompany any more military reactions. But the next step would be the complete loss of public confidence, in the fashion of the French, that we even could win a war if we had to. And then watch out. Great powers, like the largest animals, have a small central nervous system that directs their enormous limbs and sinews. And when it goes—call it public confidence in one's civilization—then armies tremor, enervate, and, Europe-like, wither away.

Posted at 2:33 PM

Help Charlie Raingull!

Most people heard John Kerry's faux paux of a couple weeks ago--I posted on it below. Did you also see how some troops stationed in Iraq responded?


Evidently now, Charlie Rangel, in last Thursday's NY Times' article, brings it a little closer to home, the South that is.

“Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?” Mr. Rangel said.

Well, the troops in Iraq have inspired some in Mississippi to respond.

Neo-Cons and Freedom Isn't Free

Carol Iannone at NRO's Phi Beta Cons launched this interesting thread. It picked up over at NRO's The Corner. The Vanity Fair article, in which one of posters below, Michael Rubin, is quoted, that Carol refers to is here.

#1

Freedom Isn't Free, Right?
[Carol Iannone 11/10 01:58 PM]

I was very upset with what I've read of the Vanity Fair interviews with seven neoconservatives who have distanced themselves from the war in Iraq. All I want to know is, where did the idea come from that freedom is the universal desire of all mankind, and that, consequently, functioning self-government would follow the fall of Saddam, so much so that we didn't even need to secure the country or stop the looting (which was in fact seen as an expression of that very freedom), and that we could rely on elections plus constitution to equal democracy. This is one bad idea I know did not come from today's academy, which is given to cultural relativism. It has been generally associated with neoconservatism but exactly how did it arise and how did it influence President Bush and his cabinet? Did these seven gentlemen believe that? I can agree that freedom is a universal longing (although it may be in competition with other universal longings in certain cultures, such as "submission" in the Islamic world), but that is not enough to build an entire government on, without the cultural foundations that would make it tangible. How could so many really intelligent people believe that "freedom" by itself would be enough, almost as if they were inspired by the allegorical paintings which personify "Liberty" as a powerful female goddess leading the people? I really don't understand. My sense of neoconservatism has always been that it combines idealism with pragmatism, as it did throughout the Cold War, and as in the famous Cromwell instruction to his men: Have faith in God AND keep your powder dry! What happened?

I think the American people wanted to support this effort but when they heard Bush and Rice repeating platitudes about freedom, elections, constitutions, and the awesome spread of democracy in the Mideast, never revising their script to meet the circumstances, even as people were being blown to smithereens day after day, or as Islamic radicals were being elected to office, it almost seemed like some kind of satire by Joseph Heller or Monty Python. The dreamy idealism in Iraq also made a strange contrast to the forceful, specific, pragmatic steps the Administration was taking for national security on the domestic front. It is all very puzzling but one thing is certain. Richard Weaver was certainly right that ideas have consequences, whether from within the academy or without.

#2

re: Freedom Isn't Free [Michael Rubin]

In response to Carol Iannone’s posting over at Phi Beta Cons. First of all, I do not distance myself from the war in Iraq. (I can’t speak for the others, some of whom I do not know and most of whom I seldom if ever see; the idea that the neoconservative form a cohesive cabal is the stuff of the conspiratorial flowcharts of some progressive and libertarian publications, and the DIA sources of Seymour Hersh).

I support the liberation of Iraq and I am dedicated to achieving the best possible outcome. On this day especially, it is imperative to acknowledge the sacrifices which so many have made, both soldiers, and those like Fern Holland and Steven Vincent, who were civilians. If I ever changed my mind on the war, you would hear it directly from me, and not from an ethically-challenged Vanity Fair journalist.

The topic of conversation with Vanity Fair is the very issue about which you are frustrated: Implementation. Your statement that people believe that faith in the universal desire for liberty alone would be enough is a straw man argument.

It is correct to say that the neo-cons are ideological supporters of the war; it is inaccurate to say they are the architects; they were shut out early and often. The NSC and the CPA leadership were neo-con free zones. Who were the implementers and who made the decisions? The Frank’s and Abizaid’s, Rumsfeld’s, Hadley’s, Armitage’s, Khalilzad’s, Bremer’s, Garner’s, McManaway’s, O’Sullivan’s, Kennedy’s, Crocker’s, and a host of others. Feith and Wolfowitz played roles as well, although they were not as bureaucratically effective as Armitage, O’Sullivan, or Kennedy.

How did other myths develop? If you look at David Rieff’s New York Times Magazine piece on pre-war planning, you’ll see that it is based almost entirely on secondary or anonymous sources. George Packer filled in gaps from left wing blogs; this showed poor journalistic judgment. Sy Hersh has an agenda. You just had a lot of very lazy or ideological reporting, and you had some greed. The idea that journalists care about the public good is rubbish: Many rush to literally cash in on the public mood.

If reporters were serious about accountability, they’d demand the declassification and release of all pre-war documents so they could see the real debate.

Back to Vanity Fair: On November 7, they told CNN they released portions of the article early because “at a time when the vice president says the administration is going full speed ahead with its Iraq policy and when the president is saying Donald Rumsfeld's job is secure, the magazine felt it was in the public's interest to hear what these men are saying about the war before the election.” And yet, they cherry-picked what was released to give a false impression of what was said. Vanity Fair: If you really cared about Iraq and were not just interested in a cynical pre-election ploy, release the full-transcripts of every interview now. Either stand by your stated principles, or expose yourself for what you are.

Is The Vanity Fair interview or this posting a ploy to escape responsibility? Absolutely not. I can give specific mea culpas about specific decisions in which I was wrong. And it’s fair for the public to hold decision-makers accountable. But if lessons are to be learned, it is imperative to be precise when identifying both the decision-makers and the decisions, instead of whipping up lynch mob frenzy.

Posted at 12:45 PM

#3

Re: Re: Freedom Isn't Free [Andy McCarthy]

Michael, Carol Iannone can obviously speak for herself, but I don't think your (understandable) outrage at the quality of journalism answers the central point she raises. You say the topic at Vanity Fair "is the very issue about which [Ms. Iannone is] frustrated: Implementation." With due respect, her post is not principally about implementation; it is about the policy that was sought to be implemented. You call her argument in this regard a "strawman." I don't think it's a strawman at all — indeed, it's a faithful rendering of the second inaugural. In any event, Ms. Iannone asks:

[W]here did the idea come from that freedom is the universal desire of all mankind, and that, consequently, functioning self-government would follow the fall of Saddam, so much so that we didn't even need to secure the country or stop the looting (which was in fact seen as an expression of that very freedom), and that we could rely on elections plus constitution to equal democracy[?]... I can agree that freedom is a universal longing (although it may be in competition with other universal longings in certain cultures, such as "submission" in the Islamic world), but that is not enough to build an entire government on, without the cultural foundations that would make it tangible.

I certainly agree with you that the implementation has been poor, and that it is grossly unfair to blame the neocons for that, for the reasons you state (among others). I think you are also quite correct if, by "implementation," you are referring to Ms. Iannone's points about looting and failing to secure the country. But there is much more to what she is saying than that.

It is a fact that the Bush policy is based on assumptions that (a) freedom is the universal desire of all mankind; (b) given the opportunity, Islamic countries are sure to choose democracy despite aspects of their own culture(s) which regard democracy (or enlightened liberty as commonly understood) to be depraved, or at least un-Islamic; and (c) a country is a "democracy" if it holds a few elections and has a constitution, notwithstanding the dearth of democracy's cultural underpinnings (not least which is a people's perception of itself as a single body politic of equal citizens sharing a common destiny).

These assumptions are all highly questionable. And if they are wrong, perfect implementation would not salvage the policy.

Posted at 1:59 PM

#4

re: Freedom isn't Free [Michael Rubin]

Andy, let me address what you identify as the three assumptions of Bush policy:

(a) freedom is the universal desire of all mankind.

We may disagree on this one. At the risk of debating a negative, what is your evidence to the contrary?

(b) given the opportunity, Islamic countries are sure to choose democracy despite aspects of their own culture(s) which regard democracy (or enlightened liberty as commonly understood) to be depraved, or at least un-Islamic.

There needs to be a balance of both “choice” and construction of the template for “choice.” In this case, the Korean experience is perhaps most apt.

(c) a country is a "democracy" if it holds a few elections and has a constitution, notwithstanding the dearth of democracy's cultural underpinnings (not least which is a people's perception of itself as a single body politic of equal citizens sharing a common destiny).

We don’t disagree here; this goes into issues of implementation and the nature of accountability.

Posted at 2:26 PM

#5

Re: Freedom Isn't Free [Andy McCarthy]

Michael, as always, it's a pleasure to discuss these points with someone who's given them as much thought as you have. Staying with the three points, I'd say this:

(a) Freedom is the universal desire of all mankind. Since this is one of those philosophical matters that defies ontological certitude, it's probably worth preliminarily observing that I am not claiming to have apodictic knowledge on this point, while the president does not merely claim to have it but is staking the national security of the United States on his view.

In any event, there are at least three other points worth making. First is history. The idea of freedom and self-determination as the animating imperatives of society is fairly recent in human history. There have been many fewer free societies than non-free ones. If freedom is such a universal desire, one would certainly expect to have seen more instances of it.

Second, and more parochially, the evidence is all around you. People are constantly choosing security over freedom when given the choice. And this involves not only their physical security, but their economic choices, their healthcare choices, and a whole range of other options. Mark Steyn's brilliant book is, IMHO, particularly good on this point. If the "proof" of a universal desire for freedom is based on some kind of historical imperative, the fact is that our country is less free than it used to be (try building an extension on your house if you live within 60 feet of a Connecticut wetland, for example), and Europe is becoming much less free as it becomes more centralized and more Islamic. At the time of her death, Oriana Fallaci was under indictment, in Italy of all places, for speaking her mind.

Third — and I think this is important to both the point about freedom as a universal desire and about the prospect that Muslim societies are apt to choose democracy (point (b) in our discussion) — the principal fault I find with the president's premise is its lack of regard for the pull of jihadist strains of Islam (whether Sunni or Shiite) on the Muslim world. I respectfully think his view is both wrong and counterproductive because it's implicitly insulting.

In our culture, we can't wrap our brains around what Ms. Iannone referred to as the Islamic culture of "submission." So we blithely assume that if Muslims could only see freedom in action (i.e., Western style) they'd adopt it. In point of fact, however: (1) what we politely call "radical" Islam is really not so radical at all; its aims (though not the terrorists' methods of obtaining them) are sought by a substantial percentage (if not a numerical majority) of the Muslim world; and (2) for tens of millions of Muslims, submission to Islam is a free choice. (It should be obvious by now that the younger generation of Muslims in Europe is more radical than their parents who first came to Europe. They are choosing fundamentalist Islam and all the lack of freedom and equality that, for us, radical Islam implies.

(b) Islamic countries are apt to choose democracy. Just to finish this point, you say, "There needs to be a balance of both 'choice' and construction of the template for 'choice.'" I may be misunderstanding what you mean by this. If by "construction of the template for 'choice,'" you are implying something like what Secretary Rice does when she says we can't expect all "democracies" to "look like ours," I think that's a cop-out. We are all well aware that all democracies need not be exactly alike to be democracies. Ours looks different from the Brits', and both look different from, say, France ... or, as you mention, South Korea. We needn't contort the definition of democracy beyond recognition in order to fit them all under the tent.

When Secretary Rice says that what she generously refers to as the emerging "democracies" of the Muslim world will not look like ours, she is talking about something quite different. She is saying that these countries should still be considered democracies despite the absence of some elements we would regard as basic to democracy (no established religion, separation of the religious and the political, equality of all persons, freedom of choice in basic matters like whether to convert to another faith, freedom to enact laws that conflict with a religious code, etc.). That is not democracy that any of us would recognize as such.

(c) Elections plus constitutions equals democracy. We seem to be in essential agreement on this one, but allow me to pursue one point: The administration's propensity to regard Middle East countries (or territories, like the Palestinian Authority) as "democracies" once they've had a national election or two is not just wrong; it's dangerous.

Elections are about popular choice, not necessarily democracy. (The third grade has elections for class president.) More importantly, they may just be means to very un-democratic ends. In Iraq, the Shiites want to run the country and the availability of popular elections allowed that to happen (in theory at least) because they are a sizable majority. But that doesn't mean they all want the country to be democratic. Many of them want a theocracy. (I understand Iraqi Shiites are not a monolithic group, but the three most important parties — Dawa, SCIRI and Sadr's group — are Islamist.) In Lebanon, Hezbollah participates in the electoral process, but they don't want the country to be democratic. Ditto Hamas in the PA (and, for that matter, Fatah — Arafat certainly did not seek to preside over a democracy when he was popularly elected).

It is simply ridiculous to regard a country as a democracy just because it has popular elections. And, to agree with your observation about implementation, it is even more absurd to allow "parties" to participate in the "democratic" process if they are anti-democratic in nature. There has to be a price of admission to participation if there is ever to be any hope of democratizing this part of the world. You can't let Hezbollah participate if their charter is telling you they are anti-democratic (and they insist on maintaining their weapons).

Posted at 5:13 PM

#6

FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW [Mario Loyola]

Michael, Andy: I just wanted to jump in with an angle I raised at a recent AEI event on reform in the Arab world (which btw was organized by Michael).

I asked one of Michael's guests at the AEI event whether anyone in Lebanon talks about the crimes Hezbollah committed against the laws of Lebanon. His response (this was a Lebanese moderate) really brought home for me the vast gulf in political consciousness between the Islamic World and the West. He said, in essence, that if we resolve the issue of the Sebbah Farms, then Hezbollah will not have an excuse to continue armed resistance, because of course everyone has a fundamental right to resist the occupation of their land.

This response seemed to me so strange. Imagine that the Canadians went berserk and occupied Minnesota. Then imagine that a militia formed to "resist the occupation" but the Federal Government ordered it to disband. Would any American say that the right of resistance trumped obedience for the rule of law? No, of course not. Nothing trumps obedience for the rule of law in this country, not even religion.

But in the Arab world, as another one of Michael's Lebanese guests pointed out, there is something that trumps the rule of law — and that is the concept of justice, especially Koranic justice. The fundamental problem in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and Iraq, is that those societies have not internalized universal respect for the rule of law as the supreme social ethic.

And now I understand that there is an important sense in which the war on terror is a clash of civilizations, or rather, a clash for supremacy between the texts of two religions: Islam, with its supreme law in the Koran, on the one hand, and the Enlightenment, a secular religion whose supreme law is captured in the constitutions of its disciple democracies. And except in Iraq, where it is trying to make a stand, the Enlightenment is in retreat all along the front. That is why the recent cancellation of a Mozart opera in Germany, in deference to Islamist sensibilities, was so symbolic, disheartening, and historic.

Posted at 1:19 PM

#7

Re: Re: Freedom Isn't Free [Michael Rubin]

Andy, let me push back a little on one issue. Your statement that "There have been many fewer free societies than non-free ones," may be true, but does not account for the trend of the last two decade, if not century.

The question of security vs. freedom goes to the core of our argument, which is why I'd suggest any solution to the Iraq problem requires addressing rule-of-law. Unfortunately, the proposals floated by the Baker-Hamilton Commission and Democrats in Congress seem to favor proposals which would either create a vacuum or entrust our national security to the good faith of Tehran and Damascus. There is also the question of North Korea: If security is predominant issue—North Korea is stable and secure—why are so many North Koreans risking life-and-limb to flee the country?

To another point: With all due respect for the Secretary of State, her willingness to entertain that some "democracies" need not be democratic are disingenuous. So what do I mean by a template for change? There has to be a common acceptance of the principles of demcoracy by all participants. Maintaining armed wings and being democratic are mutually exclusive for political parties. If we allow armed political parties to compete in elections, we do not get democracy, but rather Gaza, Lebanon, and Iraq. With regard to Islamism, I've addressed this elsewhere.

I'm afraid too many people will throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to tthe democracy debate. You're absolutely right that we cannot approach democracy simplistically. We cannot pretend that elections are enough. And we cannot legitimize those groups which seek the legitimacy of democracy but the benefits of terrorism. But, I'd argue it is counterproductive in the long-term to abandon democratization and transformative diplomacy as key principles of US foreign policy.

Posted at 7:22 PM

#8

Universal Desire for Freedom [Michael Ledeen]

I'm going to put in one copper penny on the "is the desire for freedom universal?" discussion. I understood Andy to be saying that security trumps freedom every time, with which I agree. But I also believe that if people are free and secure enough to be able to choose between freedom and tyranny, they will usually choose freedom. I'm an historian of fascism, and I know—in enormous detail—that people have freely chosen monstrous tyrants to lead them. To which we can add the great popularity of "benevolent dictators" in places like Singapore. But my Russian grandmother taught me the basic rules of good government:

1. Best government = good Tsar

2. Worst government = bad Tsar

3. Good Tsars are very rare. So it's best not to have Tsars at all.

Most people get that, I think. They may (freely) make mistakes, to be sure (that's truly a universal human attribute), but I think it's quite wrong to dismiss as nonsense the notion that people generally want to be free. It's relatively rare for them to have the choice, after all, and all those people risking their lives to vote, from Salvador to Iraq, are pretty impressive.

On the Adenauer thing, the notion that "it worked" strikes me as pure tunnel history. Adenauer was a great leader, and Truman was a great president, and the Germans were duly defeated and had lost their zeal for a greater Reich. But I think it was terrible to be generous to the Nazis, most of which was driven by something neither Buruma nor Andrew chose to mention, namely the desire to enlist Nazi military, scientific and intelligence people in the Cold War. That gave decades of life to monsters like Eichmann and his ilk. That is part of the moral corruption about which people find it possible to happily conclude "it worked." Germany could have been democratic even if the Eichmanns had been hung when they should have been.

Posted at 7:25 PM

#9

ECHOS FROM IRAQ (FREEDOM ISN'T FREE) [Mario Loyola]

Two great interviews, one with an Iraqi member of parliament, and the other with PM Al-Maliki.

First, MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din, a Shiite cleric member of Ayad Allawi's party, explains why Iraq must be secular. He talks about religionists and hypocrites, and explains that even when Mohamed was alive, when religious authorities take political power, the government becomes full of hypocrites. Only by staying out of government can religious movements remain pure. He ends with this:

You cannot plant democracy in a country that rejects it. Freedom does not come through learning how to read and write. Freedom, like love, is an inner feeling. If you are not free, no force in the world can liberate you. Freedom is a will within the individual, and, unfortunately, this wonderful and beautiful [will] in our countries has been distorted by the fraudulent Islamic culture.

Then there is this long (20+ minutes) interview, in which PM Maliki talks to the BBC's John Simpson. The encouraging thing here is how convincingly Maliki talks about imposing "the authority of the state," and he shows a pretty nuanced view of the danger the militias pose outside state control, and the role they can play if properly regulated. He also makes a point I had never thought of, which is that the United States and the Coalition have an obligation under Security Council resolutions to maintain security in Iraq until Iraqi security forces can take over. And by the way, he has every intention of seeing Saddam hang before the end of the year. (Click on the video, it's worth watching in its entirety).

The Maliki interview (from November 7) gets even more interesting with recent reports of a looming cabinet reshuffling in Baghdad — Maliki wants to be sure that his entire cabinet puts the central government above their respective parties.

Posted at 8:52 PM

#10

Freedom ... again [Andy McCarthy]

Both Michaels (Ledeen & Rubin), Mario Loyola and Carol Iannone. My lucky day to be in this discussion!

It’s important to untangle a few significantly distinct things. Indeed, the confusion here mirrors that seen in what little national discussion there has been about the democracy project, especially in the administration’s rhetoric.

First, there is a difference between security and tyranny. The administration’s democracy project champions – except when it is inconvenient to their purposes – claim that we must push for democracy because the alternative is tyrannical Islamic regimes that foster terror and thus threaten us … except when, for example, someone has the temerity to suggest that, if that’s the case, maybe we shouldn’t hand management of U.S. ports over to the non-democratic UAE; no, no, we are then told, it is unimportant that the UAE is not a democracy. Its regime, the administration argues, is non-oppressive and “moderate” (as that term is very loosely used) – good to its people and a friend to us.

This distinction between tyranny and basic security goes to two of Michael Ledeen’s points.

First, with due respect, I was not arguing “that security trumps freedom every time.” I don’t believe it does. Some context here. What Michael Rubin and I were debating was the democracy project premise that the desire for freedom is universal. I believe that assertion is dubious at best, and, practically speaking, irrelevant.

This is illustrated nicely by the eternal struggle between security and liberty. While people don’t always choose safety over freedom, they do it often enough to cast doubt on any claim that freedom is a universal longing. By saying they frequently value security over freedom, I am not saying that they would choose a malevolent tyrant. But it is just as warped to equate security with malevolent tyranny as it is to suggest that freedom is in all circumstances our highest desire.

On the other hand, if the point is that everyone wants freedom but they also have other universal desires (the point that Carol Iannone aptly made at the start of this discussion), then it would have been just as correct for President Bush to wax extravagantly about the “universal desire for security.” That is, wholly apart from the questionable democracy project contention that country X being free somehow makes country Y safer, why emphasize the human desire for freedom as if it did not compete with other core desires?

Second, re: good Tsar/bad Tsar (i.e., because the potential of a bad tyrant is so real and so awful, we can’t run the risk of having any tyrants), that theory works as an argument for democracy only if democracy is not vulnerable to the same pernicious possibilities. Who among us, though, would not rather live in a monarchy run by Michael than, say, the “democracy” in the Palestinian authority? Or the one in Lebanon in which Hezbollah calls many of the shots?

This, I believe, gets to the heart of the matter. There is, of course, a very powerful argument that democracy is the form of government least likely to lead to the subjugation of the individual. But that presupposes two things that the democracy project ignores to the peril of all of us:

(a) The argument works only if we are talking about democracy as we understand that term. Here, I disagree slightly with Michael Rubin (although I may be misunderstanding him, and if so, I apologize). Michael says, “There has to be a common acceptance of the principles of [democracy] by all participants.” (Emphasis added.) If the qualifier by all participants means "accepted within whatever body politic we are talking about," I think that’s wrong. Democracy is an objective reality. A country certainly has a right to determine the form of government it will adopt; it does not, however, have the right to have the rest of us regard it as a “democracy” if it is not one – which means, if it does not hew to the commonly accepted principles of democracy we have been discussing.

(b) The culture of democracy is far more important than the procedural trappings of democracy. In its haste to show “progress” through democratic reformation, the administration has gotten this exactly backwards. It has highlighted elections and constitution writing. The elections have installed theocrats and terror mongers, while the constitutions are in basic ways antithetical to liberal democracy. A real democracy project would focus on growing the institutions prerequisite to democracy; if those take hold, elections and the form of government will eventually take care of themselves. This can’t be done quickly – it may take decades (and for that reason we must grapple with such questions as how much of a task this is for the military as opposed to other government assets, and whether we are willing to be an occupying power reminiscent of the British empire). But it is the only hope … and it is by no means a sure thing.

On that last point, I will end this too long post by observing that freedom, too, needs to be defined more precisely. The assumption of democracy project enthusiasts is that the freedom Muslim countries universally long for is reflected by democracy as we understand that term. Thus, so the argument goes, once Muslims understand democracy and grasp its possibilities for enriching their lives, they will reliably choose it. I respectfully submit that many Muslims – even some who should be our allies – find this assumption both arrogant and ignorant. They see themselves as having freely chosen strains of Islam that reject Western notions of freedom and liberty. Democracy project fans regard these folks as a fringe. They are not. There are tens of millions of them, and their conception of freedom – as Andrew Bostom relates in this FPM piece – is fundamentally different from ours. We have to factor that in in deciding whether democracy promotion should be the driving force (as opposed to a subordinate aim) of our foreign policy.

Posted at 11:54 AM

Kerry Tries Again

This morning, on Bill Bennett's show, someone clarified Kerry's fauxpaux from Monday. Here is what he said:

- "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

And what he meant to say:

- If you study hard you can do well in life, otherwise, you'll have to marry a rich heiress.

Something the Press Wants Kept Secret

From Instapundit, comes this Telegraph story that the BBC apparently doesn't want to a report to be made public. Why? Because, if reports are accurate, it indicts their coverage of the Middle East. In particular, it might just show that it covers Israel negatively (big surprise).

The Liberating Veil

From Tim Blair comes this news and picture in The Age.

Any theories on how the veil is liberating? I am confused. Forty years ago, women were taking off their bras in the name of liberation....

Photo: AFP

Passive Voice Watch and War on Terror

From today's The Corner, an interesting observation regarding current reporting. It reminds me of George Orwell's essay on politics and English language.

Press Passivity [Michael Rubin]

A writer with whom I spoke about two weeks ago pointed out a very interesting trend in the press reporting and political commentary about the war on terrorism. All too often, reporters and politicians use the passive voice.

Take British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett in yesterday’s USA Today: “It's widely argued now that the existence of the camp is as much a radicalizing and discrediting influence as it is a safeguard for security.” Well, who argues? A McClatchy story yesterday read, “Nearly 2,700 Iraqi civilians were killed in the city in September.” Well, who killed them? Baathist insurgents or Iranian-backed militias?

If the public read that Iranian-backed militias killed nearly 2700 civilians, we might be less willing to reward their murderers. From today’s New York Times: “Most of the 500 municipal workers who have been killed here since 2005 have been trash collectors.”

Again, someone did the killing. Why hide it? It’s important to know what we are up against.

I’d submit two conclusions: Journalists do not use the active voice because they do not know the subject of the action—in which case their editors should send them back to ask tough questions—or the editors wish to absolve the subjects for political reasons. Either way, it’s poor journalism and irresponsible punditry. Sorry to be a grammar nerd, but it’s time to have a passive voice watch.

Posted at 1:34 PM

UPDATE: Jonah adds a few more observations:

Re: Press Passivity [Jonah Goldberg]

Michael makes an excellent point. I'd add a few of other possible causes of the passivity:

Laziness: By phrasing things passively, reporters don't have to actually track down real quotes and assign accountability.

Copycatting: If the New York Times uses a certain style, it will catch on, regardless of the merits.

Globalization: Reuters has a policy of not using the word "terrorist" objectively in part because they are a global news service and some of their customers object when you call their preferred team terrorists. Similarly, CNN doesn't call anyone a "foreigner" because CNN fancies itself a global news service as well. Passive voice reporting might be a related phenomenon because it allows news outlets to avoid offending various consituencies, ideological and geographic.

Groupthink: Because the press as a "class" see the war with considerable unanimity, editors don't catch things which simply "sound right."

Condescention: When Iraqis kill Iraqis, some may reason, they aren't fully formed moral actors, but manifestations of Bush's folly simply acting the way Third Worlders do.

None of these are mutually exclusive and I'm sure there are others. Indeed, most of them overlap considerably. I just think that when trends like thos pop-up there are lots of reasons for them.

Posted at 2:00 PM

UPDATE 2: Curiosity (and some free time) got the best of me, so I went and found an on-line version of Orwell's essay, called "Politics and the English Language". In addition to his always timely observations about language and politics, it contains good advice for writers, such as this:

What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualising you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally.

But, more apropos to Rubin and Goldberg above, Orwell talks about politicans and government publications: political orthodoxy of any kind purposefully hides full accounts of events and its actors.

Orthodoxy, of whatever colour, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestos, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech.

Why? Because using the passive seeks to hide the hand of the puppeteer, focusing on the puppet or the results instead. It locates the action in a vacuum; it is a sleight of hand that most of us used when we hide the fact that our loose tongue got somebody else in trouble--"It came to be known that Mr. X does not like you." Political parties, Orwell says--and journalists are not exempt their own political pressures--, that the euphemisms (of which passive voice is a kind) allow to speak of an event in a diminished way. Passive voice then allows the speaker to hide the actor.

More:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.

Why? As brutal as the images main street media's coverage of the ravages that daily pour out of Iraq, they are only brutal with a part of the whole picture. And I am not merely talking out their ignoring the good news--which they do. I am talking about the subsequent diminishing of the role of the actors that results from focusing on the action. Part of it may in fact be the result of tv images always getting, by the very nature of the way events unfold, the carnage of the bombs or bullets, and not the immediately preceding action of the actors perpetrating their barbarities. At any rate, active voice connects actor to act; vivid action verbs do it to startle the reader out of his somnobletic Sunday afternoon reading to encounter an incarnation of a particular action that a particular person has done to particular people or person. There are three foci. Passive only two.

For instance: Compare this sentence

Bledsoe threw Glenn the football

with

The football was thrown to Glenn (by Bledsoe).

Mark Twain's advice was: choosing the best word over an acceptable word was the difference between lightning and the lightning bug. Active voice strikes, passive glows. Passive voice does not quickens, it deadens.

Such phraseology [eg, euphemisms and passive voice] is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

Again, Orwell is concerned with members of the political class corrupting language, politics, and public opinion. But surely he would not discount the impact that the press has in the same realm? They are, after all, framing how many or most of us understand the way the world is. They do have, however, less and less control in this since cable news and talk radio expanded the perspectives possible. And, of course, the Internet has exploded the control and access to sources of news from the hands of a few to countless numbers of people throughout the world. In this light, as Jarvis, Andrew Sullivan and others have said, the Internet has done for people what the Gutenberg printing press did for people in the Reformation. It took the interpretation and reading of Scripture from the Church and gave a Bible (and its interpretation) to the mass of Europe's people.

For a free people, we do count on our government officials and leaders to give us as complete and unvarnished accounts of events affecting our lives and country. Despite mistakes in the recent past, I don't have any doubts that the Bush administration did and continues to do the best it can. (This was the prudential wisdom of keeping Clinton's heads of FBI and CIA well into his first term). But it is also necessary and good that the press exists to challenge, refine or refute what the government reports. However, it seems that the press is more ideologically wedded, as a political class, not to an accurate coverage of an unpredicatable situation whose outcome is by no means certain--in other words, a war--but to a position that seeks through a paritial coverage to lead its readers and viewers to turning this war into another Vietnam.

UPDATE 3: Michael Rubin says that Isaac Chotiner over at The New Republic's blog, The Plank, picked up on his original comment, listed above, and appears to defend, as Rubin says it, omitting the subject. It will be interesting to see his reply, if any.

Education: For Now or Always?

Contrast

"No general education should be timeless," he said. "There’s no question it’s [education] a response to the world we live in now."

With

[1.22]. . . . But he that desires to look into the truth of things done, and which (according to the condition of humanity) may be done again, or at least their like, he shall find enough herein to make him think it profitable. And it is compiled rather for an EVERLASTING POSSESSION, than to be rehearsed for a prize.

Michael Steele's Letter to Democrats

From the guys at Powerline comes news of this letter Steele directed to several Democrats regarding the latest of a train of low, partisan tricks trying to discredit a black Republican's run for US Senate from Maryland. I don't think it needs any further introduction. Its pretty self-explanatory.

October 4, 2006

Dear Congressman Cardin, Governor Dean, Chairman Lierman and Senator Schumer:

For several months, I have been trailed by Democrat operatives filming my public events. At these events – speeches, press conferences, county fairs and parades – my every word and move has been recorded.

I realize this has become a part of modern campaigning and I welcome the scrutiny. In fact, I always make a point to say a friendly hello to whomever the Democrat Party sends to follow me. However, recent actions have crossed the line from political activity to an invasion of privacy.

On the morning of September 30, I participated in a homecoming ceremony for the Army National Guard 243rd Engineers. The event – as fitting for the occasion – was non-political. Republicans and Democrats joined together to welcome home brave men and women returning from Iraq and I attended in my official capacity to spend time with the troops and their families.

While speaking with two mothers whose sons had died in Iraq, I noticed the ever present Democrat operative filming our conversation. A conversation with parents who have lost a loved one in combat is private in nature and has no place in partisan politics, and certainly not in the smear campaign you have waged against me even before I entered the race for United States Senate. The filming of this conversation demonstrates a callous disregard for families who have lost a loved one and is an indefensible invasion of privacy.

Unfortunately, I have come to expect such ugly, gutter politics from you. Congressman Cardin, while saying you have expressed outrage to “all concerned parties” for the racist comments on your senior staffer’s blog, you have yet to apologize to me. Chairman Dean, your personal pollster, Cornell Belcher, advocated racist attacks to “knock” me down and “discredit” me, and yet I have received no apology from you. And, Senator Schumer, your staffers pled guilty to a crime when they stole my credit report and violated my privacy and that of my family, but I have had no apology from you either.

I did not think until this past Saturday, however, that such ugliness would intrude upon the return of our troops from Iraq. As I told your colleague, Congressman Steny Hoyer, who attended the event, this action represents a new low in Maryland politics and has no place in this campaign.

My campaign is focused on having a conversation with the voters of our state about the issues affecting Maryland and I am committed to building bridges over that which divides us. But, ugly partisan political tricks only work to divide our communities and represent the very type of political behavior voters are sick of.

If your respective organizations are as concerned as I am about the use of such poor judgment by your staff(s), you would take immediate steps to hold all responsible parties accountable.

I eagerly await your prompt response.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL S. STEELE

(Hat tip: Paul at Powerline)

Prime Minister Howard's Speech at the Quadrant

Glenn Reynolds pointed out a news story on this speech by Howard, given at the 50th Anniversary celebration of Quadrant, an Australian conservative journal of literature and ideas. I found it at the Prime Minister's website. It looks good. Though it really doesn't seem to focus on what the news story says it does.

As a matter of fact, the Australian article focuses unduly on what it calls Howard's "scathing attack" of the left's intelligentsia. They are more concerned with reporting that Howard bashed the left--quoting his litany of indictments as if they were reporting to the principal the string of names the bully lobbed against the weakest of the playground.

They don't appear to be overly concerned with sharing the premise of Howard's arguments: that the West has been in the throes of a battle of ideas for the last 60 or so years. And the main pivot points were individualism and collectivism, liberty under the law and overwhelming inevitable historical forces, liberal democratic and totalitarian governments. Or concerned with the conclusion of the Cold War: that those who advocated the West's ideals stood at the end of the day while the others were swept into the ash heap.

Today, the battle continues. Though this time, instead of capitalism, a great religion is hijacked by a minority who have been corrupted by the same ideas that were thought to be vanquished in the Cold War. The tyranny of our day is the resurrected tyranny of yesterday in different trappings, religious and not anti-capitalistic and atheistic, medieval and patriarchical not educated, tolerant, and sophisticated (though their western intellectual progenitors and advocates are).

There. A better summary of Howard's speech. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.

Victor Hanson Starts a Blog

If you haven't noticed, Victor Davis Hanson is now blogging over at PajamasMedia.com.

This is indeed good news. For me, his columns at his Private Papers website (over 2 million hits per month) have always been a valuable source of historical and military perspective so often missing in analysis of our wars and our times, but now, with his move to a blog, I hope we can see more spontaneous comments that I see and appreciate in his Q & A's. These I feel are of greater value.

Here, for example, is the final bit--a reoccurring theme for me--from his latest post on "Wars, Then and Now":

The End of Wars

Today I finish the last class of a five-week course I taught this late summer at Hillsdale College on World War II. What is striking is the abrupt end of the war, whose last months nevertheless saw the worst American casualties in Europe of the entire struggle. 10,677 of our soldiers died in April 1945 alone, just a few days before the collapse of the Nazi regime— about the same number lost a year earlier during the month of June in the 1944 landings at Normandy and the slogging in the Hedgerows. Okinawa saw our worst casualties on the ground in the Pacific—and was declared secure only 6 weeks before the Japanese surrender. 1945 was far bloodier than 1939, a reminder that in the midst of a war daily losses are not necessarily a barometer of how close or far away is the end of the carnage. Ask the Red Army for whom the final siege of Berlin—361, 367 Russian and Polish soldiers lost—may have been their worst single battle of their entire war, itself characterized by killing on a scale unimaginable in the West.

I don’t know how close or far away we are in Iraq from securing a chance for Iraqi democracy to stabilize, but I do know—despite the recent spate of doom and gloom journalistic accounts—that, as in all wars, it is almost impossible to tell from the 24-hour pulse of the battlefield.

Indeed.

The rest, "War, Then and Now", can be read at Works and Days. --His blog, by the way, is named after one of the great Greek poets', Hesiod, works, Works and Days. But, VDH talks about it better:

Hesiod was an ancient Greek poet who wrote about the world about him from the angle of the farmer. His Works and Days were a sort of a tough take about how hard life could be, and the world view that the no-nonsense farmer should adopt about the world about him if he were to survive. I have never posted blogs before but I will take Hesiod to heart here the beginning.

Ahmadinejad's Speech at the UN, 9-19-06

Here it is, from the UN website:

Address by
His Excellency Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nej ad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
before the 61 st Session of the General assembly

New York, 19 September 2006

Madam President, Distinguished Heads of State and Government, Distinguished Heads of Delegation, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen

I praise the Merciful, All-Knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this Assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community.

I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues.

Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the Truth, devotion to God, quest for Justice and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed,and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.

Page 1

Madame President, Excellencies,

What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them.

By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.

Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble. Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?

A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem.

A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.

People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.

Page 2

Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?

The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?

B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities

Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife.

There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers. It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.

Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?

Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?

Consider the situation in Palestine:

The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?

The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about

Page 3

them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d'être of this regime, as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded before our eyes.

Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime. Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?

At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community.

Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps?

Let me here address Lebanon:

For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why?

In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?

C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community

Excellencies,

I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.

Page 4

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.

Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?

The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern.

Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security?

Excellencies,

A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression.

- Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful;

- Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility;

- For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that must not violate human rights.

- Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.

Page 5

- Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?

- The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.

Excellencies,

The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?

Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.

Excellencies,

How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies.

The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.

Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council.

Page 6

Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live?

Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.

Madame President, Excellencies,

It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.

Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.

Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.

Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.

No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community".

Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.

Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.

It is for this reason that we state:

Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.

All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security.

We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.

Page 7

All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world.

We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations.

Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.

Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue, Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.

The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.

He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

Page 8

Khaleel Mohammed On the English Translations of the Koran

Michael Rubin encourages readers to consult Khaleel Mohammed in order to educate themselves to the differences in the English translations of the Koran. I didn't even know there were different versions.

Here is Khaleel's intro:

Multiple English translations of the Qur'an, Islam's scripture, line shelves at book stores. Amazon.com sells more than a dozen. Because of the growing Muslim communities in English-speaking countries, as well as greater academic interest in Islam, there has been a blossoming in recent years of English translations. Muslims view the Qur'an as God's direct words revealed in Arabic to the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632).[1] Because the Qur'an stresses its Arabic nature, Muslim scholars believe that any translation cannot be more than an approximate interpretation, intended only as a tool for the study and understanding of the original Arabic text.[2] Since fewer than 20 percent of Muslims speak Arabic, this means that most Muslims study the text only in translation. So how accurate are the Qur'an's renderings into English? The record is mixed. Some are simply poor translations. Others adopt sectarian biases, and those that are funded by Saudi Arabia often insert political annotation. Since translators seek to convey not only text but also meaning, many rely on the interpretation (tafsir) of medieval scholars in order to conform to an "orthodox" reading.

Read the rest here.

1946 Analysis of the Islamic Threat

Just discovered Steve Hayward's post on this, a Middle East Forum's publication of a US military intelligence's report of the long-term threats to global security in 1946. In that then classified report, we apparently get an unvarnished assessment of the factors foreseen to give rise to the Islamic threat from the Middle East to the rest of the world in the not too distant future. And, guess what, the presence of nation of Israel is not one of them.... Why? Israel was declared a state in 1948, 2 years after the report.

Here is Middle East Forum's summary of the report:

In 1946, U.S. power was on the ascent. A U.S. nuclear bomb had hastened the end of World War II and, while the Cold War was beginning, the United States remained the world's only nuclear power. As the international community rebuilt from the ashes of war and the United Nations sought to preserve peace, the military intelligence division of the U.S. War Department—the predecessor of today's Defense Intelligence Agency—charged its analysts to speculate on long-term threats to global security. One resulting essay, which appeared in the classified periodical Intelligence Review,[1] identified the Islamic world as a region of concern.

Written just over than six decades ago, the resulting analysis is prescient.[2] The report describes a region beset by "discontent and frustration" and handicapped by a collective inferiority complex, yet unable to overcome "intellectual inaction," a situation which would keep the region from advancing in the modern world. The analysts speculate correctly about the growing importance of the Arab media and the divisive force of nationalism.

Ironically, while many academics today would dismiss as culturally insensitive the authors' frankness and generalizations about peoples and religion, the assumption that culture matters holds true. Many of the report's observations mirror those made in recent years by the United Nations' own Arab Human Development Report, which, if anything, is more pessimistic. In 1946, observers of the Middle East still had hope that increasing literacy and ease of travel would lead the region to become more cosmopolitan. While they raised concerns about nascent Islamist movements, they did not foresee just how malignant such groups could become, nor did they envision that oil-rich states such as Saudi Arabia would fund extremism rather than regional development.

As important as what the authors do say is what they do not. While it has become trendy in some academic and diplomatic circles to blame terrorism and regional instability on Israel's existence, the War Department's report suggests these problems—and anti-Semitism as well—predated the Jewish state. Many Arab states complained about Jewish immigration to Palestine, but the report's authors suggest local governments cynically promoted such concerns, and Muslims farther afield had different priorities. Well before Israel's independence and the 1967 war, Arab and Islamist groups embraced terrorism, using it for purposes unrelated to Zionism. Accordingly, while the scapegoating of Israel may be fashionable in the foreign ministries of Arab states, the European Union, and the diplomatic parlors of the United Nations, the 1946 report shows that responsibility for the political, economic, and social failings of the region are far more complex and deeply-rooted.

—The Editors

But, don't take my word for it, read it all here.

On Waugh's Black Mischief

Over at my other blog, I've posted on AEI scholar Mark Falcoff's review of Evelyn Waugh's novel Black Mischief. I note i t here because of its contemporary poltical relevance--the interaction of western ideals and 3rd world realities.

Read it here: Philomythos: Waugh's Black Mischief.

Death of Multiculturalism

Reynolds draws out attention to a Rod Liddle and a Shelby Steele column on "white guilt" or multiculturalism myth that blinkers westerners in our war on terror. Here is Liddle in the Times:

Quick, somebody buy a wreath. Last week marked the passing of multiculturalism as official government doctrine. No longer will opponents of this corrosive and divisive creed be silenced simply by the massed Pavlovian ovine accusation: “Racist!” Better still, the very people who foisted multiculturalism upon the country are the ones who have decided that it has now outlived its usefulness — that is, the political left.

It is amazing how a few by-election shocks and some madmen with explosive backpacks can concentrate the mind. At any rate, British citizens, black and white, can move onwards together — towards a sunlit upland of monoculturalism, or maybe zeroculturalism, whatever takes your fancy.

* That multiculturalism really is officially dead and buried can be inferred both from Ruth Kelly’s comments last week and, indeed, from the title of the commission that the government had convened in the wake of the July 7 terrorist attacks last year and to which her observations were made.

From Shelby Steele's column:

Over and over, white guilt turns the disparity in development between Israel and her neighbors into a case of Western bigotry. This despite the fact that Islamic extremism is the most explicit and dangerous expression of human bigotry since the Nazi era. Israel's historical contradiction, her torture, is to be a Western nation whose efforts to survive trap her in the moral mazes of white guilt. Its national defense will forever be white aggression.

But white guilt's most dangerous suppression is to keep from discussion the most conspicuous reality in the Middle East: that the Islamic world long ago fell out of history. Islamic extremism is the saber-rattling of an inferiority complex. America has done a good thing in launching democracy as a new ideal in this region. Here is the possibility--if still quite remote--for the Islamic world to seek power through contribution rather than through menace.

World Wars in the 21st Century

Niall Ferguson in the latest Foreign Affairs looks back to the 20th Century before looking ahead:

The twentieth century was the bloodiest era in history. Despite the comfortable assumption that the twenty-first will be more peaceful, the same ingredients that made the last hundred years so destructive are present today. In particular, a conflict in the Middle East may well spark another global conflagration. The United States could prevent such an outcome -- but it may not be willing to.

Wretchard at Belmont Club concludes his commentary on Niall Ferguson's thesis this way:

Yet those effete-looking internationalists probably grasp Niall Ferguson's point at a gut level: without an American gorilla under "internationalist" direction, The Next War of the Worlds may be in the offing. Yet to America, as the Ring was to Tom Bombadil, empire is too much of a burden. America's mystical faith that all countries desire freedom may partly be at bottom a wish that the world would leave it alone; leave it alone to watch a baseball game with a cup of weak beer in one hand and soggy hot dog in the other, neither knowing nor caring where Iraq or Kazakhstan was. And so it was until the airliners crashed into Manhattan in 2001. Who knows what it is now?

Humilating Americans

The latest Cox and Forkum is an appropriate response to this news from Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union and a leading Islamic group on Wednesday accused security officials at New York's JFK airport of racially profiling Muslims.

"The price to pay for racial profiling is too high," Dennis Parker of the American Civil Liberties Union told a news conference. "All people should be treated in the same way regardless of their race, their ethnicity or their religion."

(ht: Larry Kudlow)

Hitchens Flipping off the Frivolous

This is making waves....

Newsbusters has transcripts and video clips of Christopher Hitchens (not, by the way, your typical Bush-supporter to say the least) flipping off Bill Mahrer's audience for frivolously equating the political goals of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Bush just because they share similar apocalyptic visions of the end times.

Hitchens called such understanding as "frivolous". According to Websters, frivolous means:

1. a: of little weight or importance b: having no sound basis (as in fact or law)
   
2. a: lacking in seriousness b: marked by unbecoming levity

Frivlous is an apt term for this. I guess I would say that Mahrer's (and many others) contribution to political discourse in the US is generally 'marked by unbecoming levity'. Here's how Hitchens finished his reply to the jeering and Mahrer:

Hitchens: “Cheer yourself up like that [by jeering]. The President has said, [in] quite a great contrast before the podium of the Senate, I think, applauded by most present, in his State of the Union address, that we support the democratic movement of the Iranian people to be free of theocracy -- not that we will impose ourselves on them, but that if they fight for it we're on their side. That seems to be the right position to take, jeer all you like.”

What he said.

(ht: Glenn Reynolds)

Interesting Recent Readings

• Paul M. has some good news in Israeli politics.
• More than a few people say how different (that is, better) Bush is outside D.C.
• And related to that, Peter Schramm points out that Bush isn't as uncuriousier as he is made out to be.
• Peter also links up Juan Williams with Bill Cosby. What will they think of next?.....
• Michael Barone talks about ABC's 5-hour special on 9-11, scheduled for the 10th and 11th of September
• From Glenn Reynolds, a poll showing that Iraqis in Iraq are more positive about Iraq's progress than Americans are
  

Crittenden's Psalm 9-11: I Will Fear No Evil

I can confirm Scott's strong encouragment to read Jules Crittenden's column in the Boston Herald today. It offers, I want to propose, a good antidote, invoking Sharansky (below), to the blindness of our time to see evil.

There are men out there who want us dead. This is undeniable. They want to see us all dead. Each and every one of us. They don’t know our names, they don’t know what our thoughts are about their grievances. They don’t know what our actions are and how we’ve lived our lives. They don’t care. They just want us dead.

I wish I had a sweet, comforting post-Sept. 11 lullaby to sing the ones I love to sleep when they experience fear of these evil men. But I don’t. Lullabies combat false monsters. Real monsters require something different.

Psalms, like lullabies, give comfort. But they don’t mask or deny the threat. They embrace it, and show the way to strength and ultimately comfort from within. What might a psalm say to anyone whose 9/11 fears have been reawakened.

UPDATE: Scott follows up his post on Crittenden's column above with a new post about Crittenden, called "Meet Jules Crittenden".

Omar Fadhil on the Shia Armageddon

Cliff May points out that Omar Fadhil, co-founder of the blog Iraq the Model, in the Philadelphia Inquirer proposed the same idea last Friday that Bernard Lewis does today in the WSJ (immediately below).

As an observer of the conflict from Iraq, I see the signs that Iran may be starting to launch the mullahs' version of an Armageddon, exploiting the religious beliefs of devout Shiites in the region. While this may sound more the stuff of prophecies than international relations, it is important to understand - especially in countries such as Lebanon and Iraq that have large Shiite populations.

Read it all.

Bernard Lewis: Apocalypse on August 22?

Here's Lewis' sobering opinion column that alot of people have been talking about, published today in Wall Street Journal. It is behind a subscription wall, but I believe this version is complete. Thanks DFME.

During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.

The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.

A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).

The Discerning Texan provides some analysis and more background.