Wednesday, September 27, 2006
A Failed Policy, or a Failed Party?
Over the past year, the Democrats have converged on the catch phrase "failed policy" when referring to the president's strategy for Iraq. The Democrats never elaborate on "failed policy," giving the impression that it is impossible for the US to achieve its goals in Iraq.
If Democrats think the president's Iraq policy is a failure, I think that America would benefit if they'd simply offer up a plan that isn't a failure. Alas, the Democrats as a party have no plan to rally around. Will thay leave now? Leave in six months? Leave according to a symbolic and open-ended timetable? There are too many voices speaking up within the Democratic party with no concensus emerging. It's all rhetoric designed to damage the president and win Democratic votes, at the expense of this nation, its security, and its armed forces who have to put their lives on the line every day in pursuit of "failed policy."
Because I want to see America succeed as a nation, regardless of which party wins this November, I'll do what the Democrats haven't, and offer up a strategy for Iraq.
1) Realize that the Iraqi nation is an artificial construct that should not be held together against the wills of its sectarian and ethnic factions.
2) Acknowledge that Shiite Arabs and Sunni Arabs are more interested in killing each other than they are in rebuilding their nation or making sacrifices for democracy.
3) Consign ourselves to accepting any secular Iraqi government, no matter how autocratic and ruthless it may be.
4) Work with the Kurdish regional government to continue providing security and reconstruction aid to an independent northern Iraq.
5) Make peace with the former Ba'athists and allow them to rule over central and western Iraq, on the condition they fight al Qaeda and Moqtada al Sadr.
6) Turn southern Iraq into a police state under the American-trained Iraqi Army. The region will be autonomous, but its oil revenues will be shared with the Ba'ath Party.
If Democrats think the president's Iraq policy is a failure, I think that America would benefit if they'd simply offer up a plan that isn't a failure. Alas, the Democrats as a party have no plan to rally around. Will thay leave now? Leave in six months? Leave according to a symbolic and open-ended timetable? There are too many voices speaking up within the Democratic party with no concensus emerging. It's all rhetoric designed to damage the president and win Democratic votes, at the expense of this nation, its security, and its armed forces who have to put their lives on the line every day in pursuit of "failed policy."
Because I want to see America succeed as a nation, regardless of which party wins this November, I'll do what the Democrats haven't, and offer up a strategy for Iraq.
1) Realize that the Iraqi nation is an artificial construct that should not be held together against the wills of its sectarian and ethnic factions.
2) Acknowledge that Shiite Arabs and Sunni Arabs are more interested in killing each other than they are in rebuilding their nation or making sacrifices for democracy.
3) Consign ourselves to accepting any secular Iraqi government, no matter how autocratic and ruthless it may be.
4) Work with the Kurdish regional government to continue providing security and reconstruction aid to an independent northern Iraq.
5) Make peace with the former Ba'athists and allow them to rule over central and western Iraq, on the condition they fight al Qaeda and Moqtada al Sadr.
6) Turn southern Iraq into a police state under the American-trained Iraqi Army. The region will be autonomous, but its oil revenues will be shared with the Ba'ath Party.
Monday, September 25, 2006
In the Line of Fire
Pakistani President/General/Two-Faced-Autocrat Pervez Musharraf is making sensational claims in his book "In the Line of Fire." Foremost among them:
--Richard Armitage promised to "bomb him back into the stone age" if he didn't cooperate after the 9/11 attacks
--Musharraf based his decision on his appraisal of a US military threat to his country
--The US has paid millions of dollars for the captured terrorists who have been turned over by Pakistani authorities.
In response to the first claim, denied by Armitage, it's easy to observe that the tribal regions of Pakistan are already living in the stone age, so it wouldn't require too much effort on America's part. As far as the military threat goes, the Pakistani army would likely collapse rapidly in the face of American assault, but the Pakistani populace would be ripe for insurgency against the Americans, who are almost universally-reviled in Pakistan. However, I wouldn't be surprised if we have paid Pakistan for its support, even if it's not in the form of direct bounties for captured terrorists. As AC/DC sang, "Money Talks."
Pervez Musharraf's book seems like its written primarily to address his own people, trying to rationalize a foreign policy that is very unpopular domestically. As such, many of its claims will be sensationalized, embellished, or outright fabrications.
The book places more attention on the nature of the US-Pakistani relationship. The Bush Administration has used incentives like military aid to buy Pakistan's support, which is lukewarm at best. Pakistan's recent peace deal with pro-Taliban tribes in the Waziristan region should be sufficient grounds for killing the F-16 sales package. The larger problem is the outright fanaticism that exists in Pakistan. With the population being soaked in the anti-Americanism that comes from the clerics and the madrases, there is little hope in the near term that Pakistanis will ever learn to respect or coexist with America. For all the token efforts of Pakistan in rounding up the Zubaydahs, Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds, and Libbis, there are dozens more jihadists being raised every day.
The real problem is a Pakistani culture which enshrines hatred of America and religious fanaticism, while the secular leadership remains indifferent or unable to change this. To declare victory in Pakistan, America needs to wage a war of ideas. Old-time Islamist thinking needs to collapse in a hail of ideas on the abilities of the individual and the empowering nature of personal freedom. Until then, Pakistanis will be slaves to a stone-age mentality that glorifies death.
--Richard Armitage promised to "bomb him back into the stone age" if he didn't cooperate after the 9/11 attacks
--Musharraf based his decision on his appraisal of a US military threat to his country
--The US has paid millions of dollars for the captured terrorists who have been turned over by Pakistani authorities.
In response to the first claim, denied by Armitage, it's easy to observe that the tribal regions of Pakistan are already living in the stone age, so it wouldn't require too much effort on America's part. As far as the military threat goes, the Pakistani army would likely collapse rapidly in the face of American assault, but the Pakistani populace would be ripe for insurgency against the Americans, who are almost universally-reviled in Pakistan. However, I wouldn't be surprised if we have paid Pakistan for its support, even if it's not in the form of direct bounties for captured terrorists. As AC/DC sang, "Money Talks."
Pervez Musharraf's book seems like its written primarily to address his own people, trying to rationalize a foreign policy that is very unpopular domestically. As such, many of its claims will be sensationalized, embellished, or outright fabrications.
The book places more attention on the nature of the US-Pakistani relationship. The Bush Administration has used incentives like military aid to buy Pakistan's support, which is lukewarm at best. Pakistan's recent peace deal with pro-Taliban tribes in the Waziristan region should be sufficient grounds for killing the F-16 sales package. The larger problem is the outright fanaticism that exists in Pakistan. With the population being soaked in the anti-Americanism that comes from the clerics and the madrases, there is little hope in the near term that Pakistanis will ever learn to respect or coexist with America. For all the token efforts of Pakistan in rounding up the Zubaydahs, Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds, and Libbis, there are dozens more jihadists being raised every day.
The real problem is a Pakistani culture which enshrines hatred of America and religious fanaticism, while the secular leadership remains indifferent or unable to change this. To declare victory in Pakistan, America needs to wage a war of ideas. Old-time Islamist thinking needs to collapse in a hail of ideas on the abilities of the individual and the empowering nature of personal freedom. Until then, Pakistanis will be slaves to a stone-age mentality that glorifies death.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Kim's Insurance Policy
There's an excellent article by Ted Galen Carpenter of The Cato Institute which deals with US policy on North Korea. Mr. Carpenter argues that the US military should pull out of South Korea in exchange for the Chinese ending their economic aid to North Korea. On the surface, this idea makes a lot of sense. Mr. Carpenter predicts that the loss of Chinese aid will collapse the Kim regime and force the reunification of the two Koreas.
However, this rosy scenario is shattered by bitter reality. Most worrysome is the fate of North Korea's nuclear arsenal. Western and Asian intelligence agencies have to determine what kind of safeguards are placed on the North Korean nukes. If the Kim regime did collapse, what would become of the weapons?
History is filled with recent examples of heavily armed governments which suddenly collapsed. The fall of Saddam Hussein created a power vacuum in Iraq, which led to the old regime's weapons (including perhaps thousands of aging chemical shells) falling into the hands of an entrenched insurgency (one British report claims that the insurgency has 270+ years worth of munitions to use.) The transition of Russia from Gorbachev's Soviet Union to Yeltsin's dysfunctional democracy did not result in any nuclear weapons leaving Russian military control (or so we hope,) but did spawn a black market for conventional weaponry.
If the Kim regime collapsed, South Korea would have to move swiftly and deliberately to re-establish order and to secure all nuclear-related sites. I do not see any will in South Korea to re-eunify the country through military means. Most South Koreans favor reunification on equal and peaceful terms, even if the Kim regime remains in power. Even if the South Koreans had the will, they would still need precise intelligence on all the nuclear sites (which is too difficult to cull from the closed North Korean society.)
Most western pundits believe the North Korean nukes are a bargaining chip, which allow Kim Jong-Il to demand more western aid for his crumbling Stalinist state. It could be equally important to Kim that the weapons are a bargaining chip. If the west refuses to prop him up, North Korea will delve into anarchy and the nukes will go missing. Much like how the Chinese put up with Kim to avoid a refugee crisis, Kim may feel that the US will prop him up to ensure the nukes don't get into hands that are less stable than those of the mad Korean dictator.
The idea of regime collapse in North Korea is tempting, but it will ultimately come back to haunt America. Our only hope is that the North will see Kim replaced with a more conciliatory leader who favors reunification (in the same way that East Germany capitulated to West Germany in the Cold War's dying days.) With Kim grooming his sons for succession and stacking his government and military with loyalists, the emergence of a peaceful North Korea is a long way off.
However, this rosy scenario is shattered by bitter reality. Most worrysome is the fate of North Korea's nuclear arsenal. Western and Asian intelligence agencies have to determine what kind of safeguards are placed on the North Korean nukes. If the Kim regime did collapse, what would become of the weapons?
History is filled with recent examples of heavily armed governments which suddenly collapsed. The fall of Saddam Hussein created a power vacuum in Iraq, which led to the old regime's weapons (including perhaps thousands of aging chemical shells) falling into the hands of an entrenched insurgency (one British report claims that the insurgency has 270+ years worth of munitions to use.) The transition of Russia from Gorbachev's Soviet Union to Yeltsin's dysfunctional democracy did not result in any nuclear weapons leaving Russian military control (or so we hope,) but did spawn a black market for conventional weaponry.
If the Kim regime collapsed, South Korea would have to move swiftly and deliberately to re-establish order and to secure all nuclear-related sites. I do not see any will in South Korea to re-eunify the country through military means. Most South Koreans favor reunification on equal and peaceful terms, even if the Kim regime remains in power. Even if the South Koreans had the will, they would still need precise intelligence on all the nuclear sites (which is too difficult to cull from the closed North Korean society.)
Most western pundits believe the North Korean nukes are a bargaining chip, which allow Kim Jong-Il to demand more western aid for his crumbling Stalinist state. It could be equally important to Kim that the weapons are a bargaining chip. If the west refuses to prop him up, North Korea will delve into anarchy and the nukes will go missing. Much like how the Chinese put up with Kim to avoid a refugee crisis, Kim may feel that the US will prop him up to ensure the nukes don't get into hands that are less stable than those of the mad Korean dictator.
The idea of regime collapse in North Korea is tempting, but it will ultimately come back to haunt America. Our only hope is that the North will see Kim replaced with a more conciliatory leader who favors reunification (in the same way that East Germany capitulated to West Germany in the Cold War's dying days.) With Kim grooming his sons for succession and stacking his government and military with loyalists, the emergence of a peaceful North Korea is a long way off.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
The Dichotomy of Islam
Pope Benedict XVI is taking a lot of heat from the global Muslim community because he quoted Manuel Paleologos II, an old Byzantine Emperor, who condemned the prophet Mohammed for spreading religion by the sword. The pope's choice of quote cuts to the dichotomy of Islam: how can Islam claim to be a religion of peace when its chief prophet was a warrior?
The history of Islam's spread is one of continuing warfare. The prophet waged war against Jews and pagans in the Arabian peninsula, took the wives of his enemies, and forced conversions at the sword. His idea of mercy was to offer his enemies the opportunity to convert; failing this, they were ordered to pay tribute if they would not change their religious convictions. If this tribute was not received, the Muslims had permission to kill their enemies. This tradition continues to the present day.
At the same time, the Koran contains well-meaning rules like fasting, prayer, and giving to the poor. If a Muslim were to adhere only to the well-meaning rules, Islam could be the religion of peace that its adherents claim. Yet it seems impossible to reconcile a peaceful religion with its violent prophet.
This nature of Islam stands in stark contrast to Christianity. In his day, Jesus Christ was persecuted by both Jewish and Roman officials for his radical, potentially subversive ideas. Jesus was crucified, and many of his followers met similar fates. But the early Christians did not diverge from the teachings of their messiah. They too were persecuted by the Romans, yet they were persistent in following their beliefs. Eventually it would be the Roman Empire that succumbed to Christianity, not vice-versa. The message to Christians is that we will always face oppression from people who hate our beliefs and lifestyle. Christians are called to neither back down nor escalate the conflict. Christians are expected to maintain the status quo and continue living a life of virtue.
Islam and Christianity are best viewed in light of the societies which originally adopted them. Islam was justification and strength for a warrior culture. Christianity offered (and still offers) hope in the next life for people who are oppressed, persecuted and downtrodden in this life.
The history of Islam's spread is one of continuing warfare. The prophet waged war against Jews and pagans in the Arabian peninsula, took the wives of his enemies, and forced conversions at the sword. His idea of mercy was to offer his enemies the opportunity to convert; failing this, they were ordered to pay tribute if they would not change their religious convictions. If this tribute was not received, the Muslims had permission to kill their enemies. This tradition continues to the present day.
At the same time, the Koran contains well-meaning rules like fasting, prayer, and giving to the poor. If a Muslim were to adhere only to the well-meaning rules, Islam could be the religion of peace that its adherents claim. Yet it seems impossible to reconcile a peaceful religion with its violent prophet.
This nature of Islam stands in stark contrast to Christianity. In his day, Jesus Christ was persecuted by both Jewish and Roman officials for his radical, potentially subversive ideas. Jesus was crucified, and many of his followers met similar fates. But the early Christians did not diverge from the teachings of their messiah. They too were persecuted by the Romans, yet they were persistent in following their beliefs. Eventually it would be the Roman Empire that succumbed to Christianity, not vice-versa. The message to Christians is that we will always face oppression from people who hate our beliefs and lifestyle. Christians are called to neither back down nor escalate the conflict. Christians are expected to maintain the status quo and continue living a life of virtue.
Islam and Christianity are best viewed in light of the societies which originally adopted them. Islam was justification and strength for a warrior culture. Christianity offered (and still offers) hope in the next life for people who are oppressed, persecuted and downtrodden in this life.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Feds Eat Dog
After three years, the US Government is extraditing Duane "Dog" Chapman to Mexico to face prosecution. As you may remember, Chapman made a name for himself in 2003 as the bounty hunter who apprehended Andrew Luster (the rapist/Max Factor heir) in Mexico. However, Dog found himself in jail because of Mexico's ban on bounty hunting. His solution was to flee back to the US while out on bail. He became a reality TV star based on his exploits that fateful summer.
The US Government is selling out on Dog. If anything, he deserves the government's praise for taking wicked men off the streets. If the Mexican authorities were doing their jobs, Andrew Luster wouldn't have needed a bounty hunter to put him in the prison where he belongs.
Americans should band together and petition the Mexican government to release Duane Chapman. Boycott Mexico and Mexican imports until The Dog is let out of the pound.
The US Government is selling out on Dog. If anything, he deserves the government's praise for taking wicked men off the streets. If the Mexican authorities were doing their jobs, Andrew Luster wouldn't have needed a bounty hunter to put him in the prison where he belongs.
Americans should band together and petition the Mexican government to release Duane Chapman. Boycott Mexico and Mexican imports until The Dog is let out of the pound.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
It's a free country, but nobody ever said it was cheap
I've been doing a lot of thinking about what must be done about the illegal immigration issue. Do we need better enforcement? Yes. Do we need to reform the way legal immigrants earn their way across the border? Yes. But the final cornerstone of this triad is punishment for people who have already broken our immigration laws.
In much of America, the "racist" immigration laws are not being enforced. Illegal immigrants are not being asked for identification, and if they are caught, they often avoid deportation. But I have to ask myself what we gain from deporting illegal aliens. They made it across the border once, and they can probably do it again. What we need instead is some more tangible punishment that will deter future immigration.
My solution is steep fines for illegal immigrants who are caught. If people are coming here for financial gain, our punishment should address that financial gain--and take a sizeable portion of it away. After paying the fine, the immigrant would be able to become a citizen (if they haven't been embittered by the experience, deciding to flee back home.) We should acknowledge that while the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not violent criminals or terrorists, they are still breaking the law by hopping the border. Nobody should be above the law, even if you want to play the race-card against the law.
The fact that these illegals would be allowed to stay is an acknowledgement that our borders are not secure. Perhaps "catch and release" would work if this wasn't the case, and we actually had a strong border force to deter illegal immigrants.
In much of America, the "racist" immigration laws are not being enforced. Illegal immigrants are not being asked for identification, and if they are caught, they often avoid deportation. But I have to ask myself what we gain from deporting illegal aliens. They made it across the border once, and they can probably do it again. What we need instead is some more tangible punishment that will deter future immigration.
My solution is steep fines for illegal immigrants who are caught. If people are coming here for financial gain, our punishment should address that financial gain--and take a sizeable portion of it away. After paying the fine, the immigrant would be able to become a citizen (if they haven't been embittered by the experience, deciding to flee back home.) We should acknowledge that while the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not violent criminals or terrorists, they are still breaking the law by hopping the border. Nobody should be above the law, even if you want to play the race-card against the law.
The fact that these illegals would be allowed to stay is an acknowledgement that our borders are not secure. Perhaps "catch and release" would work if this wasn't the case, and we actually had a strong border force to deter illegal immigrants.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Dire Times in Anbar
A classified US Army report describes the situation in Iraq's Anbar province as "dire," according to a report by MSNBC this past week. While Anbar should not be seen as a microcosm of Iraq as a whole, it is still an admission that things in Iraq are not going well.
To put Anbar into perspective, it accounts for over 25% of Iraq's land area. But it's also sparsely populated compared to the other areas. For decades, perhaps centuries, Anbar has been dominated by the terrible three: Sunni radicalism, tribalism, and criminal elements which draw their power from extensive smuggling. During Saddam Huseein's tenure, his grip on Anbar would be described as tenuous at best. Any semblance of order was maintained by buying off tribal leaders and killing off the ones who couldn't be bought. Because Iraqi oil shipments were being regulated by the UN, Anbar's role in smuggling magnified with shipments of black-market oil to Syria and Turkey. Perscription drugs and other humanitarian items that were supplied by UN aid agencies for the Iraqi people were smuggled across Anbar and sold on the Jordanian black market.
In light of Anbar's history, our expectations for that province shouldn't be too high. The report supposedly laments the lack of Iraqi governance in the province's towns, the inability of the US military to project its presence beyond its bases in Anbar, and the lack of any real political progress. While the US had tried negotiating with tribal leaders in Ramadi back in December, those efforts seem to have largely collapsed.
What is to be done about Anbar? First, the Iraqi government should be fully engaged with the province's tribal leaders, trying to forge political settlements that America cannot make. Second, the US needs tougher tactics in beefing up the province's pourous borders, which allow for smuggling and an influx of foreign jihadis. Princess Di be damned, the situation will require shitloads of landmines to seal off the border. Finally, the Iraqi Army must be unleashed against groups that will not accept a political settlement.
The fear is that fighting between the Shiite-dominated army and Sunnis in Anbar will lead to civil war. If the majority Shiites can unify against the Sunni rebels, such a civil war would be a costly prospect for the Sunnis. In any event, as long as Iraq remains an uneasy conglomeration of Kurds, Sunnis & Shiites, violent coercion of one sect by another will always be a way of life.
To put Anbar into perspective, it accounts for over 25% of Iraq's land area. But it's also sparsely populated compared to the other areas. For decades, perhaps centuries, Anbar has been dominated by the terrible three: Sunni radicalism, tribalism, and criminal elements which draw their power from extensive smuggling. During Saddam Huseein's tenure, his grip on Anbar would be described as tenuous at best. Any semblance of order was maintained by buying off tribal leaders and killing off the ones who couldn't be bought. Because Iraqi oil shipments were being regulated by the UN, Anbar's role in smuggling magnified with shipments of black-market oil to Syria and Turkey. Perscription drugs and other humanitarian items that were supplied by UN aid agencies for the Iraqi people were smuggled across Anbar and sold on the Jordanian black market.
In light of Anbar's history, our expectations for that province shouldn't be too high. The report supposedly laments the lack of Iraqi governance in the province's towns, the inability of the US military to project its presence beyond its bases in Anbar, and the lack of any real political progress. While the US had tried negotiating with tribal leaders in Ramadi back in December, those efforts seem to have largely collapsed.
What is to be done about Anbar? First, the Iraqi government should be fully engaged with the province's tribal leaders, trying to forge political settlements that America cannot make. Second, the US needs tougher tactics in beefing up the province's pourous borders, which allow for smuggling and an influx of foreign jihadis. Princess Di be damned, the situation will require shitloads of landmines to seal off the border. Finally, the Iraqi Army must be unleashed against groups that will not accept a political settlement.
The fear is that fighting between the Shiite-dominated army and Sunnis in Anbar will lead to civil war. If the majority Shiites can unify against the Sunni rebels, such a civil war would be a costly prospect for the Sunnis. In any event, as long as Iraq remains an uneasy conglomeration of Kurds, Sunnis & Shiites, violent coercion of one sect by another will always be a way of life.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice For All
Close your eyes
Let it all turn to dust
No cold, crisp morning breeze
No family to come home to
No way to escape
Powerless and helpless
As you fall among the rapids in the river of tears
Close your eyes again
Stare into the void
No freedom to say what you believe
No education or privilege
No way to find The Light
Powerless and Helpless
If you take a swim in the river of blood
Open your eyes again
Absorb the day The Lord has given us
Revel in the freedom of the moment
Honor the sacrifices of the family of heroes
Who helped so many escape
Empower us and help us
So the living waters of freedom may flow eternally
In memory of those who perished on 11 September 2001
We will never forget
We will never relent
We will never allow the darkness to extinguish the light of freedom
Let it all turn to dust
No cold, crisp morning breeze
No family to come home to
No way to escape
Powerless and helpless
As you fall among the rapids in the river of tears
Close your eyes again
Stare into the void
No freedom to say what you believe
No education or privilege
No way to find The Light
Powerless and Helpless
If you take a swim in the river of blood
Open your eyes again
Absorb the day The Lord has given us
Revel in the freedom of the moment
Honor the sacrifices of the family of heroes
Who helped so many escape
Empower us and help us
So the living waters of freedom may flow eternally
In memory of those who perished on 11 September 2001
We will never forget
We will never relent
We will never allow the darkness to extinguish the light of freedom
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Berger Burn
Three years ago, Republicans were up in arms over a CBS movie which cast President Reagan in a very negative way. Today the pendulum has swung in the other direction, as Democrats try to disembowel or cancel outright an ABC movie, The Path to 9/11, which takes a negative view of Bill Clinton's anti-terror efforts.
In fairness to the Clintonistas, the movie takes liberties with some of the facts, including a fictionalized mission against Osama that is aborted by the White House. Then again, there are plenty of factual areas that the movie could use to illustrate times when the Clinton White House dropped the ball in a major way on terrorism. There was the 1996 Sudanese offer to extradite Osama bin Laden (which, in fairness to the Clintons, may not have been a serious offer,) the 1993-4 withdrawal from Somalia which emboldened Osama and friends, the ineffective airstrikes following the African embassy bombings, Richard Clark's admission that "we got lucky" during the millennium bomb plot, and, most embarassing of all, Bill Clinton's failure to retaliate for the USS Cole, less than a month before election night (hmm... no conflict of interest there...)
At the heart of the Clinton anti-terror policies was the indecisiveness of the National Security Council in determining the fate of Osama bin Laden. The Clintonistas wanted to take bin Laden alive and make him face an American court, rather than a simpler military strike which would have sent him on a one-way trip to Allah and 72 virgins. At the heart of this decision, and the heart of the complaints about the movie, is former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.
By this point, it should be clear that Sandy Berger is a detestable and dishonest excuse for a human who deserves absolutely zero respect. His attempts to steal and destroy classified documents which would have ruined his reputation before the 9/11 Commission (flawed as the commission was) reveal him as the shifty and selfish louse that he is.
I expect The Path to 9/11 to be tough on the Bush Administration too. Then again, the Bushies had less than eight months to unravel a plot that had been well underway since December 1999 (or even 1995, if Operation Bojinka is included.) In order to be a good movie, the Bushies and the Clintonistas should both be held accountable. Unfortunately, what we're seeing is a legacy-obsessed group of Clintonistas (including Slick Willy himself) using strong-arm tactics to preserve a myth of peace and prosperity that they spent eight years cultivating.
In fairness to the Clintonistas, the movie takes liberties with some of the facts, including a fictionalized mission against Osama that is aborted by the White House. Then again, there are plenty of factual areas that the movie could use to illustrate times when the Clinton White House dropped the ball in a major way on terrorism. There was the 1996 Sudanese offer to extradite Osama bin Laden (which, in fairness to the Clintons, may not have been a serious offer,) the 1993-4 withdrawal from Somalia which emboldened Osama and friends, the ineffective airstrikes following the African embassy bombings, Richard Clark's admission that "we got lucky" during the millennium bomb plot, and, most embarassing of all, Bill Clinton's failure to retaliate for the USS Cole, less than a month before election night (hmm... no conflict of interest there...)
At the heart of the Clinton anti-terror policies was the indecisiveness of the National Security Council in determining the fate of Osama bin Laden. The Clintonistas wanted to take bin Laden alive and make him face an American court, rather than a simpler military strike which would have sent him on a one-way trip to Allah and 72 virgins. At the heart of this decision, and the heart of the complaints about the movie, is former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.
By this point, it should be clear that Sandy Berger is a detestable and dishonest excuse for a human who deserves absolutely zero respect. His attempts to steal and destroy classified documents which would have ruined his reputation before the 9/11 Commission (flawed as the commission was) reveal him as the shifty and selfish louse that he is.
I expect The Path to 9/11 to be tough on the Bush Administration too. Then again, the Bushies had less than eight months to unravel a plot that had been well underway since December 1999 (or even 1995, if Operation Bojinka is included.) In order to be a good movie, the Bushies and the Clintonistas should both be held accountable. Unfortunately, what we're seeing is a legacy-obsessed group of Clintonistas (including Slick Willy himself) using strong-arm tactics to preserve a myth of peace and prosperity that they spent eight years cultivating.
Intellectual Terrorism
Nearly five years ago from today, over 3000 Americans were killed in a wave of unfathomable terrorism. Yet, in spite of these events that unfolded in front of our very eyes, there exists a form of intellectual terrorism which distracts us from focusing on the wicked foes behind the 11 September attacks. That terrorism comes from the insidious belief that the US or Israeli governments, and not Islamic extremists, were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and AA Flight 93.
I can understand why much of the Islamic world believes in these conspiracy theories, because the Arab-Islamic culture has been held back for decades by a culture of denial. I can understand why Frenchmen like Thierry Meyssan believe these crackpot theories, because the French hate America just as much as America hates France. I can even understand some Hollywood douchebag like Charlie Sheen falling prey to conspiracy theories, because Charlie Sheen has snorted enough cocaine to kill ten men, and lived to tell the tale.
Nevertheless, many people are surprised when high-profile intellectuals like Dr. Steven Jones of Brigham Young University are being placed on paid leave for espousing their quackery. Then again, we shouldn't be surprised about Dr. Jones. After all, he believes in other idiotic ideas like cold fusion and Mormonism. Nevertheless, Jones believes that science makes his conspiracy theory a conspiracy fact.
As a sophomore engineering student, I was part of a team preparing a report entitled "Why the Towers Fell." The class's assignment was to watch the documentary Why The Towers Fell (produced by NOVA, which is the greatest show in PBS history) and to write a report validating the video's conclusions. The thrust of the video is that the combination of jet fuel and office products started an intense fire, which weakened the structure of the towers. Having already been weakened by the initial impacts, the towers could no longer support their own weight as floor after floor collapsed (especially in Tower #2, the first to collapse.) It should also be noted that the towers were not built as grids, but with floor trusses connecting an inner ring of support columns to an outer ring of columns. With many outer columns destroyed, the weight of the floors above the impact site shifts to the center columns. In Tower #1, the jet penetrated directly to the center, where the fire led to a collapse of the central columns.
As part of our research, we were able to look up the material properties of structural steel at different temperatures, determine the factors of safety in the design, and look at the cross sections of the floor trusses. While we had to make plenty of calculations, we made a convincing case that both floor truss failure and column buckling would occur under the heat of the fire and the added stress of losing structural members in the initial impact.
Steven Jones argues that jet fuel can't get hot enough to melt steel, and that traces of thermite were found in the towers' remains. He may be right on both counts, but that doesn't make his case for conspiracy. I never said that the steel melted; steel, like every material known to man, changes its material properties as temperature changes. The steel need not melt in order to fail. It just needs to reach a temperature where the ultimate stress equals the stress the steel member is being subjected to. While we had to take the NOVA video at its word on the temperature of the fire, this can be determined professionally by looking at the grain structure of the steel. It should also be noted that the fire was fueled with the material inside the towers (including mounds of paper and office furniture) in addition to the jet fuel, which boosts the maximum temperature that the steel experienced. As for the thermite, I have no way of determining whether it was really present or just a false positive; yet there can be perfectly benign explanations for it. After all, explosive residue was also found in the wreckage of TWA Flight 800, but the most likely cause for the accident was a fuel tank explosion due to frayed wiring.
It's hard to say why smart people can be drawn into believing in such quackery. For some people, there is an unstoppable urge to believe in Roswell Aliens, JFK assassins, missiles firing at TWA Flight 800, or even an "inside job" on 11 September. Such beliefs are born in an irrational faith rather than logic. They strengthen in spite of evidence rather than because of evidence. If terrorists defeat America, the defeat of the common-sense rationality and scientific curiosity in America will have been the terrorists' greatest success.
I can understand why much of the Islamic world believes in these conspiracy theories, because the Arab-Islamic culture has been held back for decades by a culture of denial. I can understand why Frenchmen like Thierry Meyssan believe these crackpot theories, because the French hate America just as much as America hates France. I can even understand some Hollywood douchebag like Charlie Sheen falling prey to conspiracy theories, because Charlie Sheen has snorted enough cocaine to kill ten men, and lived to tell the tale.
Nevertheless, many people are surprised when high-profile intellectuals like Dr. Steven Jones of Brigham Young University are being placed on paid leave for espousing their quackery. Then again, we shouldn't be surprised about Dr. Jones. After all, he believes in other idiotic ideas like cold fusion and Mormonism. Nevertheless, Jones believes that science makes his conspiracy theory a conspiracy fact.
As a sophomore engineering student, I was part of a team preparing a report entitled "Why the Towers Fell." The class's assignment was to watch the documentary Why The Towers Fell (produced by NOVA, which is the greatest show in PBS history) and to write a report validating the video's conclusions. The thrust of the video is that the combination of jet fuel and office products started an intense fire, which weakened the structure of the towers. Having already been weakened by the initial impacts, the towers could no longer support their own weight as floor after floor collapsed (especially in Tower #2, the first to collapse.) It should also be noted that the towers were not built as grids, but with floor trusses connecting an inner ring of support columns to an outer ring of columns. With many outer columns destroyed, the weight of the floors above the impact site shifts to the center columns. In Tower #1, the jet penetrated directly to the center, where the fire led to a collapse of the central columns.
As part of our research, we were able to look up the material properties of structural steel at different temperatures, determine the factors of safety in the design, and look at the cross sections of the floor trusses. While we had to make plenty of calculations, we made a convincing case that both floor truss failure and column buckling would occur under the heat of the fire and the added stress of losing structural members in the initial impact.
Steven Jones argues that jet fuel can't get hot enough to melt steel, and that traces of thermite were found in the towers' remains. He may be right on both counts, but that doesn't make his case for conspiracy. I never said that the steel melted; steel, like every material known to man, changes its material properties as temperature changes. The steel need not melt in order to fail. It just needs to reach a temperature where the ultimate stress equals the stress the steel member is being subjected to. While we had to take the NOVA video at its word on the temperature of the fire, this can be determined professionally by looking at the grain structure of the steel. It should also be noted that the fire was fueled with the material inside the towers (including mounds of paper and office furniture) in addition to the jet fuel, which boosts the maximum temperature that the steel experienced. As for the thermite, I have no way of determining whether it was really present or just a false positive; yet there can be perfectly benign explanations for it. After all, explosive residue was also found in the wreckage of TWA Flight 800, but the most likely cause for the accident was a fuel tank explosion due to frayed wiring.
It's hard to say why smart people can be drawn into believing in such quackery. For some people, there is an unstoppable urge to believe in Roswell Aliens, JFK assassins, missiles firing at TWA Flight 800, or even an "inside job" on 11 September. Such beliefs are born in an irrational faith rather than logic. They strengthen in spite of evidence rather than because of evidence. If terrorists defeat America, the defeat of the common-sense rationality and scientific curiosity in America will have been the terrorists' greatest success.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Iran's goals in Iraq
What role is Iran playing in the Iraqi insurgency as that country slowly disintegrates along sectarian lines? Advocates of a more hawkish Iran policy blame Iran for much of the sectarian violence. Still, there are others who are in complete denial about Iranian neddling in Iraq. Both views are simplistic and lack the nuance that guides any country's foreign policy.
Logically, what would be reasonable things the Iranians could want in Iraq? The basic need of any state is security, and that is what likely guides Iranian policy on Iraq. While Jack Murtha delusionally thinks that Iran wants the US to stay in Iraq (which admittedly gives Iran leverage over the US,) the pragmatists amongst the Iranian leadership must be fearful of the US potentially using Iraq as a base to launch a military operation against Iran. The Iranians have a lot of other things to fear, such as an anti-regime insurgency waged by The People's Mujahedeen from Iraqi soil. It must also fear an Iraqi government that is amenable to America's vision for the region, and a possible ripple effect across Iran if Iraq succeeds in creating a liberal democracy. Conversely, the Iranians should be very afraid that if Iraq descends into all-out civil war, it will spill over into Iran.
In the near term, Iran feels that removing the US from Iraq is the best course of action. To do so, Iran has sponsored Shiite death squads to create instability in hopes that the US will lose its nerve. Iran is probably banking on reeling these death squads in after the US leaves. If that's what Iran believes, the mullahs will be in for a shock. While Moqtada al Sadr (the most influential of the Shiite leaders at this point) is virulently anti-American, he is also an Arab nationalist who does not want to see Iraq dominated by Iran. His militia is happy to accept aide from Iran, but the Moqtada-Iran relationship is one of convenience that will invariably come to a violent ending.
As part of his election-year strategy advice to Republicans, Newt Gingrich believes that the war in Iraq should be recast as part of a larger battle against the more dangerous threat posed by Iran. This is a very tempting polemic, as our actions in Iraq certainly affect our dealings with Iran. Because of our military's commitments in Iraq and elsewhere, we cannot use a military option against Iran. At the same time, withdrawal from Iraq under unfavorable circumstances will embolden Iran. Nevertheless, I would prefer that Republicans liken Iraq to post-Soviet Afghanistan: if we leave now, we will fall into the cycle of civil war, followed by anarchy, followed by an Islamic state that supports terrorism against the US and its allies. The same could be said about Somalia now that the Islamic Courts Union is establishing its rule over much of that wartorn nation.
What course of action should the US take with regards to neutralizing Iran's influence over Iraq? I can offer a few suggestions:
1) Play up the ill will that exists between Arabs and Iranians. Unite secular Sunni and Shiite Arabs against the Iranians. Depict Moqtada al Sadr (who really should be public enemy #1 in Iraq) as an Iranian puppet, despite his claims to the contrary. Establish that sectarian violence helps Iran to dominate Iraq.
2) While the US cannot directly attack Iran, it can reciprocate Iran's support for insurgency. The US should use anti-regime forces in Iran like the People's Mujahedeen to slowly bleed the Revolutionary Guards. If Iran makes concessions (especially support for Iraqi insurgency,) the US can always sever its aid for the anti-Iranian insurgents. We would effectively be repeating the strategy that defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. The key difference is that we cannot support these insurgents too long, lest they grow too powerful and create a threat to regional stability.
Logically, what would be reasonable things the Iranians could want in Iraq? The basic need of any state is security, and that is what likely guides Iranian policy on Iraq. While Jack Murtha delusionally thinks that Iran wants the US to stay in Iraq (which admittedly gives Iran leverage over the US,) the pragmatists amongst the Iranian leadership must be fearful of the US potentially using Iraq as a base to launch a military operation against Iran. The Iranians have a lot of other things to fear, such as an anti-regime insurgency waged by The People's Mujahedeen from Iraqi soil. It must also fear an Iraqi government that is amenable to America's vision for the region, and a possible ripple effect across Iran if Iraq succeeds in creating a liberal democracy. Conversely, the Iranians should be very afraid that if Iraq descends into all-out civil war, it will spill over into Iran.
In the near term, Iran feels that removing the US from Iraq is the best course of action. To do so, Iran has sponsored Shiite death squads to create instability in hopes that the US will lose its nerve. Iran is probably banking on reeling these death squads in after the US leaves. If that's what Iran believes, the mullahs will be in for a shock. While Moqtada al Sadr (the most influential of the Shiite leaders at this point) is virulently anti-American, he is also an Arab nationalist who does not want to see Iraq dominated by Iran. His militia is happy to accept aide from Iran, but the Moqtada-Iran relationship is one of convenience that will invariably come to a violent ending.
As part of his election-year strategy advice to Republicans, Newt Gingrich believes that the war in Iraq should be recast as part of a larger battle against the more dangerous threat posed by Iran. This is a very tempting polemic, as our actions in Iraq certainly affect our dealings with Iran. Because of our military's commitments in Iraq and elsewhere, we cannot use a military option against Iran. At the same time, withdrawal from Iraq under unfavorable circumstances will embolden Iran. Nevertheless, I would prefer that Republicans liken Iraq to post-Soviet Afghanistan: if we leave now, we will fall into the cycle of civil war, followed by anarchy, followed by an Islamic state that supports terrorism against the US and its allies. The same could be said about Somalia now that the Islamic Courts Union is establishing its rule over much of that wartorn nation.
What course of action should the US take with regards to neutralizing Iran's influence over Iraq? I can offer a few suggestions:
1) Play up the ill will that exists between Arabs and Iranians. Unite secular Sunni and Shiite Arabs against the Iranians. Depict Moqtada al Sadr (who really should be public enemy #1 in Iraq) as an Iranian puppet, despite his claims to the contrary. Establish that sectarian violence helps Iran to dominate Iraq.
2) While the US cannot directly attack Iran, it can reciprocate Iran's support for insurgency. The US should use anti-regime forces in Iran like the People's Mujahedeen to slowly bleed the Revolutionary Guards. If Iran makes concessions (especially support for Iraqi insurgency,) the US can always sever its aid for the anti-Iranian insurgents. We would effectively be repeating the strategy that defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. The key difference is that we cannot support these insurgents too long, lest they grow too powerful and create a threat to regional stability.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Busting the dams
With the passing anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's strike on New Orleans, we have passed through another round of the Washington Blame Game. While partisans try to conjure up a hurricane of spin on the disaster, the hurricane's aftermath should be a cautionary tale about Big Government and self-reliance.
New Orleans, from a civil engineer's perspective, was a disaster waiting to happen. Surrounded by the Misssissippi River and Lake Ponchatrain and sitting below sea level, New Orleans relied for too long on a weak levee system that was supposedly designed to survive a Cat III hurricane (some estimates showed that New Orleans was only hit by Cat II winds, leaving the levees' specs greatly in doubt.)
Beyond the government support which kept a poorly-engineered city inhabited, New Orleans was run as a welfare state that depended heavily on the city, state and federal governments. The result was a city that largely refused to evacuate until the Mayor's orders (less than 24 hours in advance,) didn't have adequate means of transportation from the city (because the Mayor didn't mobilize the city buses,) and was forced into public venues that had no power and no adequate sanitation after the storm hit. Without the government they relied on, some residents of New Orleans treated the hurricane-ravaged city as a lawless anarchy, punctuated by looting and armed, roving gangs.
Hurricane Katrina's effects on New Orleans can only be viewed as a failure of government on all levels: city, state and federal. The messsage to the common citizen is to live life with a strong degree of skepticism regarding the government's abilities to improve our lives. It is far easier for governments to destroy people than it is to help them. The only way we can get ahead is through self-reliance. If the government's performance last August and September is any indication, I'd rather take my chances relaying on myself than on the bureaucracy.
New Orleans, from a civil engineer's perspective, was a disaster waiting to happen. Surrounded by the Misssissippi River and Lake Ponchatrain and sitting below sea level, New Orleans relied for too long on a weak levee system that was supposedly designed to survive a Cat III hurricane (some estimates showed that New Orleans was only hit by Cat II winds, leaving the levees' specs greatly in doubt.)
Beyond the government support which kept a poorly-engineered city inhabited, New Orleans was run as a welfare state that depended heavily on the city, state and federal governments. The result was a city that largely refused to evacuate until the Mayor's orders (less than 24 hours in advance,) didn't have adequate means of transportation from the city (because the Mayor didn't mobilize the city buses,) and was forced into public venues that had no power and no adequate sanitation after the storm hit. Without the government they relied on, some residents of New Orleans treated the hurricane-ravaged city as a lawless anarchy, punctuated by looting and armed, roving gangs.
Hurricane Katrina's effects on New Orleans can only be viewed as a failure of government on all levels: city, state and federal. The messsage to the common citizen is to live life with a strong degree of skepticism regarding the government's abilities to improve our lives. It is far easier for governments to destroy people than it is to help them. The only way we can get ahead is through self-reliance. If the government's performance last August and September is any indication, I'd rather take my chances relaying on myself than on the bureaucracy.
