They Still Just Don't Get It

Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law enforcement, David Johnson, briefed the media on a new report in which the Deep Thinkers of Foggy Bottom came to the (totally unshocking) conclusion that the international drug trade particularly those portions involving Afghanistan or Mexico "threaten American national security." The tone of Mr Johnson's remarks had the glib somberness of a well practiced funeral director.

Let's get a grip here.

The opium and morphine base production in Afghanistan does represent a direct threat to US personnel in that particular geographic expression by providing the finances necessary for the Taliban to keep on keeping on. Less money from the drug trade would automatically and instantly translate into a lessened Taliban military capability.

The same can not and should not be said regarding Mexico. The Geek has become quite annoyed by the Cassandra claims that Mexico is a "failing state" caught in the throes of an emergent insurgency powered by "drug lords." The immediate, direct implication of these dire predictions of impending dissolution to the south are not only overdrawn by a couple of orders of magnitude, they injure relations with Mexico by offending the very real sensitivities of a government and elite facing very real problems.

The Geek lives close enough to the border to almost hear the gunfire in Cuidad Juarez. Not surprisingly he keeps a close eye on matters down there.

Violence, particularly in and around Juarez is higher this year than last. Life in Juraez is more at risk than in Baghdad--or even Kabul. That does not mean Mexico is imploding, or, if it does do so some day, that it will be at the hands of drug cartels.

Mexican involvement in meeting the desires of American consumers for mind and mood altering drugs is not a national security threat. Get a grip on that. It may be a major problem for the Mexican government, but it is not a looming threat to our security. Any threats come instead from underlying, systemic problems in the Mexican economy and society. These will continue whether or not the drug thugs keep on pumping lead into each other--and any interfering cop.

Mr Johnson also excoriated countries which are not collaborating with the US in its oft-declared "war on drugs." He took particular note of Venezuela as a major non-participant in the American moral crusade against the individual's right to alter his own state of mind and mood without a physician's authorization. Golly, gee, Mr Johnson, who would have thunk?

Hugo Chavez and his neo-Castroite regime are both unpleasant and potentially threatening to American strategic interests and even (because of the Iranian and Hezbollah connections) our national security. Hugo's annoying attitude and the actions it drives are not connected directly and materially to his lack of support for our anti-drug crusade.

To define or defend American national security interests in terms of what country does or does not soldier faithfully in the "war on drugs" first declared forty years ago by Richard Nixon is simply to show a disconnect between a moral and political stance on one hand and the realities of national security and strategic interests on the other. Mr Johnson and any other worthies in the State Department who actually think that drugs qua drugs are a threat to our national security anywhere except Afghanistan are simply out to lunch.

Anyway there is a rapid, sovereign means to protect our national security against the threat allegedly posed by illegal drugs. Legalise them.

Declare the truth. Declare that the "war on drugs" has been well and truly lost. Drugs of all sorts are more plentiful and at a lower cost in constant dollars today than they were when King Richard announced the Grand Crusade Against Getting High.

It is time for the State Department Deep Thinkers (and, of course, their colleagues in other departments) to recall a little bit of American history. Back before the combination of racism, xenophobia, junk science, fear mongering and rank ambition propelled the Harrison Act and its expansion back in the distant days of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, drugs were widely available, and rather commonly used. At the time as well as in retrospective analysis of the (admittedly sketchy) data, there were no crime waves predicated on drugs. There were any number of very successful professional and business people who had cocaine and morphine habits which extended for decades.

We have ample laws covering "natural" crimes to protect society against offenders who might also be drug users. We have more than enough information to counsel against use while acknowledging the short- and long-term use of many, if not most, currently illegal drugs carries no profound ill-effects. (Recently the British publication New Scientist had a fine piece comparing the impact of Ecstasy with peanuts--peanuts came out in second place particularly for acute reactions.)

The time has come to drop the cant about "sending the wrong message to our children" or the bogus scare numbers concerning the terrible effects of drugs on the artifact of self-interest called "lost productivity."

The war on drugs is ongoing but long lost.

Have the guts to admit it.

Mr Johnson, if you are right, if the international drug trade is threatening our national security, your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution requires you to state the truth--legalising drugs protects the US.

Mr President--Yellow Ain't Your Best Color

The Obama Administration has withdrawn US participation in the planning process leading to Durban II. The US will not, in all probability, be represented at what is widely dubbed the "Hatefest."

There is absolutely no doubt that the vile clique with Iran at the position of drum major has prepared a draft Outcome Document which is a reprise of the vitriol directed at Israel which characterised Durban I. There is likewise no doubt that the repressive men from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and their fellow travelers are further degrading Durban II with their all-out assault on free expression under the (transparent) cover of protecting religion (read Islam) from "insult" (whatever that might mean.)

These brute facts are no excuse to leave the process, to boycott Durban II.

These brute facts compel the opposite. The US and like minded countries must stay in the fight.

To surrender the field to Iran and Company is utterly, totally, completely wrong. It is utterly, totally and completely counterproductive.

True, the highest probability is that Durban II will be a conclave of antisemitism with or without our presence. This international band of Islamist Klansmen will, with the support of other, non-Islamic governments, seek a global gag order on assorted forms of free expression.

No doubt. Whether we are there or not the bad guys will outvote the good ones.

So what?

It isn't all about votes and resolutions. It is not about who carries the plenary sessions.

If not that sort of thing, what's it all about?

Glad you asked. Durban II including every dreary planning session, every miserable quibble over the Outcome Document, is really about ideals, values, rights. It's all about who stands for what. And, mark this, who stands against what.

It's all about the fight. It's all about the "Bully Pulpit" provided by the conference and the run-up to it.

It's all about letting the people of the world know clearly and unequivocally what the United States stands for. And, who stands with us.

And, mark this, who stands in opposition.

It is the opportunity for clear words, strongly stated, to capture the attention of people around the globe. It is the opportunity for diplomatic hissy-fits to demand the full view and coverage of the media both old and new.

Whether the Obama Administration and We the People want it or not, we are in a war of ideas and ideals, of values and worldviews. Whether the Obama Administration and We the People want it, like it, or not, the current battle like those which have gone before it, will have a profound and durable effect on the course of humanity.

Durban II is a skirmish in the war. It pits (or will do so if the Obama Administration exhibits both courage and realism) two clear cut visions of the future against one another.

On the one side resides fear of change expressed as repression and reaction. On the other resides hope for the future and openness to change expressed in the willingness to see ideas clash and people differ for the sake of a better tomorrow,

On one side at Durban II is the belief that tomorrow must be like a long ago yesterday in the Arabian desert. The other side is the side which acknowledges that tomorrow will be different from today, and, hopefully better by far than any yesterday.

It is to our detriment that our side--the side of freedom, opportunity, openness, a willingness, even an eagerness to see and work for a better future--simply resigns before the skirmish even gets underway.

There is no benefit in forfeiting a skirmish, a battle, a war.

There is only loss.

We have to go into the ring. Throw the diplomatic hissy-fits. Give no ground. Confront loudly, boldly. Capture the attention of the world with drama. With truth. Let the world see up close and personal just what the opposition is all about. Call them down on their rigid, fear driven intolerance. Demonstrate the opposition's commitment to a long dead past, its love of repression, its will to kill ideas that differ from their particular party line.

Do it with the intent of allowing and encouraging the people of the world to choose sides. Think of it as being akin to the real impact of the Marshall Plan--a mechanism for self-selection of side.

If we do this rather than withdraw in a finger pointing huff we will benefit.

But, and get a grip on this, we will not be the only beneficiaries of a good, loud fight at Durban II.

The other beneficiaries, you ask?

The minorities within Islamic countries such as Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan and dozens of others who do not want to live under backward looking Islamic (let alone Islamist) regimes. The minorities who do not want to live under Sharia and the dictates of those "clerics" who interpret it.

These people do not fear the future. To err on the side of accuracy, they do not fear change.

"Wait one, Geek! How does that scan? I'm missing something."

When the in-depth studies done in Islamic countries examining such core matters as the preference for living under a full-strength Sharia regime are closely parsed as to motivation, the answer becomes clear. People in countries as disparate as Indonesia and Jordan, Egypt and Azerbaijan say they want Sharia for three basic reasons.

The first reason is "preservation of traditional morals." The second is "to prevent adultery." The third is "to regulate women's dress and behavior."

Here's the point: Historically, people, including those in the US, when confronted by rapid and seemingly incomprehensible change, react by seeking to control the behavior of women. This desperate gambit is an attempt by men to keep at least one solid pillar in the storms of change.

"Huh?"

Yep, bucko, American history, particularly during the periods of intense and rapid change such as those occurring during the urbanization of the post-Civil War decades, the aftermath of the two World Wars, and the Sixties show a reactionary thrust against the behavior (particularly in public) and words of women. In our own society there were repeated calls for a sort of American Sharia.

Check it out for yourself. The information is all there and you don't need a PhD to connect the dots.

(Note for the feminists our there: This male orientation to reaction is not a simple matter of sexual politics and the presumed need of pale penis people for control and domination. Rather it grows from the simple, biologically determined evolutionary reality that men have to be inherently conservative to survive in hostile environments doing risky things. The same forces assure that women are far more open to change, even eagerly seeking it. Think of it this way: Men are lakes. Women are rivers.)

The people in the Muslim dominated societies who do not desire industrial strength Sharia need to know they are not alone. They need to know that there is strong support for their position. They need to know that the US and other countries (in one of those current buzz phrases the Geek detests) "are there for them."

Ethics and realpolitik both dictate that the US can no more leave these people in the ditch than it can or should toss its interests under the locomotive.

Backing out of Durban II including the planning process does just this. While taking this cowardly course may be easy and may very well satisfy some human rights and Jewish groups, it is tossing the game. And, Mr President, real men don't do this.

Mr Obama, you promised "hope" and "change." Durban II is a battlefield for both. Take off the white jacket with the yellow stripe on the back and put on a set of BDUs. The time to fight is now. The place to fight is Durban II.

Don't Be Pragmatic---Be Moral

Hillary Clinton has never been one of the Geek's favorite people. Ever since her behind-locked-doors health care reform debacle, the Geek has had nothing good to say about her. During the Clinton Administration the Geek had any number of crowd pleasing lines to offer about her (presumed) effects on that administration's pretense of a foreign policy.

The Geek greeted the announcement of her impending appointment as SecState with a mix of anticipatory guffaws and gleeful hand rubbing. He could hardly wait to start posting on her blunders in that office.

Intellectual honesty and a sense of the historical dynamics of foreign relations demands that the Geek put aside his prized antipathy for Ms Clinton. He has to say that her stance on the essentials of the Sino-American relationship is correct. It is bang on. It is thumbs--up.

SecState Clinton has taken a lot of heat from the High Minded. She has been trashed by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Beyond that the customary suspects from the red meat Republican Right have crispy-crittered her.

The sin?

As anyone who has not been living in a cave in the FATA this past week knows, SecState Clinton downplayed the abundant American objections to China's dismal record in the human rights department. She emphasised instead the necessity of both nations working on common problems. (The most important of these "common problems" is the necessity for China to keep on buying US Treasury instruments.)

To put it bluntly, the massive expenditures being undertaken by Congress and Administration demand equally prodigious foreign investment. China is a critical portion of that reality. Not only does China already hold a lot of our collective IOUs, we must persuade the lads in the Forbidden City to hold more.

Compared to that defining (and in the Geek's view, highly regrettable) reality, the degree to which China's government represses dissent, violates American concepts of privacy or fails to free Tibet is quite unimportant. Pragmatism in the national interest demands we all get a grip on that.

Unfortunately SecState Clinton's pragmatic stance has been further undercut by her own department. Specifically the release of the annual review of human rights performance by the governments of the world.

China was excoriated by the report, as is to be expected. China has never been noted as a towering monument to Western ideals regarding the rights, liberties and protections due the individual citizen. The nature and character of the government in Beijing is irrelevant. From the beginnings of China as a polity right on down from dynasty to dynasty to Nationalist China to the Peoples Republic of China, the individual has been unimportant compared to the interests of the state and the good of the collective.

The angry Chinese protests regarding the conclusions of the annual review are both justified and not inapposite. The Chinese government does not view human rights in the way that the US or other Western countries do. To Beijing the fundamental human rights are an absence of famine or hunger and the presence of employment. All else is either gravy or a null referent.

Unfortunately the Chinese are addicted to overblown rhetoric and insulting terminology, which serves to obscure the underlying realities. It has been a long time since millions of Chinese have starved to death as a result of government policy. It has been a relatively long time since tens of thousands of Chinese have died in government sponsored internal fighting.

From the perspective of Beijing these are laudable accomplishments. The Geek agrees. Under Mao, China plumbed the most abysmal depths of governmental depravity signified by the Great Famines of the Great Leap Forward and the Yangtze of blood which was the Cultural Revolution.

It has been two decades since the tanks rolled over the pro-democracy demonstrators. Even back then at the launch of today's China, the government moved with historically remarkable restraint, unleashing the peasant soldiers only after numerous warnings and indications of government resolve to end the occupation went unheeded.

This does not mean that China is or will become a paragon of human rights. It means simply that the Chinese government is correct when it avers its human rights performance has improved.

The High Minded, those who are perpetually Indignant and Concerned, will never be satisfied with China. The nature of Chinese culture, society and defining worldview will not mesh comfortably even in the long-term with the most sensitive of American feelings.

That does not matter.

What matters is that the national interests of the United States requires a reasonably positive relationship with China. The economic prong of that fact has already been mentioned. But our need goes far beyond fiscal underwriting.

The US needs Chinese collaboration on a wide array of vexing and critical interests.

For those who worry about such things, there is the question of anthropogenic climate change and what might be done to address it.

On a more pressing (and reality laden) nature are the problems of nuclear proliferation in both North Korea and Iran. China is a central player. Without the full cooperation of China the sanctions against Iran whether those in place or those being discussed by the European Three will not prove effective. Without the full cooperation of China there is no possibility that North Korea will prove more willing to end its ambitions than it has been to date. (Remember, North Korea owes its existence today to the hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops who died there over a half century ago.)

As George Cluny and others who worry about Darfur ought to know as they press the Obama Administration to "seize the moment," China has massive potential leverage on Sudan but so far has been unwilling to use it. Elsewhere in Africa, a continent which may see extreme governmental fragility and social unrest as the global depression deepens and lengthens, China also has both interests and the influence which goes with it.

Then there is the UN. The UN Security Council to be specific. China can make or break an American supported resolution. The same may be said of other UN fora including the General Assembly and the assorted Councils and Commissions.

The pragmatic pursuit of national interest demands we dirty the hem of our moral skirts with the mud of Chinese indifference to the finer points of US defined human rights. Yes, this means that dissidents will be stifled--a prospect which the Geek regards with revulsion--Tibet will not go "free," the police and security forces will engage in extra-judicial punishment, torture will be practiced, privacy invaded and the organs of convicts harvested to the benefit of some wealthy person from some country far from China.

None of these prospects and others unmentioned are pleasant to contemplate. But, even less pleasant to consider is what might happen absent a pragmatically sanctioned working relationship between ourselves and the Chinese.

"Jews Infect Food With Cancer"

That's the view of a Muslim cleric preaching on al-Nas TV a little less than a month ago. The Egyptian cleric, Ahmad Abd Al-Salam, went on with similar antisemitic vitriol in order to prove his point.

His point?

"The Jews are never remiss – they invest their utmost efforts, day and night, in conspiring how to corrupt the Islamic nation, the nation led by the Prophet Muhammad. " He concluded by remarking, "This is why we hate them." ( http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2035.htm)

The Mideast Media Research Institute's Anti-Semitism Documentation Project archives are laden with similar clips from Muslim clerics and political figures from across the Mideast. Taken in total these outbursts of hatred constitute the richest, most frightening exhibition of hate-mongering and violence-promoting statements extant today.

These religiously based sermonettes and akin statements have the net effect--whether intended or not--of promoting violence against Jews generally. They are a blot upon the human race. And, they go by unchallenged and unremarked by the mainstream media of the world.

These hate filled incitements to violence certainly are not challenged by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Oh, no, no way! The OIC is too sensitive to the presumed existence of a phantom. A phantom the OIC wants to battle relentlessly.

Unlike the "Jewphobia" which is present somewhere on television or in print throughout the Muslim states every day of every month, the OIC chooses to fight the figment of its collective imagination--something it calls "Islamophobia."

The OIC has become so afrighted of the lurching golem, Islamophobia, that it is robustly promoting a UN effort to ban free speech. It seems that the OIC has defined its mythical beastie as consisting of any--even truthful--exposure of the links between the religion of Islam and acts of violence or terror. The OIC wants absolutely no criticism nor commentary (unless laudatory) of Islam.

No mention of "honor killings," no whisper of stoning women and other forms of gender specific torture, no allusions to suicide bombers yelling, "Allahu Akbar" as they push the clicker and exterminate men, women and children.

Certainly, the ever-so-sensitive men of the OIC want no quoting of the Quran or Hadith--or at least those parts which justify and approve of killing, enslaving or otherwise degrading the infidels which comprise the majority of the human race. And, no mentioning of jihad as the waging of holy war--lest some Muslim, somewhere, somehow be disquieted.

A bigger bunch of flat-out hypocrites is impossible to imagine.

Where is the OIC on the issue of religious defamation when it comes to the billingsgate of Muslim preachers? Where is this bloc of sensitive and concerned humanitarians when it comes to Muslim clerics and political leaders urging or inciting hatred, violence, murder directed against the Jews and other despised infidels?

Or to put it bluntly: How many members of the OIC were among the forty nations whose representatives composed the London Declaration Against Antisemitism? This document is new, so new that only one national leader, Gordon Brown, has signed it. Perhaps it is so new that the OIC's you-infidels-must-stop-talking-about-us noise machine hasn't been silent long enough to hear of it.

The London Declaration calls upon signatory states to confront and challenge antisemitic statements. Further, it calls upon them to live up to previously agreed obligations to combat antisemitism. That's all. No denial of the right of haters to spew poison against Jews. Just the duty to confront, challenge and combat with more speech--better speech, true speech.

How many OIC member states are willing to both sign and abide by the provisions of the London Declaration? How many of the OIC governments are willing to confront or challenge, let alone combat, antisemitic outbursts?

To zero in on one recent cry for holy war against the Jews, let's go to the videotape. Again it's from MEMRI. (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2033.htm) The preacher is one more Egyptian cleric, Zaghloul Al-Naggar. He's on al-Rahma TV. His message last January 6th was simple and blunt.

"Let me be clear. Jihad is the only way to resolve this issue. With the Jews, one cannot achieve anything by means of peace, or a settlement, or open borders, or diplomatic and commercial ties. They are devils in human form."

The one way to deal with the Jews to which the cleric refers?

The interviewer asked, "So, are you calling to wage jihad?"

The cleric answers, "Absolutely."

When the OIC can find the moral and intellectual courage to challenge this sort of blatant appeal to violence, to war, to jihad, then and only then will it deserve any polite hearing before the UN or the UN's Human Rights Commission (or Council, whatever they are calling that groups of fools, hypocrites and Islamist apologists today.)

Only when the member states of the OIC step up and both sign and abide by the London Declaration will the group and its constituents have the ethical and political foundation to make demands (or even mildly worded requests) of the civilized states of the world. Until such day as the Islamic states can behave with civility toward those states and peoples of differing religious views can they make any claim of their own.

The Obama Administration has the opportunity to draw a bright and shining line with the OIC as well as any and all who wring their hands over the phantom of "Islamophobia." Not only must the US sign the London Declaration without delay. It must go further.

The Obama Adminstration must use both the planning process for Durban II and it must use Durban II itself as the forum to challenge, confront and combat the OIC and its partners in crime not only on blatant, violence provoking and justifying antisemitism but on the move to ban criticism or comment on Islam itself.

Not only does the truth set one free. The truth is an absolute defense. It is the leakproof defense against the Islamist assault on the rest of the world.

It is the sovereign remedy to the hate and bile of the Islamists and their armed expression, jihadism.

It is the first, best weapon to assure that our values and core beliefs are not sacrificed to the idols of hyper-sensitivity, political correctness and fear of Islamist violence.

The Obama Administration must use it or there is no hope--only change, for the worse.

Factional Strife--It's All The Rage

Although the body count may reach astronomical proportions and an all-too-high percentage of that may be comprised of bystanders of varying degrees of innocence having the bad luck to be caught in the crossfire, there is nothing quite so gratifying as seeing forces hostile to US interests turn their guns and mouths against each other. Wherever this happens it is in US tactical and even strategic interests to facilitate and encourage the process.

The technical term for this is organisational disruption. It is not nice. It is not tidy. It sure as hell ain't bloodless. But organisational disruption has one prime attraction--it works.

An outside entity such as the US cannot create intra-organisational conflict. Rarely can an outsider even foster rivalry between more or less aligned enemy entities. The disruptive rhetoric and inevitable violence must arise from reasons organic to the organisation(s).

The outsider can do something when internecine conflict emerges from the shadows of men's minds. The outsider can assure the messages of rivalry and conflict are disseminated and magnified. The outsider can do all in its power to assure that none intervene to stop the violence, end the hatred and restore good feelings among the survivors.

In Somalia there is violent conflict between two forms of Islamist ideology. The "moderates" of Sunni and Sufi orientation have or are aligning behind one time "extremist" Sheik Ahmed who is the geographic expression's new president. Opposing Ahmed and the others is the al-Shabab "extremist" militia.

Al-Shabab has made it clear that it will not stop shooting unless and until the African Union "peacekeepers" are withdrawn and a pure Sharia government installed. Al-Shabab, while not having done so with the issuing of a fatwa, apparently now considers its onetime chieftain, Sheik Ahmed, to have turned apostate.

Regrettably most of those killed in the recent recrudescence of violence have been bystanders. Even though this is the case--and will continue to be such--the uptick in intra-Islamist violence is an encouraging sign.

If no well-intentioned High Minded outsider interferes the internecine killing spells the last best hope for the Somalis to finally re-establish peace and some form of consensually accepted government after eighteen years of chaos. It is not without significance that the Sufis of Somalia, a not inconsiderable group, have stated a willingness to support Ahmed against al-Shabab. It is not without significance that Somali Sunni clans which have so far been less involved in actual fighting are now willing and ready to support Ahmed as having both a measure of existential legitimacy and the potential to restore peace without the use of outside "occupation" forces.

The significance of these switches from neutrality to active involvement lies in the reality that al-Shabab and its ilk will be opposed, gun for gun and bomb for bomb. Inevitably the body count will climb. Inevitably the High Minded will cry, "Humanitarian crisis!" and demand that the AU or the UN or even the US, "Do something!"

It is to be hoped that none of these, not the AU, not the UN, not the EU and certainly not the US (pace Susan Rice) will do anything more robust than the issuing of ritual statements deploring the violence and calling on all parties to stop the killing.

"Wait one, Geek! You are just too cold a dude. Think of all the innocent lives!"

But that is exactly what the Geek is doing.

It is difficult, not to say next to impossible, to impose peace from outside on a society which has degenerated into an ideologically driven bloodbath. Peace can only come from within the society. It can only raise its fragile head when and if the people of that society want it to.

Consider Iraq.

So far the body count in Iraq this year has run below that of Mexico. That's nineteen per day in the Republic to our south vice half that in "war torn" Iraq. The low level of killing in Iraq has occured despite the provincial elections and the annual Shia pilgrimage, which has attracted suicide bombers every year like a honey tree does bears.

Various experts attribute the outbreak of relative tranquility to various factors. There's the effect of the much maligned "surge" of the Bush Administration. Or, for those who prefer, the decision in Iran to limit support for its factions in Iraq. Others give the credit to the great improvement of the Iraqi national forces both military and police.

All of these played a role as did the growing political maturity of Maliki and others. There is a little noted but far more basic force at work in producing a peace-friendly environment in Iraq.

Increasingly over the past eighteen months, Iraqis, particularly young Iraqis, turned against both the endless round of killings, bombings, executions and the sectarian ideologues who drove them. Iraqis got sick, sore and tired of being afraid every minute of every day. They were not willing to continue to attempt to exist in an ocean of apprehension.

Young Iraqis wanted a life. They wanted a future. They wanted hope. Love. Peace.

Attendance at violence preaching mosques plummeted. Preachers of jihad, of extreme Islamism found only empty courtyards in front of them. Recruitment stalled. Jihadist groups factionated. Fell apart. Losses went unreplaced.

As the jihad lovers grew more desperate, resorting to such despicable and base recruitment efforts as rape to force the unwilling to don suicide vests, the Iraqi public turned increasingly to Maliki and his Peace and State Party as the recent elections demonstrated. The intolerant killers of Islamism were rejected last Valentine's day as young Iraqis openly flaunted the dictates of extreme Sharia.

Without people willing, ready, even eager to fight and die, the ideologues of sectarianism became powerless. Recent events in Iraq demonstrated that old Billy Sherman had a profound insight when he argued that people, any people, can be made so sick of war they repent of it.

Absent well-meant outside intervention the same road may--no, will--be traveled in Somalia. A generation of fear, of passion, of killing should be enough to assure that after one more exsanguinary effusion, the Somalis will recoil from war, from death, from fear. Even the Islamic fear inducing emphasis on hellfire can be outweighed by fatigue with fear in the here and now.

A lesser noticed development, a so far bloodless one, has received far less public notice, at least in the US, but has a far greater potential for facilitating US policy goals in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. A battle of polemics which started last year has escalated.

In case you've missed it, in November 2007 Sayyid Imam, an Egyptian cleric deeply involved in the creation of the organisations which ultimately gave rise to al-Qaeda, retracted from his earlier position. He is still an Islamist of the starkest sort. He still believes wholeheartedly in defensive jihad. But, he opposes al-Qaeda's theology of offensive jihad, particularly offensive jihad against the "far enemy" meaning the United States.

Sayyid Imam's first fusillade, Document of Right Guidance for Jihad Activity in Egypt and the World excoriated in general terms the way in which al-Qaeda (which was not specified in the document) had both undertaken and theologically justified offensive jihad. Aymin Al-Zawahiri returned fire with an elaborate justification for al-Qaeda's action which explicitly and forcefully rejected Imam's call for a jihadist ceasefire. The Egyptian medico also attacked Sayyid Imam as an agent of the US and Israel who had written his Document under Egyptian duress.

Now Sayyid Imam has fired a devastating counter-counterattack with a new book having the title Exposing the Exoneration. The word "exoneration" is in reference to the title of Zawahiri's polemic.

Imam tears into Zawahiri, bin Ladin, al-Qaeda and all others who seek to pursue and justify theologically offensive jihad in all its many forms. Imam uses two prongs of attack.

One is theological as is to be expected. He is an Islamist scholar and his rivals are Islamists and he is waging war for the hearts and minds of Islamists.

The second line of attack is surprising. It is not theological. It is pragmatic. Imam states categorically and repeatedly that al-Qaeda and its facsimiles do not have the "ability" to wage offensive jihad. More, he states, again categorically and repeatedly, that the pursuit of offensive jihad have been counterproductive, harmful to Muslims throughout the world. In short, bin Ladin and al-Qaeda destroyed two buildings and in response the US destroyed two Muslim countries.

Sayyid Imam compares bin Ladin to the antichrist as such is presented in the Quran. He also notes with a degree of sarcastic bitterness which beggars description that al-Qaeda and others like it have killed far more Muslims than have either the US or the "Zionist entity" over the course of sixty years.

The Obama Administration would be very well advised to do everything it can to very quietly promote the distribution of Sayyid Imam's message. It is a powerful tool for aiding the undercutting of both jihadist recruitment and jihadist organisational integrity.

Imam has presented an alternative to offensive jihad which will, if widely read by those of an Islamist orientation, provide a basis for argument against the preachings of bin Ladin and Al-Zawahiri and other proclaimers of offensive jihad. It is an opposing view offered by a man who not only has the necessary theological credibility but a background as an resolute Islamist who stands against the "apostate" regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

At the very least, young men sitting in a mosque arguing the views of Imam against those of Zawahiri are not planning suicide attacks. At the most, promoting the perspective of Imam might lay the foundation for severe organisational disruption within al-Qaeda and Taliban.

That prospect--even if it leads to internal killings--should make the world smile with pleasure.

Another Lesson From The "Forgotten War"

The Geek is a fan of the Korean War. That's the three year war which many historians have correctly called the "Forgotten War." It was an inconclusive conflict which at the time was not acknowledged by the Truman Administration to be anything other than a "police action."

It was, of course, much more than that. It was America's first limited war in support of policy. There was no odor of crusade about it. Except for the brief, shining moment in the euphoria following the stunning success of the amphibious end run at Inchon, the men of the Truman Administration never lost sight of the policy goal as they had defined it.

That was the first crucial lesson learned in the bloody wastelands of Korea. In a limited war fought in support of a clearly defined policy, the aim of the war, the better state of peace, is the attainment of the policy goal. In the case of Korea the policy was containment. The better state of peace was showing the Communist Bloc it could not violate that policy without meeting firm, prolonged and fierce resistance.

The second lesson from the Korean War has been mentioned many times by the Geek in previous posts. The minimum definition of victory in a limited war in support of policy is "not-losing." In Korea it was not necessary--or, as events proved, possible--to achieve an absolute victory including the surrender of the North and the reunification of Korea under the South. At the opposite extreme, the military defeat of the US brokered "UN" coalition would have destroyed the policy of containment and fatally undercut the diplomatic credibility of the US.

As a result, the US discovered the "third option," that of "not-losing." De facto that became the definition of victory in Iraq with results that might not be entirely satisfying to the neocons and others who were behind the war at the giddy-up, but have been quite satisfactory to the Iraqis and overall, to the US position globally.

There is yet another lesson which must be taken from the Korean paradigm. It is a lesson which is immediately applicable with respect to our current diplomatic imbroglios with Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. It is also quite applicable along with the first two "lessons-learned" in the war underway in Afghanistan.

But, first, take a look at the advice of a master realist.

A diplomat's words must have no relation to actions--otherwise what sort of diplomacy is it? Words are one thing, actions another. Good words are a concealment of bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or steel wood.

So said Joseph Stalin. Admittedly "Uncle Joe" was a man of many unpleasant habits. But, no person ever accused him of not having an accurate, cynical and above all, realistic understanding of the games nations played.

Americans and others, particularly Western Europeans of the post-World War II era, may not rush to agree with Stalin's view. However, there are many others in the world who do--even if they have never read the Collected Thoughts of the Great Teacher.

The US ran into the practical implications of Stalin's approach to diplomacy during the two years of negotiations which ultimately resulted in the cease-fire ending active combat in Korea (sort of, maybe, at least some of the time.) We found out the hard way that negotiations were the continuation of combat by other means. We also learned the hard way that without the pressure of combat--even bloody contests of King of the Hill waged on meaningless terrain features which gained at least transient fame such as Pork Chop Hill, Bloody Nose, Heartbreak Ridge--the war ending negotiations went nowhere--slowly.

Seemingly driven by some sort of institutional amnesia, the US relearned the same principles of Diplomacy According To Uncle Joe during the seemingly endless Paris Peace Talks. It's instructive to recall that more men died after the talks started than did before the diplomats started flapping their gums.

The interlocutors sitting across from the Americans at Panmunjom and Paris were Communists. That ideological label is far less important than the underlying reality. They and the governments they represented were True Believers.

True Belief is the critical fact. The power of the Belief is far more important than its ideological structure. True Belief describes a worldview, an existential stance. True Belief leaves no room for the nuances of compromise which constitutes the essential core of non-Stalinesque diplomacy--the sincere diplomacy which the Master of the Kremlin believed did not--could not--exist.

Former Secretary of Defense William Perry speaking in South Korea the other day allowed that it "appeared that the more we talked, the more intransigent the North Koreans became." He is right on the appearance. The appearance is the reality.

The reason? You ask.

Simple.

The Men of the Hermit Kingdom of the North are not simply fossils of the Stalin era, they are True Believers in the right and destiny of North Korea to dominate the peninsula by whatsoever means might be necessary. To them as to their progenitors during the Korean War, talking is the extension of combat by other means. As the US found out on the killing hills of Korea, any sign of weakness, no matter how transitory, gives aid and comfort to the True Believers of the other side.

Iran is not communist. But, the Iranian regime is comprised of True Believers. The Belief is not simply nor solely in Shia Islam, even though that may be the larger part. The rest of the Belief is in Iranian nationhood and with it a presumed natural Iranian right to hegemony over the Persian Gulf and Northwest Asian region.

To achieve that end, the possession of nuclear weapons is not simply desirable, it is necessary. To pursue the goal of hegemony, to acquire the nuclear threat, requires that "good words hide bad actions." Considering that Islam, particularly the Islam of Shia, approves of lying in protection of the Believers and the Belief, the Stalin Formulation has great applicability.

Susan Rice, our new ambassador to the UN, said yesterday on NPR that the US "might" directly engage the Iranians in order to dissuade them from pursuing nuclear weapons. There is no inherent harm in that. Provided, and this is a major provision, the US recognises the lessons of the Korean War negotiations as a model. And, provided that we acknowledge the saliency for Tehran of the Stalin approach to diplomacy.

The Islamists of Pakistan who, along with their supporters and sympathizers in the government and military, are also True Believers. They also mix Islam with nationalism and the ambitions of hegemony which this mix so facilely propels. Our relations with Pakistan on a practical level are going to be conducted under the shadow of Stalin, in the orbit of his understanding of diplomacy.

With the Pakistanis as with the North Koreans and the Iranians, diplomacy in any form is always combat without bloodshed. Any slackening, any compromise, any hesitation, any uncertainty as to our policy goals and our definitions of success will be taken by the other side as an indication of weakening will and lost ability. Any metaphorical hill left without both strong defense and instant counterattack will be seen as defeat for us and victory for the other side.

There is one final critical lesson to be derived from the Korean War which is all too easily overlooked. During the course of the war the Chinese Army became progressively more capable, progressively better by all objective measurements. The myriads of lives lost by members of the Communist Chinese Forces (CCF) did not buy Beijing a military victory.

No.

The CCF hectatombs bought China something far more important. Far more long lasting. It bought the Beijing regime international authority and internal self-confidence. Ultimately these were so strong and so durable that they were not erased by the monumental errors of Beijing--the Great Leap Forward, the Famine and the Cultural Revolution to mention a few. The dead bodies littering the landscape clothed in quilted uniforms and tennis shoes made the Peoples Republic of China what it is today. A Great Power.

Wars tend to improve the fighting capacities of those who fight them. This is particularly true of fighters who have no tours of duty, no guaranteed end of tour, no date of return to a faraway country. This implies what has already been observed in Afghanistan--and Pakistan. Under pressure, Taliban and other jihadists have gotten better.

The same has been observed in 2006 in Lebanon with the fighters of Hezbollah.

The experience of the CCF in Korea meshes with what we have seen in more recent wars. The lesson is simple but hard to put into practice. Win, lose or (as in Korea) draw, the major beneficiaries of the war may well be the enemy. And, the enemy may never change his nature no matter how much his tactics might alter.

Had the planners and executors of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq taken a good, hard look at the "Forgotten War," it is highly probable that our approach and methods would have been far different. Far less likely to carry the negative effects extant today and extending into the future.

Now the challenge before the Obama Administration is either to study history or try--perhaps with awful consequences--to relearn the truth of the Stalin Formulation. It may not be nice, it certainly isn't pleasant, but the reality is that for our major diplomatic opponents today and in the near-term, diplomacy is unarmed combat.

Anger And Hate Versus Trust And Image

The buzz phrases du jour radiating from the Obama Administration currently are "trust," and "improving the US image." The target audience for trust rehab is in Afghanistan. The ambitions for the Make-the-US-Look-And-Smell-Better campaign are far more grandiose. The intention as adumbrated by President Obama and SecState Clinton is to add luster and polish to Uncle Sam in the eyes of Muslims everywhere.

Right. Fer Sure.

A little of the old Mad Ave presto-chango action and the mullahs will love us, the imams will trust us, the sheiks will slaver after us and Muslims of the world will unite in an outpouring of affection for Truth, Justice and the American Way. (This includes, democracy, secular government, separation of institutions of faith and government, free and open speech, gender equality and interest bearing loans.)

It takes, as history shows again and again, a lot more than hype and High Mindedness to achieve peace and the even more elusive intangible of good will.

Before blazing a new and fearless trail in image building and trust inculcation, there is a ground truth which demands a firm grip be taken. This basement reality has two parts. Anger is the first. Time is the second.

It is fashionable to be opposed to anger. Anger can and often does produce interpersonal violence. It is unseemly to say the least.

But anger is more than an unseemly potentially violent outburst of energy. Look at anger's good side. It is a powerful motivator. It is a sovereign remedy for fear. It transmutes frustration into accomplishment.

Anger has a real deficiency. It is a short-term affect. It is the line squall of behavior. Quick to come. Terrible and terrifying while present. Fast to leave.

This is where time comes in.

Anger extended over time becomes hatred. Anger restoked, reawakened, renewed, will inevitably become hatred whether on the part of an individual or a people. This reality is at work not only in Palestine, not simply in Afghanistan, not just in Iran--and not merely among Muslims.

This reality of human personality, nature and history also renders nugatory the chicken-and-egg debate over the roots of Islamist fury against the US and the West generally. Hatred of the US and other countries arises not from policy alone. Neither does it emanate solely from the precepts and dictates of Islam's doctrine.

American (or Israeli, or British or just fill in the blank) policies and actions may bring anger to some people, somewhere for some reason. If the actions based in those policies affect the same targets repeatedly--such as air strikes or house bulldozing--the anger is restoked and restored. It grows insensibly into the permanent condition of hatred.

It must be underscored that policies and actions are not the only way to transmogrify anger into perpetual, self-sustaining hatred. The strictures and requirements of an ideology can be used to the same end.

The nationalistic and communist ideology of the Vietminh and their successor entities propelled many Vietnamese to prodigious efforts and unbelievable sacrifices to attain the goal of independence and "socialism." The racist ideology coupled with nationalism impelled the Germans during World War II to prolong the war long after even stalemate was a military impossibility.

So it is with Islam and Muslims.

Being a warrior religion, Islam is perfectly suited to encourage hatred of the other. It is perfectly suited to propel one into battle, to face death and embrace it.

A valuable insight into the many ways in which the doctrines of Islam can be used to extend anger over time, to assure that hatred prevails can be gained from the translations provided on line by the Mideast Media Research Institute (MEMRI.) The televised and other messages of a multitude of clerics, politicians, journalists and academics are both universally rooted in the Quran and Hadith. They are also universally directed against three targets: Israel, the US and the West.

For years these messages of hatred have gone unchallenged. Also, for many, many years the actions taken by Israel and more recently the US have (perhaps inadvertently) served to refresh the feedstock of hatred--anger.

Genuine, pervasive hatred takes a great deal of time to develop in a society. It takes effort on the part of ideologically committed leaders. It takes real world provocations of policy and actions on the part of the target of hatred.

This implies that hatred is not easily overcome. It is not susceptible to facile exercises in public relations. It is immune in large measure even to changes in policy, or the cessation of anger producing actions.

Hatred is not even reduced by efforts at placation through sensitivity based appeasement as events in the UK have shown. Arguably, these efforts have served only to embolden the ideologues and ratchet up their demands.

At some crossover point the combination of actions and ideological driven agendas produces a hatred which is totally self-sustaining. It is the human equivalent of the fission chain reaction. The critical mass once reached needs nothing more, the reaction continues until the fuel is exhausted.

The crossover point, the self-sustaining chain reaction, was reached long ago in the minds of Palestinians. It is approaching rapidly (if it has not yet actually been achieved) in Afghanistan. In Pakistan the critical mass exists and perhaps the fatal reaction has already been initiated. The data are fuzzy on that question.

In Iraq the chain reaction was damped by the intersection of two factors. The sectarian violence became too bloody, lasted too long and served to alienate not unite under the banner of hatred. Then the Maliki administration has been able to enlist the ideology of nationalism successful. For the moment at least the historical accident of Baathist promoted nationalism was used to trump the Islamist manufactured hatred.

These facts of life suggest several things. They indicate that glad-handing public diplomacy will be of little use in suppressing Muslim hatred of us. Well intentioned efforts at addressing so-called "sensitivities" presumably dear to the hearts and identities of Muslims are more often counterproductive than not.

Finally the lessons of history seem to demonstrate that the only effective counter to the hatred of a people is patience. Patience and persistence.

Patiently and persistently stating what is being done and why. Patiently and persistently holding forth the ideals and worldview which are central to our collective identity.

At the same time our actions should be undertaken with a view to reducing anger. Anger is the plutonium without which the hatred chain reaction cannot be started. The single greatest reason to eschew air strikes or area denial munitions is not some abstract principle of proportionality or humanitarian concerns. Air strikes, artillery fire missions, overly exuberant door kicking must be avoided for a simple pragmatic reason. They all provoke anger.

Then, advantage might be taken of hatred. The Iraqi experience hints that hatred can and will become internally directed. It will lead to one group of haters attacking another. In the search for a soft enough target on which to expend hatred, the outsider may be replaced as a target by another: opposing groups of "insiders."

William T. Sherman was a great believer in the notion that people exposed to the realities of war, the scent of perpetual fear, will both abandon war and repent of it for generations. While Billy T. might have been a bit hyperbolic in this, the experience in Iraq shows that there is more than a slight grain of truth in his position. Iraqis, particularly young ones, turned their backs on the hatred of the sectarians and decided to give peace a chance.

Hatred is not easily defeated. It requires a commitment to the long term. It requires Americans to think beyond the next election cycle.

Most of all it requires an understanding of who and what we are and for what do we stand. That is hard enough in the best of conditions. And, right now conditions of life are far from the best.

Yet, reality gives us no choice. Without understanding the nature of hatred, its power and persistence, its origins and strengths, we have no chance of exploiting its weaknesses. We have no chance of "winning the hearts and minds" or "trust" of the Afghans or other Muslims.

Since all hands acknowledge that it is impossible to kill our way to victory in Afghanistan--let alone the wider conflict with Islamism--reality gives us a stark choice. Surrender to those who hate us or outlast and undercut their hatred.

May You Live In Interesting Times--And We Do

The ancient Chinese toast (and curse) is sure alive and well today. It seems that wherever a person looks on the international scene, feces and air impeller are colliding with typically unpredictable but nasty effect.

Consider the oil price game. Benchmark crude oil prices on the spot market have dipped as low as thirty-seven bucks the barrel. Great news, right?

Sure. For Americans it is better than the assorted economic stimulus packages presented by pork merchants and ideologues in Washington. For those who produce oil the news sure ain't as one color good.

Even Saudi Arabia and others in the Gulf Coordination Council need a steady base price in the sixty to seventy dollar range to maintain their expansive budgets. Iran, Venezuela and even Russia need higher prices given their ambitions in the military hardware department.

While the difficulties present for these later three countries may bring smiles of relief to Americans, the situation is not so simple. As economic pinching becomes more acute, governments historically have had a difficult time resisting the impulse to direct attention elsewhere. Say, at a "threat" to national survival or ambition.

While it is possible that Russia has matured sufficiently that the Putin Crew can resist tossing threats at the "Imperialist Camp," the lads in the Kremlin will nonetheless prove more rather than less difficult in diplomatic dealings over the short- to mid-term. The situation with respect to the other two bad boys of the oil producing world is not so straightforward given that neither regime has been noted for responsible, adult conduct of a consistent nature.

Iran is the much larger problem child. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has apparently known for three months that the figures it had regarding the Iranian production of low enrichment uranium (LEU) were based on "miscalculations." These Iranian miscalculations were cleared up back in November, but the IAEA only very recently released the new figures.

While many diplomats, nuclear observers and the like professed shock, there was no reason for these protestations of surprise. The information available from open sources demonstrated clearly that the Iranians would reach "breakout" level of LEU production early this year. The IAEA has confirmed this conclusion, reporting that the spinning centrifuges of the mullahocracy have manufactured a metric ton of LEU.

Reaching the minimum "breakout" level of LEU means that the Iranians could now, in principle, switch to the production of highly enriched uranium (HEU.) The mullahs now have the feedstock necessary to produce the twenty-five kilograms nominally necessary for a Mahdi Bomb.

Sure, to do this the Iranian government would have to toss the IAEA inspectors out, set more centrifuges a-spinning and generally make it evident to the world what they were doing. A rational actor might not be expected to take such a risk considering just how many nation-states are arrayed in potential (robust) opposition to this move.

Before we comfort ourselves with that view, we best get a grip on the number of times Revolutionary Iran has taken risks which have paid off. We also best get a grip on the unpleasant ground truth that the men who run the mullahocracy are possessed of an eschatological view which is frankly apocalyptic in nature.

Iran is also making some interesting noises regarding the view from Tehran regarding Bahrain. In language which is eerily reminiscent of that used by Saddam Hussein in the run-up to his invasion of Kuwait, the mullahocracy (or at least its designated spokesmen) have been describing the small country as Iran's "Fourteenth Province."

Bahrain has a microscopic population (roughly 750,000 a third of which is non-native.) The majority of the Bahrainis are Shia. Iran has successfully sponsored two pro-Iranian political associations in the country. Against this the Bahrain government's two thousand man police force has stopped a number of Tehran-backed terrorist actions and may have penetrated the hostile political groups effectively. Beyond this the government has moved to include Shias in the government and meet some--but not all by a long way--of the impoverished Shia majority's economic needs.

Saudi Arabia has, at least rhetorically, extended its protection over Bahrain, but that is a very thin deterrent shield given the House of Sand's past record, as in the Gulf War. The US Fifth Fleet operates out of Bahrain so the American umbrella is present, but not necessarily, given the gestalt of reality today, credible enough.

All on its lonely own Iran is a sufficiently unpredictable and occasionally irrational actor to assure the times today would be more than merely interesting. Of course, Iran has company--and plenty of it.

There is North Korea. The Hermit Kingdom of the North seems to be locked in a perpetual case of the "terrible twos," tossing one international temper tantrum after another. The latest one is ostensibly the result of South Korea's conservative Lee Administration having cast a chill on relations between North and South.

More likely there is a form of regime change occurring in the Hermit Kingdom of the North. Even if the Dear Leader (who has never been a monument to stable, responsible behavior) is alive and more-or-less well, there is sufficient reason to posit that more robust, hard-line types are calling many, if not all, the shots.

The country is broke, many of its people literally famished. North Korea needs massive amounts of foreign aid. But, the aid must come without attached conditions or foreign monitors of any sort or nationality. The aid must be provided not as a matter of humanitarian charity but as a "free-will offering" between equals.

In short, the leadership cadre intends to coerce what the country needs. The temper tantrums involving the far-from-settled nuclear problem or the perspective launch of the made in North Korea ICBM constitute a form of international protection racket. Like the two year old in the grocery store, the North Koreans will stop their tantrum if they get enough candy from the rack.

Of course, as any parent knows, giving in to the tantrum simply encourages a sequel. As between people so it is with nations, peace can be bought but only at an ever increasing price.

Ah, the times they just get more and more interesting.

Over in Pakistan, matters of peace are progressing as expected. Fazlullah has "reservations" about the agreement entered into by his "moderate" father-in-law, Sufi Muhammad. The nature of the reservations have not been dilated upon but will be soon in an upcoming meeting between the several parties of Taliban in Swat, government in Islamabad and the in-laws. What do you want to bet that Fazlullah demands more Sharia and less Islamabad in Malakand?

In Islamabad anonymous US Embassy wallahs are favoring the agreement between government and the Taliban-in-Swat crew. They (apparently honestly) think (if that is the right word) the agreement will somehow drive a wedge between the less "extremist" Fazlullah and the more "extremist" Taliban types in the FATA. One may be forgiven if one gets the impression the folks in the embassy have been sampling some of the crops grown in Afghanistan.

In a further, quite delightful wrinkle, "mainstream" Islamists (whatever that term might mean in the Pakistani context) have made a serious proposal to the government. The proposal? That Pakistan cozy up to China in order to escape "the clutches" of the US. These "mainstream" Islamists argue that both China and Pakistan are "victims" of a "US conspiracy." Perhaps they too have been testing the commodities from Afghanistan, but being Islamists that would be scarcely necessary.

Ah, Pakistan, on its own, the folks there would make the current times more than sufficiently interesting.

In Afghanistan the situation continues to go down the tubes. The decision by the Obama Administration to place another 17,000 pairs of US boots on the ground is as welcome as it is late in coming. One can only hope that the boots are on the feet of combat soldiers and not a plethora of REMFs. Guns in the hands are needed, even more than boots on the ground, if Taliban and al-Qaeda are to be denied a military victory.

NATO will be providing more warm bodies, but few of these will be in uniform and even fewer possessed of guns and the authority to shoot them. NATO will be furnishing civilians to "improve the government" (which is desperately needed to be sure,) "improve the justice system" (as if there is any meaningful crossover between Sharia or the Quran on the one hand and European legal systems on the other,) "staunch corruption" (good luck on that one unless the US and other countries decriminalise narcotic drugs,) and "fight drug trafficking" (ah, fer sure, dudes.) All these may be worthy goals, but none are really relevant in the midst of a war which is being lost by the putative good guys.

It deserves noting in the Afghanistan context that Iran has offered assistance. An Iranian vice-president has stated that the Iranian government and businesses stand ready to "pour" investment funds into the country in infrastructure and similar projects. Who says that Iran, broke or not, fails to make large plans and have grand ambitions?

Al-Shabab seems more than ready to go all the way and then some in its pursuit of Sharia Paradise on Earth in the geographical expression called Somalia. Their ranks increased by teenage jihadists from Europe and the US (particularly from the huge Somali refugee communities in Minnesota (of all places,) al-Shabab is willing to accept the Sufi and moderate Sunni challenge.

The refugee stream which will inevitably result from a widening of the sectarian warfare will have a profound effect on Kenya and other neighboring countries. The impact of the refugees will be at least equal to and will probably surpass that of people fleeing Zimbabwe for South Africa and other "frontline" states. You can hear the cries for immediate assistance for the "humanitarian crisis" ringing loud and long from the bootless African Union and the High Minded of the UN.

What with Sudan/Darfur, Somalia, and Zimbabwe, Africa would be sufficient to assure that we live in interesting times.

But, there are more. There is Palestine. There is Israel with a new even more to the Right government. There is the underlying war of Islamism against the ideals and worldviews of the West. There are the profound and long lasting effects of the global economic disaster against which the measures of the US and EU governments have not proven efficacious as yet.

The Geek reckons that right now, the interesting times referred to by the Chinese toast or curse falls squarely on the curse side.

What about you? How do you see our interesting times?

How Far Can A Collapsed State Collapse?

Sometimes it seems that Somalia is one of those amazing astronomical phenomena, an imploding star. For a while the collapse of a star makes sense, it cools and shrinks, cools and shrinks some more. Carried far enough the one-time stellar body becomes a dwarf and then a neutron star, cold and dense beyond imagining.

Then, life in the universe gets really weird. If the star keeps shrinking it rips through the fabric of space becoming a black hole--a portal sucking endless energy and matter to who knows where and for who knows what purpose.

Here, in the privacy and comfort of our own planet, Somalia is doing a mighty fine imitation of one of those collapsing stars. It now seems to be teetering on the edge of the final implosion, of becoming a terrestrial black hole into which many can enter and nothing useful emerge.

If you think back a few years, during the short and not-particularly-bloodless period of the ascendancy of the Union of Islamic Courts, the name Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed will come to mind. Before the UIC was ousted by the Ethiopian army at the behest of the "international community" he was one of the leaders.

At that time a group going by the name of al-Shabab was the armed (and quite dangerous) wing of the Islamic Courts. It was the guns of al-Shabab which propelled Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed and his associates into power. And kept them there until the superior firepower of the Ethiopians (temporarily) trumped the assorted Wahhabists and Salifists of the gun slinging youth.

The Ethiopian troops proved over the next two years to be far better at looting, killing and alienating virtually all Somalis then they were at stabilizing the resultant chaos. At the same time the African Union showed an ability almost unequalled--even by the UN--to talk, bemoan, wring hands, make promises and do nothing effectual as Somalia spiraled into a continuous state of collapse.

Somalia became a dwarf state, a red dwarf drawing its color from the blood spilled by both the Ethiopians and the varied internal fighters, most notably al-Shabab.

During 2008 al-Shabab's fighters--overwhelmingly the products of Saudi Arabian funded Wahhabist mosques--shot, knifed and beheaded their way through the country. Throughout the year the Transitional National Authority created by the "international community" stalled in endless internal turmoil and revolving door officials. As refugees fled to Kenya and Uganda and the Ethiopian army decided it had pillaged enough, the "international community" cast about for a (final?) solution.

One was finally found a few weeks ago. In an effort at reconciliation in Djibouti, the "internationals" hit on a solution to halt the implosion. It was decided to bring back Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed.

Now Sheik Ahmed was hailed as a "moderate Islamists." All the reasons adduced only a couple of years earlier for the necessity of removing the Union of Islamic Courts and Sheik Ahmed were forgotten. No longer was the Sheik the illegitimate head of a brutal, repressive, human rights violating bunch of Sharia powered thugs. Now the Sheik was the man of the moment, the new President of the New-And-Improved Somalia.

Presumably the folks in Djibouti, both Somali and foreign, believed (or convinced themselves, it is an open question) that Sheik Ahmed had the juice necessary to bring al-Shabab into the fold, to convince the jihadists to put aside their AKs and RPGs, their violent commitment to Sharia of the most bloody and repressive sort.

Apparently the lads of al-Shabab having become accustomed to the joys of victory, of stoning women, of decapitating apostates who somehow transgressed the nuances of the al-Shabab version of Sharia were not in a hurry to welcome back Sheik Ahmed and turn "moderate." For them, (to paraphrase Barry Goldwater in 1964) extremism in defense of Sharia is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of total victory is no virtue.

Al-Shabab is not happy with the Sheik. Other Somalis, particularly Sunnis of the non-Wahhibist, non-Salifist sort are among those who are, if not happy, at least willing to accept the Sheik as a force for peace.

Another group which is pleased enough with Sheik Ahmed is comprised of the Sufis of Somalia. They are so pleased with the Sheik and so displeased with al-Shabab that the Sufis have formed their own militia, the militia is named Ahlu-Sunna Wal-Jama'a. Recently the militia has enjoyed defeating al-Shabab in a handful of skirmishes in central Somalia.

While the idea of Sufis as warriors may come as a surprise to most Americans and Westerners generally given the mystical nature of the ancient Muslim sect, Sufis actually have quite a record of both the will and the ability to fight. It might be recalled that the followers of the Mahdi in Sudan a century and a quarter ago, the so-called "dervishes" who defeated General "Chinese" Gordon and took a fair amount of killing a decade later by the Maxim guns of the Anglo-Egyptian expeditionary force, were largely Sufi in affiliation.

The Sufis must feel they have no choice. Wahhabist and Salifist doctrine holds that Sufis are heretics and thus, like all such apostates, must either repent or die. Al-Shabab has already demonstrated that it is not likely to shrink from this task.

The combination of Sufis and non-Wahhibist, non-Salifist Sunnis are both capable and increasingly motivated to offer resistance to al-Shabab and those such as al-Qaeda which support them. This means the sectarian predicated slaughter in Somalia has a real potential for rapid escalation.

Al-Shabab gives no hint of a willingness to blink as the conflict becomes eyeball-to-eyeball. The Sufis have no options other than flight or fight. The Sunnis in the middle have the same choice.

Against the backdrop of nearly two decades without an effective central government and considering the patent inability of those artifacts of the "international community," the AU, the UN or the International Crisis Group to do more than jawbone and pass resolutions, the probability of further sanguinary implosion looms large. When True Belief meets True Desperation, the black hole opens wide.

And, through that hole the remnants of Somalia as well as the hopes and efforts of the "international community" will be sucked to oblivion.

People (And The Media) Talk Too Much

Politicians like to put their mouths in gear without engaging their brains. (This political practice must be considered separately from the custom of "government by leak" in which the loose lipped politico or bureaucrat hopes to sink a policy proposal with which they disagree by a carefully calculated leak.)

A recent example of the blubber-tongued politician is Senator Dianne Feinstein who cheerfully and thoughtlessly blabbed during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. She commented to the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, that she understood the highly lethal and (in Pakistan at least) equally controversial Predator operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban heavies in the FATA were operated from bases near Islamabad.

The DNI did not respond.

While anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Predator capabilities would have long assumed the crossover point between reaction time and loiter time would be optimised from a base in Pakistan rather than one, say, in Afghanistan, there is no need to comment upon this. The strong probability that Predators were flown from one of the complex of bases near Islamabad is enhanced by the decades of cooperation between CIA and its Pakistani counterpart the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI.)

Given the negative reactions to the Predator/Hellfire strikes within certain segments of the Pakistani population (read "Islamists") it is necessary for the government of Pakistan to loudly and repeatedly decry the operations. Mollifying internal opinion by such outcries is a long hallowed tradition. And, not just in Pakistan.

Senator Feinstein's comment was both unnecessary and destabilizing of an already very shaky regime in Islamabad. The lame explanation by a press spokesperson later that day in no way lessened the potential damage nor made the Senator look any more perceptive and guarded in her mouth-flapping gust.

The Geek has wondered at the discretion and judiciousness of the press ever since Jack Anderson in one of his recurrent searches for sensation blew the cover on an exceptionally successful program of electronic eavesdropping directed at the Kremlin leadership a quarter century ago. Such exposure of sensitive and lucrative intelligence operations is no credit to the teller of secrets and can be quite harmful to his country's intelligence efforts.

Now the media have done it again. This time the cover-blower was not American but rather British. And, the target of the media exposure was not an action of the British services but those of Israel and the United States.

In a coordinated program CIA and Mossad have been seeking to delay the Iranian government in its quest for the Mahdi Bomb. There is no thought by either agency or the two governments which approved the program that the effort will prevent the Tehran regime from acquiring a nuclear capacity.

The goal has been to delay progress in that direction. To buy time in order that the so far bootless diplomatic efforts to assure Iran does not join the nuclear club might, just might, show success.

To this end the agencies have pursued sabotage and assassination. Iranian nuclear scientists and other personnel key to the program have died "under mysterious circumstances." Computers and other critical, vulnerable equipment have failed to operate effectively. Glitches and gremlins have been introduced throughout the program both in Iran and elsewhere.

How much delay has been introduced is an open question. But any sand in the gears is to the good.

Undoubtedly the Iranians suspect that they have been the target of impairing actions as they have been of espionage. Still, there is no need to let them know their suspicions are dead on.

Sure, assassinations and sabotage are icky-poo. The Mahdi Bomb is far more so.

Pakistani Cleric: Allah Says Democracy Sucks

The other day the Islamabad government signed a deal with the Taliban of Malakand which includes Swat, the one time money making resort area of the country which has recently been a field of dreams and killing. The dreams were those of Taliban. The killing was reserved for those who opposed the dream.

The duly elected "democratic" regime headed by President Zardari committed itself to allow the use of Sharia in the contested region where the Pakistani army has shown itself to be either unwilling or unable to defeat the jihadists of Mullah Fazlullah. The deal was actually signed by Fazlullah's father-in-law, Sufi Muhammad.

Muhammad is reputed to be a "moderate." His love of moderation is shown by his having taken several hundred or more jihadists into Afghanistan in order to fight the Americans and others of the United Crusader and Apostate Force. After his capture Muhammad was released by the Pakistani government. This was done, allegedly at least, as a gesture of good will and reconciliation to the Islamists.

Due to Muhammad's purported moderation, the elected government of Pakistan assures the US and others among the skeptical that the agreement with Muhammad and, presumably, Fazlullah, is neither a concession to the Islamists nor a tacit admission of defeat in Swat and the rest of Malakand. Rather, the glib government spokesmen maintain that the "Lite" version of Sharia to be practiced in Swat will both defang the "extremists" and streamline the civil and criminal justice systems.

Right. Don't you just feel the trust?

Sufi Muhammad is not a man who is given to moderation. Consider his informed theological judgement on the value of democracy in the eyes of good Muslims such as himself. "From the very beginning, I have viewed democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections." Assuming the German press agency quoted the man correctly that seems rather absolute.

Sufi Muhammad's perspective is not unique to him. Rather it is inherent to a broad stream of Islamic jurisprudence. Further it is compatible with the sweep of Islamic history and the practices of many--if not most--Islamic states.

As a True Believer in the One True Faith, Sufi Muhammad well understands that Islam is the world's most authoritarian and totalistic religion. There is no room in the chains of obedience and submission for democracy as Muhammad and others like him understand their faith. There is only room for utter and total submission to the dictates of dogma and the strictures of Sharia--as interpreted by men such as Muhammad and Fazlullah.

This belief system explains perfectly the view of Taliban held by Sufi Muhammad. Ready?

I believe the Taliban government formed a complete Islamic state, which was an ideal example for other Muslim countries. Had this government remained intact, it could have led to the establishment of similar Islamic governments in many other countries.

That about says it all. And, remember, Sufi Muhammad is reputed to be "moderate" in comparison to his presumably fire-breathing son-in-law.

Fazlullah has not yet allowed that he accepts the old man's deal with the apostates in Islamabad even though he declared a ten day ceasefire. The ceasefire will be observed by the Pakistani army (as though anyone will notice a difference.) Fazlullah has, however, demanded that the toothless Pakistani army withdraw completely from Swat and environs.

The army may not be packing up yet. But a lot of the local population is. Swat has already lost half or more of its pre-fight population as people have voted with their feet. Not all that many people are happy with the idea of Sharia. Apparently they are not thrilled with more stonings, decapitations, other summary executions. It seems that a life devoid of the small pleasures of life is not all that appealing to all.

The joyless, mirthless, songless, school-less (at least for girls) world of the Taliban dream obviously does not charm all those in Swat. So they leave. Leave their homes. Exit their past. Discard years, generations of life, hope, human dreams, and a human history. Better, it seems, to become rootless refugees than face the World According To Taliban.

The problem facing the US and its partners in the mountain morass of Afghanistan is simply this: Is the World of Taliban in Swat going to become the World of Taliban in Pakistan?

It is self-evident that Muhammad and his son-in-law, Fazlullah, believe it will and that is how matters should be. They see the apostate, democratically elected government in Islamabad as a sheep to be slaughtered.

And, with this agreement, the sheep has handed the knife to its butcher.

Calling It Like It Is

The Geek has to confess that he had trepidations back in 1992 when Her Majesty's Government appointed Stella Rimington as Director of the Security Service (aka MI5.) Despite strong evidence to the contrary, he wondered if Ms Rimington (as she was known back then, she has since become Dame Rimington) had the sort of dark and devious mind needed for success in the grim and duplicitous world of counter-intelligence and counter-espionage.

The record of the next four years showed that she had all the necessary requisites to run an agency which was increasingly necessary and increasingly under a sort of siege from both external and internal political/social forces. She may not have been the most brilliant CI/CE chief ever, but she was up to the task--and more.

The "and more" part of Dame Rimington's mind and character have been more on display in the years since 9/11 and 7/7. She has been a vocal and trenchant critic of the assorted "security" practices and policies activated in both her native UK and elsewhere. The "and elsewhere" includes, even focuses, on the plethora of horribly wrong-headed actions undertaken by the administration of George W. Bush with the full support of a supine Congress.

In an interview with a Spanish outlet, Dame Rimington spoke the two essential truths concerning the overall impact of the spurious security measures introduced in the UK. The same applies to the US and other countries.

Here are her ground truths. The net effect of all the security programs, all the surveillance, all the data collection and archiving, all the new impediments to free movement, the casual erosion of human rights, is the laying of the foundation for a police state. The second of the Rimington Rules is that the result of the hyper-security has been to perpetuate a climate of fear--which is the goal of terrorists.

Unlike the eager exponents of more "security," Dame Rimington apparently remembers the famed aphorism of Lenin: The purpose of terror is to terrorise.

In a larger context, the measures of the Bush administration, most importantly the creation of the category "unlawful enemy combatants," the establishment of military commissions, the building of the Gitmo Kz lager, the use of allies to worm our way around restrictions on torture, have both eroded respect for the rights and dignities of the individual around the world and undercut the moral authority of the US in the ongoing struggle against authoritarian doctrines and regimes. If the US had sought to wound itself, no better job could have been accomplished than that constructed by Congress and President over the years since 9/11.

Ironically, none of these extraordinary measures were necessary. Had the US treated the people captured in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere as prisoners of war, we would have been able to hold them until the termination of hostilities. Given the nature of the war between the US and al-Qaeda and Taliban, that termination would have been determined by the US. In short, we could have held the captured combatants of whatsoever nationality until the infernal regions experienced glaciation.

As prisoners of war these individuals would still have been subject under the relevant international agreements to which the US is a party to trial for crimes which they may have committed. That includes the actions and conspiracies which fall under the rubric of "terrorism."

Further, the US would have been able to lawfully interrogate any and all prisoners of war. True, there would have been restrictions on the means employed during these interrogations, but the historical record shows that overly robust means of questioning produce results of dubious utility.

Gitmo, military commissions, black prisons, were not necessary. They are not justifiable in terms of either utility or the deterrence of future acts of terror. In short, they provide no real security to the US or other potential target nations. Dame Rimington recognises this and has been outspoken about it.

While she has been silent on the implication of this, it is nonetheless self-evident. The US and other Western nations are in a war without compromise with a totalitarian ideology which has limitless goals and aspirations. It is first and foremost a war of values, worldview and ethical imperatives. Insofar as the US or any other Western country takes actions which run counter to or undercut the long-standing core of Western principles, the cause is weakened. Ground is ceded to the enemy.

Chief among the traditions and values of the US and other countries including Dame Rimington's native land are the right of the individual citizen to be left alone by the government. Ranking along with this unstated but pervasive right to quiet enjoyment of life are such features as the right of movement, the freedom of expression, the right of voluntary assembly. Importantly, none of these specifics lives without the first right--that of being left alone by government and all its assorted minions of security.

As a person who ran a security service with responsibilities to protect the realm against secret attempts at espionage, improper influence of government, sabotage and terror, Dame Rimington well understands both the need for and the dangers of government surveillance and monitoring. She well understands that government databanks contain information which has no relevance to any legitimate security need.

More, she has the experience based cynicism which appreciates accurately that information held by a government will eventually be misused by that government. It will be used not to protect society but to suppress inconvenient individuals within that society. She knows that there are no guardrails on the slippery slope of government surveillance, monitoring and dossier collection.

Apologists both here and in the UK offer the "if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" defense of pervasive and intrusive government "security" activities. This is bunk.

In truth, as Dame Rimington implies, a person has everything to fear because he will never know when the government will decide that what he has been doing is now somehow "wrong." Blown by the winds of political fad and powered only by the need to hold and, if possible, expand authority, governments are unpredictable as to what will be defined as "wrong" at some future date.

One will never know when or if a particular political or social affiliation will be found "harmful" to the interests of government. One will never know if the words one has written or spoken today or the causes which one has supported yesterday will somehow, someway and for some hazy justification of "national security" be deemed injurious or even felonious at some tomorrow yet to come.

The US and other countries have been through this sort of phenomenon before. In the US frenzies of politically driven "national security" campaigns during World War I and in the decade following World War II saw individuals hauled before courts and other tribunals--including that of public opinion--for "offenses" of word, association or movement which occurred perhaps decades previously.

To suggest that the US or other states have learned from the mistakes of previous, pre-electronic age persecutions under the flag of "security" is to argue fantasy. Even more fantastic is the notion of trusting the government, the controllers of surveillance, the compilers of dossiers.

Of course, this is what HMG argued in response to Dame Rimington's critique. A Home Office spokesman using the bland tones to which all bureaucrats resort when placating the hoi polloi said, "The government has been clear that, where surveillance or data collection will impact on privacy, they should only be used where it is necessary and proportionate."

Right. For sure, Dude. Whatever those honey coated words might mean.

At least the polished faceless civil servant at the Home Office was not as offensively fear mongering as was former Vice-President Cheney in a recent interview. According to the ever-defiant, "What? Me Admit Error?" Cheney, without the Patriot Act, without Gitmo, absent waterboarding, lacking the other features of Security-American-Style, the US would have been nuked by al-Qaeda, bio-attacked by Taliban many times over. To Cheney and others like him who have never met an expansion of government power they did not love, the equation is simple: Repression equals security.

There can be and is perfect security for the individuals confined to a Federal "super-max" penitentiary. But, who among us wants to move there?

The US Should Engage In The Durban II Process

Some overseas matters fall in the That-Was-Drearily-Predictable category. Hugo Chavez's successful grab at the big gold ring of presidency-for-life belongs there. So also does the recent spate of anti-Shia bombings in Iraq. And the continued missile barrage out of Gaza.

Even the shake-and-grin, Hi-I'm-the-new-secstate trip by Hillary Clinton to Asia falls in the So What Else Is New department. This event in progress is on the level of pirates in the Gulf of Aden for its impact on the dynamics of international relations and the course of US foreign policy.

The decision by the Obama Administration to participate in the planning process for the Durban II conference is a cat of a different stripe. This decision carries with it the potential to see significant changes in both the global dynamic and the relation of the US with other states. Like all potentials this one is the sword of two edges.

When George W. Bush pulled the US out of the Durban conference on racism etc back in 2001, it was the right action. The UN conflab had degenerated into the worst sort of let's-all-bash-Israel affray with predictable side jaunts of anti-American and anti-Western vitriol. As an international exercise in guaranteeing, expanding or enforcing basic human rights as, for example, enshrined in the UN Convention on Human Rights, Durban I had the utility of mammary glands on a bull.

Over the ensuing years the UN Human Rights Council and its name-changed clone have been dominated by members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference--none of which are noted exemplars of human rights advocacy--and other similarly inclined nations such as Russia, China and even Venezuela which fall in the same league. That's the league where human rights are far more often honored in the breech than in the observance.

Under the Cheney-Bush Administration the US kept far more than merely arm's length distance from the UN Human Rights travesty in Geneva. The US even voted against UN budgets having a line item appertaining to the "Human Rights" wallahs.

This showed extreme distaste and disapproval. It was a sort of crowd pleaser. But, the tactic contained one major shortcoming.

The US had no influence on the process leading up to the scheduled review conference, Durban II, as it has been dubbed with an accuracy yet to be determined.

By the dubious approach of maintaining political and (allegedly) moral purity, the US surrendered the field to the opposition. By behaving rather like a dowager cast among dolts and poltroons, the US cast aside the chance for trench warfare with the enemies of free speech, free expression of criticism, openness to divergent views and cultural imperatives, equality of peoples regardless of the artifacts of race, religion, sexual orientation or political affiliation.

To put it bluntly, over the long haul the action by the previous administration was just plain dumb, flat-out stupid and inherently self-defeating.

The Obama administration is to be commended. The decision to get back in the fray is the right one. If--

If the intention is to get into the trenches and fight.

If the goal is to assure that the US will lead an effective, coherent attack on behalf of the core values of freedom and individual dignity, of the rights of humans to be free of repression, discrimination based on the above mentioned artifacts, of the necessity for open and unfettered debate.

If Mr Obama, Ms Clinton and their assorted underlings have the guts and brains, the intellectual, moral and political courage to draw an absolute line in the sand against the dogmatic tyranny of ideological doctrine under whatsoever cover, then the Administration will deserve rich and unstinting praise.

Such a fight will be neither easy nor (metaphorically) bloodless. It will require a gumption and a certainty of purpose equalling or surpassing that necessary to confront armed terrorists.

The US will have to acknowledge and repair the mistakes it and its allies have made during the years of the Bush Administration's "Great Global War On Terrorism." Much that we and others such as the UK have done under the rubric of "anti-terrorism" have served to abridge historic rights and liberties. These policies and programs must be stopped and dismantled if we are to win against the authoritarian opposition of the OIC and kindred regimes.

The ever-so-sensitive High Minded Lofty Thinkers here in the US as well as in Europe must understand that the multi-cultural political correctness self-censorship is not a recognition of either the rights and dignities of people or the diversity which characterises Earth's billions. This implies that the Obama Administration must stand at odds with some of its political base, which demands a level of courage normally absent in American politics.

If, on the other hand, the Obama administration's re-engagement with the Durban II process proves to be an exercise in placation, of seeking to defang "extremism" by incremental appeasement, then it deserves to fail. More, such a goal--or such an outcome--will merit the most severe disapprobation by We the People.

Engagement with nations or ideologies--even those which call themselves religions--demand the will and ability to fight for the values and aspirations which have long characterised both the United States and the West. All ideologies which demand submission to an authoritarian dogma, an authoritarian leader, are inherently incompatible with the American worldview.

In short, to paraphrase a line from hundreds of B grade western movies, "This here planet ain't big enough for the both of us. And, I ain't leaving."

What this means in practice is simple. The US should and must engage in the Durban II planning process. If the totalitarian crowd from the OIC and kindred countries cannot be dislodged from their agenda of bashing Israel, bashing the West, bashing the US, limiting speech, practicing intolerance, even onto murder of those of differing religions or orientations, then we must withdraw.

We must withdraw in order to fight harder. We must withdraw from Durban II in order to effectively rally our citizens and those of like minded nations to fight longer and harder against the forces bent on repressing, on limiting, on extinguishing the rights of humans.

If withdraw to fight we must, the sides will have been clearly chosen. No one anywhere will have the slightest doubt of what country, what ideology, what religious confession, what leader stands for the fullest expression of human rights, dignity and freedom. And, what country, what ideology, what religion, what leader stands in opposition.

The decks will have been cleared for battle. For this, the decision of the Obama administration deserves both congratulations and support.

Surrendering To Islamists In Pakistan And The US

The white flag is getting all too common in the past day or two. However, the sudden flourishing of the banner of defeat is not at all surprising. Equally devoid of astonishment are the places where its shameful color droops over the landscape.

Both Pakistan and the Benevolent Despotate of the American Mainstream Media have joined the United Kingdom in bending their knees before the brandished scimitar of Islamism.

In Malakand the government has signed a deal with the ever-conquering Taliban, agreeing to impose Sharia law on the region. The deal went down even as Pakistan's civilian president, Asif Zardari, allowed as how the Islamists are, "trying to take over the state."

Get a grip, Asif! This veil-less capitulation means that the Black Turban Boys of Sufi Muhammad have taken over the state. Period. Just like they already have done without benefit of an agreement with the government.

In case your memory needs to be jogged, Sufi Muhammad, is a former leader of Taliban jihadists who took on the US and other coalition forces in Afghanistan. He was captured. In one of the recurrent fits of "reconciliation" the Islamabad authorities release him.

Released, the ole Sufi went back to the hills--and his gun-toting co-religionists. Now Malakand in the Northwest Frontier Province joins Swat as an area where Sharia reigns supreme. In celebratory commemoration of this, the Taliban of Swat has announced a ten day ceasfire. Presumably this is to encourage Islamabad to withdraw the army from Swat and let the new facts on the ground remain unchallenged.

Government spokesmen hasten to assure any and all who might listen and believe them that the form of Sharia to take effect in Malakand is a kind of Sharia-Lite which would serve to "undercut support for the extremists." Other apologists for surrender have asserted that the new Sharia based approach would streamline the delay plagued civil and criminal justice system which they aver is a creaky left over from the British Raj.

Fer sure, Dudes. Right. Must be.

There is no way that any form of Sharia other than the full-bore, industrial strength version espoused by the Taliban in Swat, the FATA and Afghanistan will be acceptable. Remember, that while Sufi Muhammad has fought alongside, even with, Taliban in Afghanistan, he is not a member of the Taliban cadre. His agreement to accept Sharia-Lite is most likely to be seen by the Taliban heavies as either a temporizing move or, perhaps more likely, a sell-out by an apostate.

In either event, the pressure by the ascendant Taliban will not slacken. The pressure on Zardari will not decrease. The Islamists of Pakistan smell the delightful fragrance of victory--or at least the odor of governmental defeatism. At the same time India, the US, and even the UK (which makes up for spinelessness at home by tough talk abroad) will keep pushing Islamabad to abate the Taliban nuisance.

The absence of coherent political will makes the waging of counterinsurgency with its complex mix of coercion and legitimacy enhancing inducements impossible. At the same time, the lack of coherent political will makes the raising of white flags very, very easy and attractive. This is particularly true when the flags can be colored over in a mild pastel shade--say very light green, a reasonable facsimile of the robust green of Islam.

The surrender to the dictates of Islamists in the US by the American mainstream media is not so simple and straight forward as the instrument of capitulation in Pakistan. Here, it is the implicit surrender of the carefully averted eye, the unseen and therefore unreported insult.

In Buffalo, NY a man killed his wife. This is not normally front page, let alone national news. Making the story all the more seemingly unworthy of national coverage is the fact that the killing took place at the same time as the crash of a commuter airliner in Buffalo with the loss of fifty lives.

What serves to elevate the story out of the ho-hum category is the identity of the killer and the means of the killing. The killer was Muzzamil Hassan. He is the founder and chief executive officer of a Muslim television network called Bridge TV, which launched in 2004 with the announced (and very widely reported both nationally and overseas) goal of countering the anti-Muslim sentiments which he alleged poisoned the US.

Hassan, a former bank vice president, with the full support of his wife, Aasiya, rounded up the venture capital and got the project up and running. Earlier this month, Aasiya filed for divorce and received a protection order against Muzzamil which barred him from the family home.

The protection order didn't matter. Muzzamil killed Aasiya at the offices of Bridge TV.

The worth of the story grows with the manner of Aasiya's death. She was decapitated. Muzzamil chopped her head clean off. This is not an insignificant detail. This is not a fine point to be debated as would be the choice of a .44 vice a 9 millimeter.

No. The manner of killing goes right to the heart of the story, the heart of Islam. Decapitation is a form of killing which is both sanctioned and applauded in the Quran. It was the favorite of the Prophet. And, it is seen in Islamic societies as a particularly degrading and ultimately final way of death. It is tantamount to both killing and dishonoring the victim.

These two elements serve to raise the routine man-kills-wife story to a deserved frontpage status. Still, the American MSM ignored the tale with the delicacy of a society matron avoiding the drunk she steps over. Head high, eyes turned elsewhere, pretending that it just isn't so.

While large circulation outlets in ever-so-sensitive England and oh-so-politically-correct Canada covered the killing, the media outside of Buffalo and Boston were silent here in the land of free and robust speech--and if-it-bleeds-it-leads journalism.

Why?

One can only speculate. But, the MSM are voices of the multi-cultural sensitive elite. The editors and publishers probably fear that coverage of this truly outrageous honor killing would unnecessarily excite the hoi polloi (you know, the rest of us folks.) Perhaps there is fear in the newsrooms of the NYT or the WaPo over the reaction of the ever-ready Muslim apologists and threat makers such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. It is even possible that the decision makers of the MSM missed the essential Islamic nature of the killing, its deep roots in the doctrine and practice of Islam.

There is precedent for all these speculations.

One goes back almost a week. The LA Times reported on the sentencing of a man for torturing his children. The man who possesses an unmistakably Muslim name and had three wives (along with the 19 children he tortured and starved) was sentenced to multiple life terms by a judge who reamed the man out from the bench. At no point was the man identified as a Muslim. This was despite the fact that he adduced passages from the Quran as justification for his acts.

(Stop! Wait one! Before you go accusing the Geek of being some sort of Muslim basher, take note that the MSM have no difficulty identifying perpetrators as Christian when one of those sects goes a little funny and tortures or sexually molests children. This is done even when the defendant does not resort to Biblical passages as justifications.)

The second precedent goes back a couple of hours. In what must be the opening shot of a salvo of excuse making for Muzzammil's use of edged weapons, the New York Post reports that Bridge TV was experiencing financial problems. These problems according to a spokesman, Dr. Khalid Qazi (who is both a friend of the family and president of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of Western New York) blamed the murder on "financial" difficulties. He rejected any connection between Islam and the murder.

According to Dr Qazi, "domestic violence" has no place in Islam. He must be reading an abridged version of the Quran and Hadith.

The careful, calculated tunnel vision of the American MSM does not do We the People any positive service. When behavior is rooted in the dogma and practice of a religion, then that connection needs to be observed and commented upon. Self-censorship for whatsoever reason of sensitivity or fear of organised protests is a surrender of the responsibility of the media to provide full and accurate information on matters of moment and note.

The Buffalo decapitation, a clear exercise in honor killing, is a matter of both moment and note. Silence about it is surrender.

While honor killings are not specifically approved of in Sharia, neither is the practice of such barbaric acts condemned by it either in consensually accepted theory or practice in the courts of Islamic countries. Honor killings along with other barbarities such as female genital mutilation fall in a grey area where the absence of condemnation equals approval.

The despicable murder in Buffalo is a warning. It warns of what happens if silence, or active surrender, allow the emergence of Sharia and the attitudes which accompany it. There are not many steps between the Sharia-Lite proposed for Malakand and the bloody headless corpse of a woman in New York.