Intel on Intelligence

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

The most remarkable thing at the Oscars last night

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violence in the Passion

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

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

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

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

Choices for the Super Power

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

Iraqi scultpure for American Soldier

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

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

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

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

Victor D. Hanson: Weapons of Mass Hysteria

Hanson on recent developments in David Kay's report.

Bush Doctrine as the next Grand Strategy

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

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

David Brooks on CIA's bad methodology

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

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

Keegan's column

Lewis Doctrine on the Middle East

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

Blair and Hutton on BBC's irresponsible coverage

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

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


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

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

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

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

Let me repeat the words of Lord Hutton:

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

Let those that made them now withdraw them."

Reformation of Journalism

Jeff Jarvis has the goods.

Victor D. Hanson watch

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

VDH: "Critical Mass"

An excellent new piece by Hanson. Nobody is better at framing the larger picture.

"Quagmire" in Kosovo

Instapundit points out this noteworthy article in Canada's National Post. Seems that the UN's nation building, or ethnic-stablization, in Kosovo is a bit of a quagmire. Seems parts are more and more overun by organized crime, drug runners, racial cleansing, terrorist sympathizers (including Al-Qaeda). As a matter of fact,

"According to statistics collected by the UN criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague, 1,192 Serbs have been killed, 1,303 kidnapped and 1,305 wounded in Kosovo this year."

So much for the UN's leadership. Now, back to your regular scheduled "quagmire" elsewhere.

The self-poisoning of open society

New Criterion's Notes and Comments (scroll down) has an interesting tidbit about a Polish philosopher I have never heard of, Leszek Kolakowski. They say that his magnum opus is a 3-volume treatise on communism, Main Currents of Marxism, and that he has only recently been honored with the Kluge award. But, what caught my attention is what the editor thought was Kolakowski's most profound theme is his most relevant insight to our time.

"But his deeper subject has been the insidious variety of human bondage: not just political tyranny but also the sundry metaphysical tyrannies with which mankind has striven mightily to perpetuate its enslavement even as it mouths the word 'freedom.' Of particular relevance to our own situation today is his analysis of 'The Self-Poisoning of the Open Society' (the title of an essay in his book Modernity on Endless Trial). Among the many dangers that threaten a pluralist society from within, Kolakowski notes, perhaps the most destructive is 'the weakening of the psychological preparedness to defend it.'"

The "self-poison of open society." Is this decadence? Certainly we are a decadent society. But to the point of impotency? Seems I've heard others (our Islamic critics for example) say this. And I have heard others who wondered whether the younger generations would ever be able to match the Greatest Generation's sacrifice and example of service. But I think Todd Beamer and the others on Flight 93 Pennsylvania have put that fear to rest.

Yet, something about this idea seems right. The most obvious place I see this is in (some of) the current anti-war crowd. Listening to them, it just doesn't seem like there is any justification for a defensive war, let alone a pre-emptive one. Appeals to preserving our (or their) way of life makes little impact. Part of the problem may be relativism in the name of "an open society." That is, as someone has said, the price of purity is a purist, so maybe those who imbibe to deeply on the virtues of open society, in the end, have trouble with defending it because it means excluding someone.

At any rate, I wonder what Kolakowski has to say.

Return of the Professors

Christian Science Monitor has a story about the return of Iraqi's educated people. They have dreams of returning Baghdad to the days it was the academic Mecca of the Middle East, '60's and '70's.

Hanson on Rumsfeld Biography

link

American military leaders: Progress in Iraq

Washington Post carries this helpful compilation of the military leaders' assessment of their progress against insurgents. It is good to hear their opitimism and some of the specifics they can share. Interestingly enough, one of them mentioned that the progress of July and August in winning the hearts and minds was stymied by a lack of funding in September, leading to an increase of the insurgents' attacks. Does that funding lapse coincide with Congress' slowness in approving Bush's funding request? I don't know.

Michael Crichton speech

This speech is a pleasant surprise, coming from one of the best-selling writers today. Surprising to see someone so popular take on the sacred cow of enviromentalism and to say so many thoughtful things, such as:

"Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears. "

Iraqi leader speaks out

Zeyed, at Healing Iraq, brought this commentary to my attention. It's by the current president, Jalal Talabani, of the Iraqi Governing Council, and it's called "The Way Forward", and it confirms Bush's opitimism (best expressed in his two most recent, important speeches, see below) and counters a common view that Bush is rushing things too much. It expresses good things, like determination and responsibility:

"The defeat of the terrorists, however, must be largely an Iraqi endeavor. By taking up arms and routing the terrorists, Iraqis will own their new democracy--nobody will be able to say that it has been handed to them."

It also waves off the criticism that disbanding the Iraqi army was a mistake:

"Resurrecting the former Iraqi army is not an option. The Iraqi army had a record of internal repression and external aggression. L. Paul Bremer, the coalition's administrator, demonstrated great wisdom when he formally wound up the Iraqi army. Like the Allied decree in 1946 that dissolved Prussia, the edict abolishing the Iraqi army struck at the roots of the Arab nationalist militarism that plagued Iraq even before Saddam."

China Silk Route Today

Fascinating set of articles on the China silk route through an increasingly important part of the world, central Asia (Hat tip: The Argus).

Part 1: The Last Frontier: China's far West
Part 2: King of the Steppes
Part 3: In Pursuit of the Snow Leopard
Part 4: Touching Base
Part 5: A New Learning Experience

The Real History of Crusades

Thomas Madden offers a "History of Crusades", correcting the more cynical accounts. Professor Madden's approach is also delivered in light of Osama bin Laden (and others) contention that the West and the Crusades brought 9-11 on us.

Bush's Whitehall Palace Speech

Whitehall Palace Address

John Zvesper's piece is long but thoughtful. Well worth the time.

Wall Street Editorial

Be sure to check out Michael Novak's column on how Bush is generally always underestimated, but he also addresses the Whitehall speech in the context of his other great speeches. Novak's aim is draw out what makes Bush's speeches so powerful and important to us now. He has several more of Bush's speeches linked within the piece.

Like Novak, Peter Schramm broadens his reflections on Bush with this piece that compares Clinton's persona with Bush's character.

Richard Brookhiser's piece demonstrates how Bush's "common touch," most recently on display in his Thanksgiving visit to Iraq, is the best weapon against terrorism.