When Does It Get To Freezing In Israel?

At least one report of the Israeli government having agreed to a temporary, total freeze on new construction in the "settlements" on the West Bank as a "confidence building" measure is bumping the Obama administration's joyometer up. As is so often the case with Israeli government promises to end or reduce or limit or stabilize or naturally grow the "settlements," there is less than meets the eyes of the NYT.

In a move worthy of a world-class prestidigitator, the Government of Israel (GOI) waves its right hand while deftly shoving a rabbit into the hat with the left. Presto! One "illegal" so-called "outpost" constructed by nationalist Israelis is gone. And, shazaam! fifty new homes are approved for the displaced families. The new subdivision has been approved by the GOI's Defense Ministry for inclusion in a "settlement" near Jerusalem.

At the same time, almost to the minute, GOI announced it is expropriating some land near the Dead Sea. To read GOI's version of the land in question, all fifty-four square miles is somewhat less desirable real estate than some crater on the backside of the moon.

The Arabs don't see it that way.

As if it were stop-the-presses-I've-got-a-remake-of-page-one-for-the-bulldog level news, the Arabs resident in the affected region are hacked off. Royally. But, the GOI crooned in response that those who are annoyed by this latest bit of thaumaturgy have forty-five days in which to appeal the adverse impact upon them.

Put together the three related developments put a thumb in the Obama administration's eye. It shouldn't though. Not if the administration had the slightest bit of historical sense.

The real deal is simple and easily seen on the great videotape of history. Israel and its government, not just this government, but any of the many governments going all the way back to the thirty years of Labor Party domination has had no, repeat, absolutely no interest in losing the land of the West Bank. One ministry after another has firmly rejected any commitment to exchanging land for peace where the West Bank has been concerned.

All the way back during the international war phase of the two stage Israeli War of Independence, the government and many citizens of Israel wanted the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem (or East Jerusalem, if you prefer the alternate denomination) so bad they could taste it. When King Hussein made the major blunder of joining the other "confrontation states" in the Six Day War of June 1967, Israel satisfied its long standing desire for the land--and the Old City.

As the Israeli government well knew from its never-ending "secret" meetings with Jordan's King Hussein, the monarch was willing to break ranks with the Arab states generally and sign a separate peace with Israel in exchange for the lost territory of the West Bank and the Old City with its Number Three In The World Muslim holy site. From Golda Meir on each and every Israeli prime minister said, "No!"

Even when King Hussein sweetened the deal by allowing some border changes to acknowledge the new "facts on the ground" created by the GOI's "settlement" plan as well as allowing IDF outposts in the West Bank, the Israeli's remained totally rejectionist. GOI's intransigence in large measure depended upon the continued support of the US.

The Nixon and Ford administrations, which contained Henry Kissinger as National Security Advisor and later SecState, backstopped the Israeli position with vigor and determination. In the wake of the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Henry Kissinger redoubled his efforts to assure that the West Bank would stay under Israeli occupation. Declassified documents detail how Kissinger cozened, manipulated, and flatly lied to King Hussein in order to separate the sticky subject of the West Bank from the matter he really wanted to address.

Peace with Egypt. Kissinger wanted to pull off the "deal of the decade" by gaining a trade of land for peace between Israel and Egypt. In this ambition he was joined by Anwar Sadat, who had scant regard for either the Arabs of the West Bank or Jordan and an offsetting great regard for himself.

In the conduct of the Yom Kippur War Sadat had lied to his cobelligerent, Assad of Syria, as well as King Hussein. Then, after the Egyptian army reclaimed its testicles in the first few hours of the attack across the Suez Canal, Sadat was more than willing to do what was necessary to extract Egypt from its Soviet mentors, sign a deal with Israel, and scarf up American money.

The deal went down and peace was made. The losers were the Arabs of the West Bank and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Life for the West Bankers and Jordan did not improve any with the coming of President Carter and his Camp David Accords. Intentionally, Jordan was excluded so that glittering generalities could be made about the West Bank without any necessity of actually doing anything. Both Israel and Egypt were happy with the West Bank status quo albeit for different reasons.

And so it went year after year. No GOI had any interest of seeing the West Bank effectively removed from Israeli domination even should physical occupation come to an end. Certainly no GOI contemplated the most remote possibility of the "settlements" either being abandoned or their expansion materially decreased. Indeed, no GOI would have politically survived any move in that direction.

Trading Sinai for peace was one thing. Trading the West Bank was and is something quite different. Bear in mind that it took thirty or so years for Israel to finally agree that a pure Arab city such as Jericho should be under non-Israeli rule. The notion was first discussed by King Hussein and his Israeli interlocutors in the wake of the Six Day War but the reality did not come to pass until a new century dawned.

The Obama administration is now finding out what the Carter administration did in the days after the shake-and-grin over Camp David. GOI is long on promising--or seeming to promise--an end to the "settlement" plan and very, very short on delivering these commitments. Jimmy Carter went ballistic when he discovered that GOI had flat out lied about the "settlements." The American president thought he had a guarantee of a permanent halt. GOI said it had never intended more than a short term hiatus "for confidence building" with the Arabs.

So, there you have it, Mr President, short and not at all sweet. If you go to the videotape you can see the entire drama of deceit, duplicity, ambition, greed and politics, Israeli style. You can also see the key players who lurk on the edge of the camera's view, the Israel Lobby, the Congressmen and Senators seeking election and the money that takes, the media misleaders, all the motley crew which serves to condition and limit American foreign policy and constrain the means by which it may be conducted.

It's all there, Mr President. There is no need for you to be surprised or see yourself as President Carter did, a victim of world-class hornswagglers. Yeah, land for peace sounds so fine. Too bad it's not going to happen soon--or perhaps, ever.

Hugo Chavez Falls In Line

Apparently taking his cue from the mullahs and re-elected president of Iran as well as the Dear Leader of North Korea, Hugo Chavez, the wannabe Castro of the 21st Century, has entered the Bluster-For-All-You're-Worth Festival of International Bad Actors. Reportedly the semi-dictator of Venezuela has ordered his military to stand by for a possible intervention in Honduras.

The Mullahs Best Friend In LatAm has announced he will do whatever he can to "abort" the military coup which displaced Honduran president and Chavez' buddy, Manuel Zeylaya, early today. Chavez also warned the Honduran military that any attempt to harm or kidnap his ambassador in that country will be met by force.

Chavez must feel he is riding a high of (probably manufactured) public support given the demonstration by his supporters against the only ant-government TV station still on the air in the oil powered new socialist paradise of South America. It might be mentioned that the latest piece of Chavez posturing comes on the heels of the Obama administration's decision to put our mission in Caracas back on the ambassadorial level and only weeks after President Obama poured love and smiles on the far-left leaning and profoundly anti-American Chavez.

Can we say, "Spanner in the works?"

The rhetorical tirade launched as is usual on nationwide television by Chavez calls into question the value of Mr Obama's search for "engagement" in lieu of the previous administration's confrontational approach to the chest-thumping former paratrooper turned president morphed into dictator. In this context in might be mentioned that Chavez hinted darkly that the US was somehow behind the military coup.

Hugo's suspicions run counter to the reality that the US has worked to stave off the coup over the past several days. While the Honduran president is no friend of the US, there is no longing in Washington for regime change. Even if such is the desire of the Honduran political elite.

The deposed president is the primary proximate cause of his own involuntary plane ride to Costa Rica. In an attempt to emulate the success of his supporter and role model, Hugo Chavez, Sr. Zelaya sought to ram through a referendum which would have changed the Honduran constitution approved some twenty years ago so as to allow him to run for re-election when his term ends next January. The referendum was declared illegal by the Honduran congress and supreme court.

The position taken by the Honduran congress and supreme court represent the political elite which has never had much, if any, use for Zelaya. His support comes from the non-elte in the country. There is no doubt that the lot of the average Honduran is not good. Crime, particularly homicide as well as drug traffic, particularly cocaine, run rampant in the country, which was recently ranked by the World Bank well below the median of 209 countries rated in security.

The reduction of remittances from Honduran illegal workers in the US has had a dramatic, even devastating, impact on the nation's economy. And, the average Honduran, elite or not, is very well aware of the realities in which they live.

So also is the ambitious Sr Zeyala who, like the majority of wannabe dictators of the left, wants to be a transformational figure--or at least the Big Enchilada. Riding the wave of discontent rising from the lower, alienated, and hopeless portions of the population is the time-honored way to gain power for life. This is what lies behind the proposal for the referendum.

It is both unfortunate and predictable that the Honduran army which, like the majority of armies through the sweep of LatAm history is the protector of both the privileged and the status quo, intervened as it did. Pressure from the Organization of American States and the US might reverse the coup. (Note: the US is far and away Honduras' largest trading partner.) But, the Chavez saber rattling will not.

If the Great Man of the Bolivarian Revolution has any grip on reality he is well aware of this. After all, how is he going to project force into Honduras? What will his Russian supplied naval vessels do if the US Navy interposes itself? Come in shooting? Or, will he use the nation's airborne forces? And, if the US says, "No," then what?

OK, Hugo, the Geek agrees you are trying to get up there with Iran and North Korea. But, you have a long, long way to go. Iran is a genuine and growing threat to regional and, potentially, world peace. North Korea is a well established player of global extortion with a degree of resolve behind its apparent lunacy which is both well-honed and developed.

Venezuela, however, under the inspired revolutionary leadership of Hugo Chavez, is not even into the minor leagues of global troublemaker. That may change given the regime's ties with Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as its willingness and ability to foster and protect the international traffic in illegal drugs.

But, for the moment, the Chavez regime would be best off building its capacity for future bad acting and keeping a lid on premature bluster. There is nothing more damaging to a regional problem child than having its poor manners greeted by derisive laughter and not the sound of knees knocking.

Meanwhile, Back In The AfPak---

Buried away under mounds of important news regarding the demise of Michael Jackson, the world goes on. Ahmedinejad continues to fire salvos of bluster at President Obama while the Iranian ambassador to Mexico maintained darkly that that icky-poo crew at CIA were behind the murder of protest icon, Neda.

Over in the Hermit Kingdom of the North the invective hurling goes on unabated with the North Korean airforce vowing to shoot down any Japanese aircraft which penetrates the sacred space of the North by so much as "0.001 mm." While China is said to be completely supportive of the "tough" sanctions directed against North Korea by the Security Council, the rust bucket purportedly carrying prohibited cargo plodded through the South China Sea watched by satellites and the USS John McCain, which is not expected to do any more than keep eyeballing the suspect ship.

Feeling almost as if he is playing the role of the narrator in some old TV Western serial like the Lone Ranger who periodically intones in the grave but urgent voice of one announcing the impending end of the world, "Meanwhile, back at the ranch...," the Geek directs his attention to the ongoing, even developing affrays in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is beaucoup in progress in these interlocked venues. Most of it is good from the perspective of those who do not desire to see Islamism on the road to triumph.

Granted, leading organs of the American MSM exemplified by the New York Times see defeat for the US, Pakistan and the Karzai where others see the glimmerings of success. The NYT is firmly convinced that the Pakistani glass is near empty rather than filling fast in the wake of the Swat Valley campaign and the commencement of operations in South Waziristan.

The Times is appalled by the lack of apparent devastation in Swat. Their reporter was evidently quite perturbed by the appearance of normality in the district as he flew overhead. Farmers were actually harvesting their crops. Buildings stood intact rather than lying in rubble heaps across the streets and roads. Vast areas of field and forest showed no sign of having been bombed or napalmed into wastelands. Mounds of corpses were conspicuous by their absence.

Putting the visuals together with the prolongation of military operations beyond their first, highly optimistic estimated date for completion, the Times writers concluded that the Pakistani army had not been successful in defeating Taliban. Not only does this conclusion show a deep inability to differentiate between a successful counterinsurgency effort and high intensity conventional war, it indicates a strong desire on the part of the paper to ignore reality in favor of ideological desires.

Why the NYT is so eager to see the Pakistani government defeated in its first genuine, sustained effort to regain control of its country from the rude barbarians of Taliban is not for the Geek to state. What can be written is that the Times is doing a major disservice to the government, military and citizens of Pakistan in its efforts to portray defeat at a time when neither victory nor loss can be accurately assessed or predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty.

While the government of Pakistan is far from attaining any meaningful form of victory in its existential contest with the Taliban, both it and its military forces as well as the general run of the Pakistani population which has supported the counterinsurgency effort deserve both honest reporting and a hearty vote of confidence (and congratulations) for having finally taken up the challenge presented by the Islamist jihadists of Taliban.

The army has evidently fought far more effectively than many in the West predicted. The destruction and collateral civilian casualties were both far below what many on our side of the world feared given the training, organisation and equipment of the Pakistani army. The first sine qua non of successful counterinsurgency is limiting civilian death, destruction and dislocation to the maximum extent possible.

The death and destruction have obviously been limited severely as the Times report makes clear. The dislocation was not so constrained. There resides the major problem confronting the government and its supporters such as the US. The internally displaced persons (IDP) must be returned to their homes, fields and businesses with rapidity. There must be ample assistance provided so that the returning IDPs can restart their lives quickly and effectively. This will require not only substantial amounts of the long green but also a fair, transparent and non-corrupt system of assistance distribution.

That process, the myriad problems of returning and resettling the IDP population as well as giving a proper jump start to their lives is a far, far greater challenge to the government than is the killing or capture of Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban Theocrat-in-Chief. An even greater challenge will confront the lads of Islamabad as the IDPs return to Swat.

That second challenge which will confront the government as the IDPs return is that of providing essential governmental services such as a judicial system which is perceived as fair, transparent, impartial and effective. After all, the reason so many people in Swat originally supported Taliban was the awesome failure of the regime to provide these. Importantly, the jury will remain out for quite some while on this matter and there is no reason for optimism.

Quite simply, the government of Pakistan does not have a good record in providing the essentials of government in any department. Partially this is the consequence of its hyperfocus on war with India over disputed territories including the massive use of limited resources on the development of nuclear weapons and their associated delivery systems. Partially it is the result of the repeated military coups. Finally it is, in part, the necessary result of the deep political divisions which have both scarred the political history of Pakistan and called the army out of the barracks and into the offices of power.

The government and army made the correct decision to use the momentum which is currently on their side by moving into the FATA, particularly South Waziristan the inner sanctum of the Islamist jihadists--Taliban, Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda. Taking the war to the insurgents is absolutely necessary if ultimate success is to be achieved. Keeping the initiative is key.

The South Waziristan nut is one which will be very, very difficult to crack. The writ of Islamabad has never run deeply in the FATA. Establishing it will be a demanding task. On the up side is the propensity of Taliban to kill the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time with the result that it alienates the very people whose support is essential.

When a Taliban suicide bomber detonated himself in a mosque in Kandahar he not only killed a jilly-poo of civilians including women and children, he caused the local villagers to take up arms against the Islamist jihadists. As a result the Taliban lost status and potency with the local tribes as well as a number of its trigger pullers and wannabe martyrs.

Taliban's typical Islamist jihadist emphasis on death is the government's "secret" weapon. As long as the military refrains from unnecessary killing and destroying so as to lay the onus of civilian deaths, dislocation and fear on Taliban it will have a better than even chance of defeating the Islamist jihadists and establishing Islamabad's authority in the region.

This development is good news for the US effort in Afghanistan. As the increased American troop presence in Helmand province makes itself felt, the combination of that plus the Pakistani movement into South Waziristan puts Taliban and al-Qaeda in the grip of the vice. More and more, provided Pakistan keeps on with the current operations, the Islamist jihadists can run but they will no longer be able to hide in the remote fastness of the mountains of South Waziristan.

The deep kimchee in which the jihadists are finding themselves has been evidenced in recent weeks by reports showing that the "foreign" fighters are exfiltrating Afghanistan and the FATA and resurfacing in Yemen and Somalia. While it is too early and too much serious fighting remains to make firm predictions, the combination of the US escalation, the new tactical and operational thinking of the US command in Afghanistan, and the ancillary pressure being applied by the Pakistanis does not auger well for the Islamist jihadists.

The correlation of forces (to use that wonderful old Soviet term) in Afghanistan provides a firm reason for President Karzai's call to Taliban not to seek the disruption of August's elections. The Karzai call is not, as the NYT seems to believe, a sign of weakness, but, rather, an indication that the man is reading the tea leaves with a fair degree of accuracy.

The tipping point in both Pakistan and Afghanistan has come. Whether the balance will finally fall in favor of the counterinsurgent forces or not cannot be predicted with certainty today. The situation should clarify in the next thirty to sixty days, but right now all that can be stated with conviction is that the dynamic favors the good guys in both countries for the first time.

Provided that the new tactical and operational approach espoused by the US command in Afghanistan is put into effect and the Pakistani effort continues, by this time next year it should be possible to state firmly that the US has achieved its minimum strategic goal of "not-losing." It is not possible to be so sanguine regarding Pakistan. The government has a far more complex task before it in that it must not only militarily defeat Taliban but it must mitigate the conditions which provided Taliban with its appeal to the men in the streets of Pakistan.

Now, back to the ongoing requiem for Michael Jackson---

DEATH! DEATH! DEATH!

In yet one more totally predictable reaction to the protests against the mullahocracy and its hijacked election, a high ranking cleric, a member of the Expediency Council, the Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami, has called for the execution of "leaders" of the protest movement. What else is new, Ayatollah?

From its start right on to the present day, the mullahs of Iran and their followers have called for, chanted en masse, practiced, and seemed to have orgasms over the very idea of killing. No group, not even the Islamist jihadists who state quite believably that they "love death" more than their opponents "love life," have made such a fetish of death.

The Geek has little use for religion other than the manifold ways in which institutionalised expressions of internal beliefs in some deity or another have been employed to political ends. That is, the ways in which religions have sought to obtain, retain, expand, and exploit their creeds, their dogma, in order to directly and substantially exercise power over the perceptions, beliefs, and actions of people generally.

As part of his checkered and all-too-lengthy educational career, the Geek has compiled credits in comparative religion, the sociology of religion, the anthropology of religion, and the history (often bloody) of religion. This study has included not only the three largest monotheistic religions but those with many deities as well as none at all. Looking at Iran and the actions of the Islamist jihadist groups has only reinforced a conclusion reached tentatively many years ago. Of all the religions, great and small, past or present, Islam holds the record as the faith most given to death, most preoccupied with hell, most willing and able to capitalise on the pervasive human fear of death.

While the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, contains more than a little blood drenched prose, the portions dealing with purported genocide so often pointed to by apologists for Islam constitute only a very small portion of the faith history of the ancient Hebrews--and modern Jews. Beyond that, as archeology demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt, the destruction of cities and slaughter of peoples which blemish the Hebrew Bible simply did not happen.

While faith per se did not require the addition of mass killings which did not happen, the existence of the Hebrew religion as an instrument of state did. The state, its kings and priests, needed belief in the power and ruthlessness of the Hebrew deity in order to preserve and expand their power over a people which, the Hebrew Bible shows, had a powerful tendency to factionalisation. The myth of deity-inspired genocide was a propaganda tool of the rulership.

The message of Jesus, the Wandering Sage and Healer of Galilee, made no mention of death, of hell, of a killer deity. His message was one of the inclusiveness of the deity, of the ever-present nature of the Kingdom of Heaven, of the reality that God existed lovingly within each and every human, that the love of God was expressed by the will and ability to love one's neighbor.

As such, the message of Jesus, which resided comfortably within an emerging strain of Jewish theological thought, was a danger to the state. It banished the need for intermediaries between the individual and the deity. It eliminated the requirement for the Temple, for sacrifices, for the surrendering of the individual to authority. Worse, it dispensed with the notion of a specific Chosen People, replacing that concept with one in which all humanity was equally chosen.

Without meaning to be such, Jesus was a clear and present danger to all authority both sacred and secular at a time when there was no meaningful separation between the two. From the rational perspective of those in authority, particularly religious authority, Jesus deserved to die. And, so he did.

Only later, only after Paul and his successors took the simple to state but hard to live message of the Wandering Sage and transformed it into an institutionalised church did death, hell, fear, and authority creep into and eventually transform the message beyond all recognition. As a Church, the Christians needed both a hierarchy and a creed by which an identifiable, controllable structured community could be created.

The Christian Church required the use of fear to promote its power among people. Not surprisingly, the leaders of the emerging Church in the first few centuries of its existence seized upon the human fear of death and its aftermath as the tool. The Church promised that by strict observance of its creedal requirements and obedience to its officials, a pleasant eternal life could be achieved. At the same time, the Church promised eternal punishment of the worst imaginable sort to those who existed outside its ambit or who violated its instructions.

To the present day there are Christian denominations who play the same cards of fear. There are Churches which promise reward to those who hear and obey and eternal hellfire for all others. Since human nature and its basic fears have not altered appreciably since the days of eating cold meat at the mouth of a cave, the "fear-up, fear-down" technique is still effective.

That having been said, let the record show that over the centuries the Christian communities have backed away from the fear soaked messages regarding death and hell. Over the years the Christians have increasingly rediscovered the life oriented, the here-and-now based nature of Jesus' original message.

Similarly, since the fall of the Temple in the wars against the Roman occupiers, the Jewish tradition, the rabbinical tradition, has placed the emphasis where it was in much of the Hebrew Bible. On life. On duty. On service. On the here-and-now. On making the most of the one opportunity we all know we have to live.

Islam is in many, if not all respects, a pastiche of previously extant religions within the Arabian Peninsula. Read in conjunction with the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament as well as what is known about the nature and character of the religions indigenous to the area beyond these two, it is clear that the Koran and accompanying works and sayings of Mohammad are a compilation of that which already existed.

For whatsoever series of reasons, much of that which was stitched together from the fragments of earlier traditions placed an undue focus on death, on hell, on the need to escape the latter when the first inevitably occurs through complete, unquestioning, and absolute submission to the words of the Prophet, the final prophet, the designated ultimate agency of the deity.

The resulting less than edifying pastiche depends upon fear over all else to compel belief, force obedience, assure unanimity of action. The sacred literature of Islam exults death, visions of hell, thoughts of paradise to an extent that surpasses the aggregate of all other religions.

The practice of Islam shows that blood, killing, and dying in the name of the faith persists to a greater degree and a greater longevity than the equivalents in other faiths. A (very) brief review of history shows this.

The crude Christian land grab covered with the vestments of "saving the Holyland" called the Crusades represents a brief period of Christian history. The so-called "religious wars" of Europe in the early Seventeenth Century owed nothing to the doctrinal differences between Catholic and Protestant and everything to the temporal ambitions of princes, kings, and popes.

The exploitation of the New World by the ever-so-Catholic Spanish might have been conducted under the sign of the Cross but it was carried out by the sword for the reward of gold--not God. The British and to a lesser extent, the French were honest enough not to involve theology in their conquest of what Kipling would eventually term, "the lesser breeds without the law."

And, as the record shows, even these colonialists got over it. Ultimately British reformers, for example, employed Christian theology and terms to squash slavery and eventually abandon colonialism. It may have been rather late in the day, but the message of Jesus broke through the conscience of the colonisers whether French or British or even Spanish.

The same cannot be said of Islam. Particularly the expression of Islam in Islamist jihadism. As has been shown again and again over centuries--and certainly in recent years, the Islamist interpretation of the Koran and other sacred writings expresses itself in an orientation toward killing and dying which boggles the civilized mind.

As if the death orientation were not sufficient to churn the stomach of the observer, regardless of that observer's religious affiliations, then there is the barbaric actions of Islamist jihadists ranging from the stonings and other summary executions in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Somalia to the mere maimings purportedly demanded by Sharia law.

The Islamist understanding of Islam deserves--no--demands the condemnation of all civilized people everywhere. Most of all it demands the most severe condemnation and rejection by people who are practicing, observant Muslims.

Islam's sacred writings do contain positive, life-affirming portions which are the equal of any such found in the literature of other religions. The responsibility of observant Muslims is to seize upon these and reject those parts which celebrate death and killing, worship hell with an almost pornographic focus, and capitalise on fear for the purposes of political power.

Unless and until observant Muslims, those for whom the Five Pillars are the centrality of faith, unite in rejection of the Islamist jihadists whether clerics or not, they must stand indicted as co-conspirators in the hijacking of Islam by the worst in their midst.

A religion in order to be a real benefit to those who follow it must focus on life, not death, must serve to promote an openness to other communities rather than to separate, build walls, and foster fear and distrust. A worthy religion is one which recognises in its practices the dignity of human life, the creativity of people, the genus of people for good.

Islamism, whether in Iran or elsewhere, does not serve life, does not celebrate love, does not portray a deity worthy of worship. Islamism is simply the tool of the seekers after power who are willing to climb to the summit on slippery mounds of bloody bodies.

Unless and until observant Muslims unite against those Islamists, those jihadists who worship death and hell, they have absolutely no complaints to make against those who express their revulsion at the evils committed in the name of Allah.

When Is A POW Not A POW?

Way back in the bad old days of the Global War on Terror, the Cheney-Bush Administration made one of its characteristically thoughtless decisions. This particular exercise in ill-considered major policy choices was that of inventing a new category of US prisoner, the (unlawful) enemy combatant.

To make darn sure that this decision would receive maximum attention over time, the Cheney-Bush neocon ninnies surrounded the initial ungrounded in reality decision with the barbed wire and bars of Gitmo. In a companion move, the administration authorised the military to create a less visible form of Gitmo at the Bagram base in Afghanistan.

Now the Obama administration and the president himself are in the crossfire between those who decry the very idea of indefinite detention without all the customary formalities provided by the American criminal justice system and those who are certain that any person once dubbed an enemy combatant will be a terrorist forever more. Whipsawed between these two camps of the hyperventilating, it is small wonder that President Obama is searching for a solution less complex than the health care reform proposal.

It is not as if the US has never faced the conundrum of dealing with individuals captured in active combat against American forces in the field who were not the military personnel of state actors. Admittedly, the vast majority of wars waged by the US have been fought against nation-states. It was easy to deal with battlefield captives: Put them behind barbed wire until the war was over and then ship them home.

But, say the apologists for the Cheney-Bush conduct of the Global War on Terror, the folks our troops capture are not the lawful personnel of a state. They are the (unlawful) members of non-state groups waging asymmetrical war against the United States. So, the US has no choice besides holding them in durance-not-at-all-vile in perpetuity or at least until each individual can prove that not only is he not guilty of any crime under US law but also that he no longer represents a danger to the US, its troops or citizens or the those of any other allied state.

Had the laddybucks of the Cheney-Bush team not been so busy in the making of history, they would have discovered without more than the slightest effort that the US government had dealt with (unlawful) enemy combatants before. The most recent taking and holding in preventative detention of (unlawful) enemy combatants came just over a century before the troops toppled Omar in Afghanistan.

The main figure in this episode was the Apache war leader Geronimo. This legendary figure was born near Turkey Creek in what is now New Mexico near where several of the Geek's own ancestors also first saw the light of what would soon be the White Man's land but was then their own quite private turf.

Eighty years later in 1909 Geronimo died in captivity at Fort Sill where he and others taken with him nearly twenty years earlier were being "detained" as that day's version of (unlawful) enemy combatants. Geronimo and his associates had, it is true, spread terror across southwest New Mexico, southeast Arizona, and a swath of Mexico. They killed civilians as well as soldiers in both the US and Mexico. They dragged large American forces on one fruitless chase after another until finally taken prisoner under circumstances, terms, and conditions which are still hazy and hotly debated by historians.

The upshot was that Geronimo and the others taken with him were hauled off to Florida where they died in large numbers from endemic disease as well as the impact of a climate to which even the robust Apache were not accustomed. Later, for reasons which are unclear, some of the Apache were allowed to go to the reservation in Arizona, but Geronimo and some others were transported to Fort Sill and never allowed to go home--even to die.

To say that the continued captivity of Geronimo was unjustifiable as he passed his seventieth birthday is to belabor the obvious. Age and decrepitude as well as the rapid changes in the old Apache ranges of New Mexico and Arizona combined to make the man and his followers completely nonthreatening.

The captivity, the "detention" of these Apaches, passed any legitimate consideration of national security and entered the foul realm of vengeance. The same phenomenon resides explicitly in the Cheney-Bush approach to POWs captured in the Global War On Terror.

Arguably, the US would be in its rights if it held individuals captured on the battlefield, those taken "in arms" against the US or its allies as prisoners of war, according to the requirements of the Geneva Convention. While it is true that these individuals were not in the service of a state actor and, it must be noted, the Geneva Convention did not consider the possibility of non-state actors engaged in war other than resistance forces directing their efforts against an invading or occupying power, this oversight does not enervate the capacity of the Convention's clauses to be extended to al-Qaeda, Taliban, or other groups' members.

This approach implies that the captives might be held until such time as the US declares the war to be over. And, this might never happen. In which case the prisoners of this sort of war would be facing the very real prospect of life long captivity.

As an alternative the US could consider the case of each individual taken "in arms" in order to determine on an individual basis as to whether or not the individual continued to represent a threat to the US, its citizens and troops. If found to be free of sinister impulses, the individual would then be released to his country of origin or initial capture.

The problem--and it is a very real one--is that of determining future intent and capacity. The situation is analogous to that of preventative detention as applied to sex offenders. Current federal law as is the case with many states permits the continued detention of sexual offenders after their criminal sentence has been completed. The reasoning is the protection of society against future possible depredations outweighs the individual's right to freedom.

In principle this balancing act may be correct. In practice, given the difficulty, not to say impossibility, of accurately predicting the future behavior of an individual means case by case travesties will necessarily be committed.

If the psychology of sex offenders admits of little predictive certainty, how much more is this the case with (unlawful) enemy combatants? If Uncle Sam is going to place his finger on the scale so as to maximise the safety and security of Americans, very few POWs will be released, even, like Geronimo, in their dotage.

Recently released Pentagon findings indicate that the screening and release process to date has been far from leakproof. A small percentage of individuals released from Gitmo or Bagram or the assorted POW cages in Iraq have returned to battle. Corpses, documents and verified testimony have shown that more than one in ten of those released return to active combat against the US and its allies.

The most recent proposal to have been floated contemplates a form of preventative detention involving judicial review by a special court first after fourteen days in captivity and then at six month intervals. The prime author of this proposal, Benjamin Wittes, is a well-known and respected student of matters connected with terror and responses thereto. His work is solid, very solid.

But, the proposal suffers from all of the deficiencies associated with preventative detention procedures generally. The recurrent judicial evaluations must be based upon prognostication as to the danger represented by the release of the individual. In addition, the possibility that the process will be polluted by the understandable, all-too-human desire for vengeance against the perpetrator of putatively dastardly acts must be factored in. That which happened to Geronimo can happen--no--will happen again.

The first duty of a government is to protect its citizens against threats of foreign origin. It is that reason which compels erring on the side of caution when it comes to the release of POWs taken in a war against non-state actors. The human rights activists typified by Human Rights First's capo Elisa Massimino must realise this brutal reality.

Al-Qaeda, Taliban and the other Islamist jihadist entities started the current very, very long war. As they are non-state actors (and hopefully will stay that way) only the US and its allies can bring the war to an end. Until and unless that happens members of these groups taken "in arms" must be held in Geneva Convention agreeable captivity.

Those captives who have committed a crime under federal law can and should face trial. This facing of justice must take place with all the customary features afforded by the Federal Courts. If convicted of discrete crimes, these individuals must be incarcerated according to the provisions of the relevant statutes under which they have been charged and convicted. Upon the completion of their sentence these people along with any detainees not charged with a Federal offense must be detained until either the end of hostilities or a clear finding that the individual no longer represented a threat.

The Geek agrees with those who find preventative detention distasteful. The proliferation of laws allowing or even requiring detention after the completion of criminal sentences applied to sex offenders bothers the Geek as it is so easy to err against the individual in the interests, real or alleged, of safety.

The same is true with respect to (unlawful) enemy combatants. As the case of Geronimo shows the introduction of vengeance is too easy. The prediction of future behavior is too uncertain to permit of an easy conscience when the situation of POWs in this new and brutal form of war is contemplated.

However, when all relevant factors are considered, the need of the US government to protect the lives and property of its citizens overwhelms any presumed harm caused the individual by his having made the choice to take up arms against us. The Obama administration realises this and is willing to take the heat from those who are overly bothered by the necessary consequences of taking effective action on the behalf of We the People.

If his choice results in his spending decades, perhaps his entire life, behind barbed wire, that is unfortunate. But, he made the choice.

Such can be the will of Allah.

It's Their Bed, Let 'Em Rest In Peace

Magic day Number One is fast approaching in Iraq. Tuesday, 30 June 2009 is the day upon which all US troops are to be out of all Iraqi cities. A small residuum of trainers, advisers and providers of specialised services such as medical evacuation will be tolerated in urban Iraq. Tolerated, that is, as long as they keep a very low profile.

The Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki has declared this First Magic Day to be one of national rejoicing, feasting, and festival. Cutting to the chase, Maliki called it a "great victory." The US has declined to comment on this declaration which implies that, somehow, the Americans have been defeated by the will of the Iraqi people and their government.

In what almost appeared as an afterthought, the joyful Prime Minister warned that there would be continued efforts on the part of unspecified individuals and groups to destabilize the situation. He added that "with Allah's will I and you will be ready for them."

The Iranian people, or at least those contacted by the NYT, a group which included senior Iraqi security officials, did not share the PM's hope--or willingness to rest the future of their nation and lives on the will of Allah. Considering the recent epidemic of very lethal vehicle bombings, the trepidations expressed seem to be far more rooted in reality than the Maliki declaration of victory and national day of fest and festivals.

Another cloud is on Maliki's upbeat horizon. He is being seen as Saddam incarnate. This is an overstatement, but the reality that Maliki is not the limp wristed, easily pulled by the nose sort of fellow he was initially viewed as being is most assuredly true--and necessary. There can be no arguing against the proposition that Maliki is using violence and intimidation against those who would be so bold as to oppose him. Arguably, that is the reality of Iraqi politics now and into the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately for the future of Iraq--and Maliki--the necessity of compelling political opponents to fall into line behind the PM is of much less importance than the capacity of the government and its security forces to defeat or, at the very least, deter the armed anti-government groups. Stopping the bombers is far more critical than silencing critics.

The "great victory" of having the American combat troops leave urban areas including Mosul and Kirkuk as well as the sprawling Sadr City portion of Baghdad according to the Status of Forces Agreement reached last year is much less of an accomplishment for the government than it is an inducement for such hostile groups as Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. In case the PM has not noticed it, the hostiles claim that they will succeed according to the much invoked "will of Allah."

Prayers, declarations and other such attempts to either discern or motivate the decision of the deity are of far less utility in the countering of violence and the protection of citizens' lives than is the capacity to shoot first, straighter, and faster. The US combat troops demonstrated a clear superiority over the hostiles during the past two years. The years which saw violence drop faster than a Republican forgets his marriage vows were the years of maximum effective employment of American intelligence, mobility, and firepower.

The hostiles, the gun-thugs, the seekers after "martyrdom" who were not killed or captured by the American troops were sufficiently deterred by the negative possibilities of encountering the often maligned Americans to seek less risky ways of passing their time and conforming to the perceived "will of Allah." That those dangerous days are over is evident in the noise of bombs and the wailing of the injured.

Iraq is now the possession of the Iraqis and the government which they elected in a process which constituted the most open, transparent, and honestly conducted exercise in democracy in the history of the Mideast outside of Israel. Whether well-advised or not, the Status of Forces Agreement has been signed and is being implemented.

The meticulous care with which the US has implemented it as well as the delicate way in which the US has treated the political sensibilities of Maliki and his investment in the "great victory" are a credit to the mature way in which the administration is pursuing the necessary endgame strategy. Over the past several years, in all the weary months since President George W. Bush prematurely announced "Mission accomplished," the US has cleared the decks so that Iraq does belong to the Iraqis.

It is up to them and them alone to determine whether or not the blood, death, and devastation which marked the end of the Saddam Hussein period will bring about a long, peaceful, and prosperous period or not. Should Iraq energetically disassemble into warring factions whose pursuit of power is punctuated by suicide and roadside bombs, it will be their choice--and not ours.

No one should expect Iraq to be as tranquil as Switzerland nor should its politics be expected to be any more fair and honest than, say, that of Chicago. Tranquility may come over time. Honest elections may someday emerge. Whether they do or not is not the affair of the US.

We have done what we must to clean the mess our unnecessary, unjustifiable, and perhaps ultimately counterproductive adventure in regime change created. Our money, our troops' blood and death, bought the time and political space necessary so that Iraqis might create their own vision of politics, society, and economics.

As the days count down to Magic Day Number Two, the date next year when all (well, almost all) of our forces depart Iraq, there is little we can do to assure the best possible outcome. Iraq might benefit from further training for its military and security forces. It will benefit from the influx of US and other Western oil companies in the development and improvement of its oil fields. The movement of other investments into the country cannot but be of assistance.

Beyond that, on issues such as will Maliki become closer to Saddam in his style of government or will Iraq crumble before the mass of Islamist jihadist pressure and subversion on the part of Iran, there is not much we can do. Or should.

The lessons of history demonstrate that nations cannot be built by outsiders. Outsiders cannot, as Woodrow Wilson once vowed, "teach them to elect good men." Outsiders cannot assure tranquility and prosperity eternal.

Regardless of what happens now in Iraq, the Obama administration and We the People must remember that Iraq is now the bed the Iraqis make. We will have to let them lie on it in peace (or not.)

A Pretend Action For A Pretend Country

Here we go again. In an action for which no real justification was given, the Obama administration has decided to send weapons and ammunition to the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia. The swag will be dispatched indirectly through African intermediaries so as to avoid offending regional "sensitivities."

The State Department took great pains to point out that this indirect assistance is being provided in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions and does not represent any escalation of American involvement in the blood soaked sands of Somalia. Well, don't we all feel better knowing that the panjandrums of the "international community" will look kindly at this tid-bit of too-little-too-late assistance to a completely artificial government which does not fully control even a small enclave, a kind of "Green Zone" on the microscopic scale.

It has long been the Geek's view that the totality of the geographic expression called "Somalia" is not worth whatever might be today's American equivalent of Bismarck's famed "Pomeranian Grenadier." Somalia does not and never has had any organic reason to exist as a nation-state.

The entire concept of "Somalia" is a legacy of decisions made by long dead politicians in Europe. During the rush to de-colonization forty and more years ago, "Somalia" was cobbled together by the assorted artificers of Europe and the United Nations.

With flourishes of pens on pieces of parchment simulating paper, the rude assemblage of tribes and warlords was transformed to the dignity of nation-state status regardless of any structural or cultural realities. Without the slightest genuflection in the direction of the real world, the high minded of two generations ago crafted yet one more imitation country and stood back, quaffing champagne in commemoration of their broadminded nature and total disregard for the inevitable invocation of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The concatenation of distant, high minded "statesmen" and local men of great ambition lurched along for a couple of decades before disintegrating in the aftermath of the US sanctioned removal of an obnoxious dictator, Said Barre, in 1991. Two years later in a remarkably poorly conceived and pathetically executed "humanitarian relief" operation, the US provided an object lesson in how quickly it could be defeated.

Al-Qaeda, which was already represented in Somalia, took quick notice of how the US could be forced to retreat by the high visibility deaths of a couple of dozen Special Forces personnel. The rapidity of the US bugout was, shall we say, an emboldening sight for Osama bin Laden, et al.

Over the next fifteen or so years the road in Somalia was all down hill. An increasingly bloody hill at that. For a brief while the slide to total chaos was arrested by the Ethiopian army, which undertook a "stability oriented operation" with US support. But, even the Ethiopians could be worn out by the willingness of the Islamist jihadists to both die and kill.

The "international community" stuck its well-meaning fingers back into the Somalian grinder with the Djibouti Agreement between the fiction they had created called the Transitional Federal Government and an anti-government entity, The Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia. At the end of the talk-shake-and-grin session, the assembled Deep Thinkers carpentered an agreement which placed a one time head of the Islamist jihadist group, Al-Shabab, one Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, as the Chief of State and Head of Government.

It was hoped that this one time "extremist" turned present day "moderate" would cut the political ground out from under Al-Shabab or, failing that, some of the other proliferating Islamist jihadist groups. Of course, as with all the other efforts to fabricate something from nothing, the Djibouti Agreement didn't work out as planned.

Al-Shabab has gone from victory to victory. As the refugees flee, the nauseating thugs of Islamism have gained control of most of the rump of Somalia. (The rump is that part of the initial Somalia less the purportedly semi-autonomous regions of Puntland and Somaliland.)

Al-Shabab is given to the most extreme and barbaric interpretations of Sharia as evidenced most recently by the lopping off of the right hands and left feet of four young men convicted according to the Islamist understanding of due process for the crime of theft. (The reports of the public maimings are silent as to whether an anesthetic was used or if the surgical instrument--a machete--wielded by the hooded executioners was sterilised. Oh, well, it is all in the hands and will of Allah.)

When not lopping off limbs or stoning girls who have the bad judgement as to be raped, the Warriors of the Prophet's Will extend hospitality to Al-Qaeda and others of that ilk. As life has become more exciting and shorter in Afghanistan and the FATA of Pakistan, there has been an increasing flow of Al-Qaeda trigger-pullers and wannabe suicide bombers into Somalia.

It is that last fact and that alone which gives any justification for any American involvement no matter how indirect and minimal in the Somalian blood stew. Arguably, the aid announced today is too late by months, if not years, and too little by orders of magnitude to have any positive impact on the situation in Somalia.

As the pirates of the Somalian coast have demonstrated with a clarity which cannot be denied by anyone, Somalia has strategic importance for the national interests of the United States and many other countries. The cruciality of Somalia is enhanced by the deterioration of stability in Yemen.

The control of Somalia and Yemen by Al-Qaeda or similar Islamist jihadist groups brings with it the realistic possibility that the turbaned thugs would be well sited to interdict entrance to the Red Sea. To state that free transit of the Gulf of Aden is critical to the economic stability of the West as well as large portions of the Mideast is to belabor the obvious.

If the Obama administration is serious about protecting the national and strategic interests of the US, it is necessary to prevent the Islamists from gaining uncontested control of Somalia--and Yemen. The same may be said of Her Majesty's Governments and the other governments within the European Union. Tentative measures such as that announced today by the State Department are of little, if any, utility if the policy goal is assuring al-Qaeda and other Islamist entities are not to be given an immense advantage.

The US may be involved in two distant and frustrating wars. Even if we can say with a straight face that we have done all we can do in Iraq, the same cannot be averred concerning Afghanistan. Afghanistan is at the tipping point. The next twelve to eighteen months will determine whether or not the US and its coalition partners achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing." Next door in Pakistan the government may have achieved the initiative but it is a very long way from having bested Taliban in the struggle for authority.

It seems that the last thing the US needs is one more war. Certainly Somalia in and of itself is not worth a war. It is not worth a single American death. The idea of creating a functioning nation-state in Somalia is even more loonie tunes than the notion of Afghanistan as a liberal, pluralistic democracy.

The alternative to direct involvement by US and other Western forces in Somalia is the acceptance of an Islamist jihadist sanctuary on one of the most important sea lines of communication. The domination of Somalia by al-Shabab and its al-Qaeda "guests" will bring in its train an Islamist jihadist success in Yemen. Not only would the Gulf of Aden be held in jihadist jaws, the combination of Yemen and Somalia would give the Islamist jihadists a well positioned base for efforts directed against the totality of the Horn of Africa as well as the House of Sand (AKA Saudi Arabia.)

It may be that the Obama administration has awakened at long last to the threat presented by Islamist jihadists in the geographic expression called "Somalia." If that is the case, the response would be risable were it not so tragic in its potential consequences.

Mr Obama likes to see himself, present himself, as a conciliator, a (to use a cliche the Geek has seen too often in the past year or so) "builder of bridges." All of that is very nice, very comforting, very laudable. It is, unfortunately, quite out-to-lunch.

It is long past time for the Obama administration to do what the seemingly hyper-muscular Bush-Cheney administration never had the geopolitical good sense to do. It is time to take the war against Islamist jihadism back to the place where it started. Somalia.

Do it now. Or do it later. The brutal truth is that the Islamist jihadists must be confronted and killed wherever and whenever they appear. The longer the reality is ignored and the requirements of reality denied, the harder the task will be. The longer the US and the rest of the West wait, the higher the final butcher's bill will be.

It ain't pretty. But, the real world of passionate hates and fears never has been.

Is There A Job Opening For Cato The Elder Today?

In case you have forgotten, Cato the Elder (AKA "the Censor") was famed for demanding at the end of every speech he gave in the ancient Senate of Rome with the words, "Carthago delenda est!" Senator Cato's recurrent demand, "Carthage must be destroyed," wore very thin in the ears of his compatriots and the citizens of the Roman Republic generally.

Cato's astringent view that Carthage represented a clear, present, and very dangerous threat to Rome and its larger interests carried little freight with the Roman elite and plebs alike. Until one fine day the elephants of Hannibal came trumpeting at the gates of the City on Seven Hills. By then it was darn near too late for the laid back folks of the Republic. Hannibal's troops not only crossed the Alps thus taking Rome's dependencies by the back door, they chewed up Rome's active duty army by the legion.

Had the Carthaginian general had that time's equivalent of nuclear weapons or long range missiles, the decline and fall of Rome would have been expedited greatly. Fortunately for the previously war-averse gentry and plebs, Hannibal had no siege engines, no battering rams, no catapults and was stopped by the walls of the city. Rome had the time to out wait Hannibal, who could do nothing but traipse around the landscape doing marginal damage.

Eventually Hannibal had to leave. Then, in the fullness of time, the Romans emerged from behind their walls, built a fleet, carried the war to Carthage, and opened a giant can of vengeance on the inhabitants thereof. Defeating the army, selling the citizens into slavery, pulling down the walls and buildings and, in a final gesture, plowing over the ground and sowing it with salt, the Romans put paid to the ambitions and threats of Carthage.

Requests and suggestions that the US duplicate the final Punic War with respect to Iran are leaking around the right edge of the blogosphere. So far the requests and suggestions are mild, appropriate to a people and a time for which war is even more to be shunned than it was by the Romans of Cato the Elder's time.

The Geek rather suspects that were Cato alive and well today he would see the mullahocracy of Iran as every bit as much of a threat to the national and strategic interests of the US and its allies as was Carthage to the Rome of twenty-two centuries ago. It is difficult for anyone who is well oriented as to time and place right now to construe the Islamic Republic of Iran as anything other than the single largest disturber of international harmony.

The world view, belief system, policies and actions of the Grand Ayatollah Khemenei and his coterie of similarly minded clerics and secular jefes (including his son and preferred successor, Mojtaba Khemenei) assure that Iran will not willingly nor quickly abandon its offensive, destabilizing, and repressive ways. The recent vituperative diatribe issuing from the front man of the mullahocracy, Ahmedinejad, shows that.

Ahmedinejad's tirade, in which he demands that President Obama "apologise" for having expressed "outrage" at the repressive efforts of the mullahs and their henchmen of the basji and police and states that there is no reason for conversations with the US unless and until such an apology is received, demonstrates convincingly that Khemenei pere understands the nature and quality of the ongoing attacks on the regime. The introduction of Khemenei fils and the strong potential of a struggle for both power and rights of succession escalates the stakes in play currently.

While the MSM have paid little attention to either the matter of succession and how it may be directly affecting the post-election crisis, the same MSM have overlooked the role of Iraqi cleric Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani. Al-Sistani who ranks equal with Khemenei in the Shia hierarchy of clerics, has been meeting with dissident heavyweight clerics including Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Rafsanjani is both a former Iranian president and current head of the Assembly of Experts. He is also a long time opponent of GA Khemenei. Rafsanjani opposed the ascension of Khemenei to his current exalted position, ostensibly because Khemenei lacked the theological credentials and juice to do the job. Be that as it may, the crucial reality is that Khemenei outmaneuvered his opponent even though Rafsanjani was an icon of the Revolution.

The most important take away regarding al-Sistani is his often restated public position on the relation of multi-party, multi-denomination democracy and Shia. Put briefly, al-Sistani has taken the position that there is no fundamental discord between democracy and the requirements of observant Shia. Rafsanjani may not have gone so far in public, but neither has he embraced, recently at least, the notion so popular with Khemenei that there is no role for democracy in Islam.

Rafsanjani is getting on in years. So is his presumed bete noir, Khemenei. The notion of a family dynasty cannot be at all appealing to Rafsanjani or others of his generation. More than any of us on the outside, Rafsanjani and others such as former president and current dissident, Mohammad Khatami, and yet another Grand Ayatollah, Hossein Ali Montazeri, know how much and how disastrously the present Supreme Leader has altered the initial course of the Iranian Revolution. More than any of us on the outside can know (or perhaps imagine) these men fear the concentration of unaccountable power within the ambit of the Khemeneis, father and son.

The notion of dealing with men such as Rafsanjani, who was one of those infamous "moderates" during the long, long agony of the Iranian Hostage Affair, is not particularly appealing. However, the very real potential that a combine of Rafsanjani, Montazeri, and al-Sistani can pull off a palace coup cannot be overlooked and must not be ignored. The present turbulence in Iran--particularly if the body count suddenly escalates or Moussavi is arrested as an "agent" of the US, UK, Zionists, whatever--represents the last, best chance Rafsanjani and company have of taking back the fruits of the Revolution from those who would destroy it from within.

This far-from-remote possibility gives a basis for the Obama administration to recast their public posture regarding Iran. Initially the hands-off, detached approach was appropriate. But, that may well no longer be the case. It is true that anything the administration does to hold the mullahocracy's collective feet to the fire might engender more deaths on the streets of Tehran. It is absolutely true that any more robust language, let alone action, from the administration will result in more vitriol from Ahmedinejad.

More importantly, a stronger position taken by the US including rapid passage and signing of the sanctions legislation directed against those companies supplying gasolene and other refined petroleum products to Iran may well provide the critical impetus to the execution of the palace coup. Rafsanjani may be a "moderate" only in comparison with Khemenei but the fact that he has been meeting with al-Sistani (who is an unsung cause of the success of the American "surge" in Iraq and a man who has shown a rapid and effective learning curve in Iraqi politics) shows that he may be open to a new approach to both the internal politics and external relations of Iran.

The least worst outcome for both the Iranians and the rest of the world would be a Rafsanjani orchestrated palace coup. This would allow new elections, a step back from unending confrontation with the US while keeping the thugs of the Revolutionary Guard and basji employed and reasonably content so as to diminish the potential of either a counter-coup or a prolonged and very bloody struggle for power.

Absent a palace coup, without the replacement of the Khemeneis at the top of the power pyramid, there can be no hope of any meaningful change in the regime's approach to either internal politics or foreign relations. Iran will continue to be a threat to the US and its allies. Over time the nature of its threat will increase.

We will, as that reality unfolds, have a compelling need for a latter day Cato. We will need someone to demand over and over again, "Iran must be destroyed."

And, if we do not heed the call, the day will come, come with rapidity and starkness, that the new Hannibal will have his nuclear elephants blaring at our gates.

It Is All In Their Minds

Take a dekko at two statements. The first is a widely made and quoted declaration of warning made by various and sundry Islamist jihadist leaders and clerics.

"We will send against you people who love death more than you love life."

And, now the second, It was made by a young man shortly after he was saved from drowning by lifeguards.

"The voice compelled me right to my bones. It commanded me to die. To go into the surf and drown. I had to obey."

To the Geek these two statements, seemingly so unconnected suggest a power at work in the minds of Islamist jihadists, particularly those who willingly become "the poor man's smart bomb." The two statements, both highly redolent of epitomization, suggest a strong linkage between behavior which is incompletely explained by quotes from the Koran or the writings of assorted Islamists over the generations and a classic example of the auditory hallucinations experienced by individuals diagnosed as schizophrenic.

The linkage between the absolutist view of Islamists and their armed twins, the jihadists, including their love of death, and the plight of the schizophrenic is found in the highly controversial but increasingly validated hypothesis of the late American psychologist, Julian Jaynes, called bicamerialism.

Jaynes held that for a period during the evolution of human society and culture, a period encompassing the early use of agriculture and the rise of urban society, the human mind was for many a place of two distinct spheres. One, resident in the right hemisphere was executive in nature and expressed itself in auditory hallucinations perceived as the Voice of Authority by the "follower" side of the mind located in the left hemisphere. This Voice of Authority was inherently compelling. It was, for many, the Voice of God. For others, it was the perceived voice of dead ancestors or a distant king.

Along with the presence of the two domain brain and the concomitant auditory hallucinations, people living in the bicameral society to some, perhaps large, extent lacked an internal, introspective sense of self. The inner "I" which is at the very core of the unicameral mind with its subjective sense of self and capacity for inner dialogue with the self was absent.

Also absent were such deep and compelling mental structures as a conscience. The capacity for deception was missing. So to were the onboard sense of guilt and shame which do so much in the unicameral society to regulate behaviour and force conformity with social norms and values.

The bicameral mind with its ever-present Voice of Authority created social conditions which provided for a degree of harmony, conformity, obedience, submission to those in command, and an inherent selflessness which is difficult, even impossible to image today after nearly three thousand years of unicameral consciousness. The bicameral mind was intensely liberating in a very real sense.

"Huh?" You ask. "How in hell can being a robot run by a freakin' hallucination be liberating? You are out of your tree, Geek!"

"Not so fast, bucko," the Geek replies. "Walk this through with me, OK?"

The bicameral mind was a mind without fear. Particularly, it was free of the fear produced by the necessity of making a decision and taking responsibility for it. As many social thinkers have posited over the last fifty or sixty years, the intrinsic appeal of authoritarian regimes is the absence of any need to make individual decisions beyond that of following the regime's dictates.

As the Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard observed, humans must make decisions and take actions in "fear and trembling." This condition exists because we can never be sure that our decisions and actions will be correct or even effective. We must always be prepared to acknowledge this and take proper remedial actions including apologies. This, Kierkegaard and others have contended for centuries, means that we don't want to choose, or make a decision, or act without instructions or orders.

The person with a bicameral mind doesn't have to worry about this. The Great Ju-Ju in the right hemisphere will tell him what he must do. It will order him into action. All the left hemisphere need do is, "hear and obey."

The bicameral mind lacks a conscience. The bicameral person can do anything, anything whatsoever, and never be bothered by the slightest qualm. In so far as there is a sense of self, it is satisfied completely by following the Voice. No doubts, no qualms, no regrets, no guilt, no shame cloud the bicameral mind's horizon. To hear is to obey. Nothing more is needed--or possible.

The bicameral mind has one severe flaw. It's capacity to react to new or stressful conditions is highly limited. The Great Ju-Ju of the right hemisphere knows nothing outside the experiential context of the person and his society. When something happens which is totally outside the experiential frame of reference, the Great Ju-Ju of the right hemisphere is silent.

The Gods stop speaking.

This great silence happened at different times to the several cultures which were, at least in Jaynes's estimate, bicameral in nature. The process could be slow and painful as in Greece and ancient Israel. Or it could happen literally overnight as with the Incas.

In any event, all bicameral societies ran into a mix of the new and traumatic which fell outside of past experience, so the Voices fell silent. Never to speak again.

The mere fact that the Voices of the right hemisphere are silent today as they have been for thousands of years for most people most of the time does not mean that we humans do not yearn for their return. In a real and ongoing sense we all want to go back to the easy years where fear and risk were reduced by the commands of the Voice within.

Ideologies, both sacred and secular, have promised the social and cultural certainty of the long-gone Voice. Humans beyond counting have followed the seductive message of prophets and philosophers, who have promised that by following, by truly believing in, and by acting upon the dictates and norms of one religion or ideology or another, the old certainty, the ancient absence of fear, the long lost but always hoped for Golden Age of harmony, justice, and freedom from pain will return.

All that is necessary say the prophets and philosophers is that people hear, believe, and obey. No thought, no reflection, no painful introspection, no fear of being wrong are required. Just, "hear, believe, and obey."

Hear and obey even onto death as with the young man marching determinedly into the surf. Hear and obey even onto death as with those who claim to "love death more than you love life."

The proponents of Islamism and, even more, the advocates of jihadism are questing after the bicameral mind. Their followers, those who, "hear, believe and obey," are freed from the fear of doing something wrong, immoral, evil. There is no conscience involved--and very little, if any, introspective consciousness either.

This is not to say--or even imply--that the Islamists and the monstrous regiment of jihadists are mentally ill in the sense of meeting the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. They are not. Rather they represent the cultural and social expectations which emphasize hearing, believing, and submitting to those in clerical authority--those who attest to having what is in effect the Voice of Allah in their heads.

Whether or not any of the assorted clerics and their killer followers actually have auditory hallucinations, really do hear the Voice of Allah or the Prophet is both immaterial and irrelevant. What is desired, what is occurring, what will continue is the functional recreation of the bicameral mind and a society based upon the social and cultural analogue of one of the ancient bicameral societies which Janyes and others have adduced as proof of their hypothesis.

The young man on the beach who heard the commands of the right hemisphere had no choice except to obey. The young man with the suicide vest or the clicker for the truck bomb behind him may not have heard the same Voice, but he has heard, he does believe in and must obey the voice of some cleric who claims to know the will of Allah.

The young man on the beach was mentally ill. He was schizophrenic according to all the criteria established on behalf of a unicameral society. The young man with the clicker or the AK is not mentally ill. He is normal by the criteria of a society and culture which seeks desperately for the long gone, never to return, and purportedly halcyon days of bicameralism.

In many ways, the proponents of Islamism seek to return to the Arabian desert of over a thousand years ago. Their minds are inherently every bit as inflexible as those which could not fathom or handle creatively changes in Greece, or the ancient lands of the Hebrews, or the long buried empires and city states of the Nile and the Land Between the Rivers, or the Incas on the day after the Spanish arrived.

The young man on the beach could be and (hopefully) was cured of his illness. The young man with the clicker or the AK as well as the clerics behind him cannot be cured. They can only be killed. Or they will kill us.

Sociopaths And Grand Ayatollahs

Even the most high minded, charitable sort of person in the US, in the West, anywhere in the world has to grant the recent election in Iran was no more honest than those in Chicago where the dead rose from the grave and voted while the living voted both early and often. Chatham House, a highly respected and notably impartial outfit in the UK has completed a preliminary survey of the votes based strictly on Iranian official sources.

The conclusion?

Ahmedinejad, which is to say the mullahocracy of Grand Ayatollah Khemenei, stole the election.

Beyond stealing a mere election in which the results are far more symbolic than real, Khemenei and Crew stole something far more critical. They robbed Iranians, particularly the sixty percent born and reared since the overthrow of the Shah, of faith in the Revolution and its fruits.

Khemenei has shown himself to be a power-hungry political creature clothed in clerical garb and turban. He has exposed to people already exploited, impoverished and fearful that he and those who surround him as well as those dependent upon the current regime for place, prestige, and power are utterly indifferent to the present and future of those who live under the regime's club and lie-based authority.

As the Chatham House study makes clear, the slogan, "Down with the dictator," which has resounded around Tehran and the rest of the country for days, is directed at the Grand Ayatollah and not his reelected mouthpiece, Ahmedinejad. In common with the general run of dictatorships over the decades, the Khemenei regime depends upon lying and coercing to keep itself in power.

For American policy makers the key word is "lying." As experience with other dictatorial regimes has shown, diplomacy with the dictator consists of two components. The first is listening without questioning to the endless litany of lies used to justify the regime's position and demands. The second is agreeing to the fundamental tenet of diplomacy, dictator style: "What is mine is mine. What is yours is negotiable."

The Grand Ayatollah is a more complete, comprehensive liar than the average dictator. This exalted status accrues from his position as Allah's Representative on Earth. As Khemenei probably believes this as an absolute and unchallengeable truth, he has no constraints acting on him either as a liar or as a killer.

Believing that his position in power as well as his goals are the will of the divine makes Khemenei a far greater challenge than the merely secular autocrats. He--and those responsible to him--will do whatever is seen to be necessary to maintain the status quo and achieve the great ambitions of nuclear status, regional hegemon, and theocratic state.

In order to survive and achieve, the Grand Ayatollah and his underlings--elected and otherwise--will lie, cheat, steal, threaten, bluster, kill, and terrorise. Throughout it all, through all the deeds considered by less abnormal folks as evil, Khemenei and Crew will believe themselves to be fully justified, completely absolved of both responsibility and sin by the will of the deity--as they understand that will.

If the sewers of Tehran are overloaded by the blood of Iranians dispatched by the thugs of the Basji and automatons of the Revolutionary Guard, the Grand Ayatollah and his companions in mass murder will feel no qualms of personal responsibility, let alone guilt. They will believe, truly believe to the depths of their beings, that the responsibility, the guilt, rests with those who have been killed.

Khemenei and his fellows are identical to the armed robber turned killer who protests, "If he hadn't resisted, I wouldn't have killed him. The rapist who echoes the sentiment, "If she hadn't screamed and scratched me, I wouldn't have strangled her."

Sociopaths and True Believers such as the Grand Ayatollah share one factor in common. Neither the sociopath nor the True Believer takes responsibility for their actions. It is always the Other Guy who is to blame.

So, whether it is a demonstrator against the "dictator" gunned down in Tehran or the "international community" slapped in the face with another violation of Security Council resolutions, the Grand Ayatollah and his subordinates never see themselves as responsible. They are merely carrying out divine will. The fault, the blame, resides with the protester or with the countries that imposed the sanctions.

The hypostasis of the Grand Ayatollah Khemenei's world view whether expressed in internal politics or foreign policy is the same. Those who oppose the will of the divine as interpreted by the Grand Ayatollah are doomed. The guilt lies with them. All that is necessary is that they not oppose the will of the deity as understood by the GA.

Or, more bluntly: "Submit to my way or call down death upon your own heads!"

It is not possible to treat with, negotiate with, compromise with the absolute nature of the True Believer who understands himself to be the instrument of divine will. The normal processes of international (or internal) give-and-take, the standard protocols that have governed international affairs (and internal politics), are beyond the mental realm of people such as the Grand Ayatollah Khemenei.

For Khemenei and his cohort any challenge, whether in the streets of Tehran or the plush surroundings of international diplomacy, is an existential threat in the making. The world view of Khemenei and company is too stark, too absolute, too black and white to admit of challenge, response and compromise.

For Khemenei and his ilk those who challenge them are actually challenging the divine. And, one makes no deals with the devil.

For Khemenei and those who follow and support him, life is a matter of kill or be killed, terrorise or be terrorised. The people facing the motorcycle mounted thugs and triggermen in Tehran understand this brutal reality.

Is the Nice Young Man From Chicago now occupying the Oval Office as insightful, as realistic?

Hope Versus Reality In Iran (and the US)

Following the events on the streets of Tehran and other cities in Iran is exciting, frustrating and, ultimately, tinged with sadness. It is apparent that many of those involved in confronting the mullahocracy want more, much more than a replay of the election.

The beautifully ambiguous chant, "down with the dictator," shows the ambitions of many extend far beyond simply replacing the mouthpiece-of-the-regime, Ahmedinejad, with a kinder, gentler, nicer sort of chap who would still toe the foreign policy line established by the Grand Ayatollah Khemenei. People are more willing to face clubs and bullets when their goal is large than when it is limited, small.

Opposition icon Moussavi has reportedly said he is willing to accept "martyrdom." This is the necessary prerequisite for political success in Iran--if the goal is more than simply to prevail in a disputed election. It is conceivable that Moussavi is playing a cynical game--his call for a general strike is redolent of self-preservation--but it is within the realm of possibility that the hard line prime minister of years gone by has been transformed by recent events into something more than a politico genuflecting to the GA and his coterie.

Perhaps Moussavi has found himself to be the sort of "transformational" figure for Iran that President Obama's flacks trumpet him to be. One might hope that Moussavi has found within himself greater depths and strengths than he had ever thought before.

From the dynamic apparent in the videos and tweets out of Iran, it is clear that more than a few of Iran's younger, more affluent, better educated, and, withal, alienated citizens see this transformational potential in Moussavi. For them, Moussavi is no longer a politician, he is a symbol, an icon of the change they so desperately hope may come.

The brutal, historically documented truth is that reality trumps hope. In Iran the reality is that the regime has the guns and, potentially, the will to use them. Today the minions of the mullahs, the cops, the vigilantes of the Basji used clubs, water cannons, tear gas and genuine, fer sure, lethal bullets to break up the demonstrations in Tehran.

The Basji, which is comprised of the same sort of mentalities as was the Nazi SA, is a reliable crew of sadistic thugs drawn from the margins of Iranian society. Formed back during the existential war with Iraq, the Basji has proved its reliability and importance to regime maintenance over the intervening twenty years. Today, it is the least politically risky force for the GA and his fellow turban-topped, Koran-thumpers to use against the Iranians in opposition.

Should the Basji prove insufficient, the mullahs can order up the Revolutionary Guard. This organ of state is a very good approximation of the Nazi SS at its height. Utterly loyal to the regime, completely dedicated to the preservation of the status quo, and very well armed, trained, equipped, and indoctrinated, the Revolutionary Guard can be depended upon to gun down their fellow citizens in wholesale lots without a qualm should they be directed to do so.

Like the SS or the KGB of the final decades of the Soviet Union, the Revolutionary Guard is virtually a state within the state. The continuation of the RG (to say nothing of the lives and power of the individual officers and men) stands upon maintaining the current regime in full, unquestioned dominance. The mullahocracy (and the rest of the world) can and does bet its collective bippy on the Revolutionary Guard doing its (killing) job.

Martyrdom is the way of Shia. Martyrdom was the key to the Islamic Revolution thirty years ago. It was central to Iran's strategy during the Iraq-Iran War. A little martyrdom, too little martyrdom inflicted upon the opposition will create more opposition. Sufficient martyrdom, the sort that would be inflicted by the Revolutionary Guard and perhaps even the amateurs of the Basji, will drown the opposition in its own blood.

No one should underrate the will of the mullahocracy to keep itself in power. It is clear the GA and his fellows are feeling nervous. It is equally evident that they fear that the opposition in the streets entertains ambitions transcending the removal of their chosen public image, Ahmedinejad. They see the long range target as their theocratic rule and not the political and international figurehead.

The desperate, rapidly shifting diversionary efforts of Khemenei are evidence of this. First he and his cronies blamed the outrage in the streets on "American meddling." The next day the GA announced that "Britain is enemy number one," as he reached far back in Iranian history to grab the magic of evil Albion and its agent the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Most recently, Khemenei went to the Islamist default position and placed responsibility for the demonstrations on the "Zionist controlled media."

(One might be forgiven for wishing that Allah could give His Representative in Qom the right story the first time.)

As history has shown repeatedly, desperate, fearful regimes engage in desperate actions. Like the possibility of mass slaughter such as to put Tienanmen Square deep in the shadows. The Chinese government killed in the hundreds. If massacre comes to Tehran it will be in the thousands.

The bloodletting at Tienanmen was carried out in the hours of darkness as shameful acts should be. The media were not there. Could not be there. The mullahs will not be so fortunate if they order the cancel button be pushed on the opposition. Twenty years has wrought such a transformation that the images and words of those about to butchered will flash around the world nearly instantaneously. The mullahs cannot hope to prevent that--unless they shut down the Internet and cell phone service completely.

Such a blackout would signal their intentions with certainty. The world will know what is contemplated before it happens.

So far, the Obama administration has played the game cautiously and well. It has properly and prudently left public expressions of condemnation up to the Congress and individual Americans. The President is correct when he avers that any posturing by the administration would harm the efforts of the opposition by allowing the mullahs to portray it as an American tool.

This will change with the speed of light if the mullahs in their fear and desperation order the Basji or, worse, the Revolutionary Guard into bloody action.

At that moment the whole world will be watching. It will not be watching Tehran so much as it will turn to Washington, D.C. expecting the American president to do what American presidents have been expected to do for the past sixty some years. Lead.

That's right. Lead. Tell us, show us, what you and by example the rest of us should do now.

Joe Biden, Please Call Your Office--Pronto!

OMG! The challenges are on us. On steroids. Just like renowned foreign policy expert, Joe Biden warned during last Fall's campaign.

The North Koreans have a ship at sea right this very minute. A ship which has been characterised as a "repeat offender" in the horrid crime of "proliferation." The USS John McCain is shadowing the freighter Kang Nam as it plies Chinese waters. What next? Will the Obama crew order the John McCain to stop and search the possible proliferator? What will the Hermit Kingdom of the North do in response?

Wow! A genuine foreign policy challenge.

The UN Security Council Resolution finally passed a while back after weeks of wrangling between the US and both Russia and China does not authorise a forced stop and search but allows only a voluntary sort of exercise.

The 12 June Resolution does provide for the option of "poisoning the host." That means the US can share intelligence with a friendly nation (or at least a country amenable to UN resolutions) so as to convince the host port to either refuse entry or demand inspection rights as a condition for entry.

Host poisoning has worked. When a North Korean aircraft suspected by the US of carrying a cargo of missile guidance gyroscopes requested passage rights over India after refueling in Burma, the Indian government denied the request. Iran had to wait a bit longer for these critical missile parts.

Depending on the number and size of range-extending auxiliary fuel bunkers on the Kang Nam, it is conceivable the ship can make the trip without requesting port entry for refueling or resupply. Alternatively, the Kang Nam can make port in Burma. No one has accused the military junta running that country as being overly concerned with the "international community." Of course, if China is more serious about reining in the Hermits, Beijing can put effective pressure on their Burmese clients.

Absent the host poisoning gambit, the US has few options. One is to stop and inspect the ship, presumably turning it back under escort if it is found to be hauling contraband. Pyongyang has stated it would consider this action an act of war.

Calling the bluff could be risky. The North Korean regime is not terribly predictable nor is it overly stable at the moment considering the crisis implicit in succession. The possibility of a North Korean version of "death before dishonor" should not be discounted even though it seems sheer lunacy.

If the Kang Nam goes about its (perhaps) criminal way loaded to the gunnels with goodies for, shall we say, the mullahs of Iran, then the sanctions (you know the 12 June resolution described by our fearless UN ambassador, Susan Rice, as "really biting") will be so much dead wording. The idea of UN Security Council resolutions as being worth less than the paper they are printed on is neither new nor alarming. But, it would be a severe setback to the Obama form of diplomacy.

In the setback department we also find the other Joe Biden level challenge. Iran.

The Grand Ayatollah has nailed his flag to the our-election-was-free-and-fair mast. His man, Ahmedinejad won. Accept that. Get over it. At the same time Khamenei took a slap at the outstretched hand of Obama friendship.

As far as the GA is concerned, the US is behind the current unrest in the streets of Iran. Similarly, we are behind a supposed effort to topple the mullahocracy. Sure, that's an absurd notion, but it's Khamenei's story and, by Allah, he is going to stick to it.

This demonstration of a less than warm acceptance of the Obama outreach program does not bode well for successful diplomacy. But, no one with knowledge of the history of US-Iranian relations over the past sixty or so years expected any other tone of response.

The Obama outstretched hand of friendship will be left hanging in the breeze to an even greater extent if the GA and his gang of turban-topped, Koran-thumping thugs go ahead with a program of harsh repression. This potential was clear when the Benign Man of Allah said that bloodshed would be on the heads of the "leaders" of demonstrations and other forms of protest.

Of course, even the Supreme Translator Of The Will Of Allah, Khamenei, knows that he has to kill carefully. The idea (or is it ideal?) of martyrdom is at the center of both Shia and the specifically Iranian understanding of Shia. Martyrs to the opposition will mean more, not less, opposition. To avoid this should be the first criterion for the mullahs--if they wish to stay in unimpeded, unhindered full power.

The alternative is to do what the Shah failed to do thirty years ago. Kill Iranians in such wholesale numbers that the opposition is eradicated. Completely.

While this approach would lead to "consequences," the GA and his mullah coterie as well as the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards might take that option. There is little to lose. And potentially, much, even very much, to gain. Can we say, "Theocracy and a nuclear capability?"

What the US does with respect to the small freighter Kang Nam and what effect our policy does or does not have on Iran are joined head, shoulder and hip.

Please, Joe, phone home with your extensive foreign policy experience. Your President needs you. After all his SecState is currently in unserviceable condition. Who else does he have?

While you are at it, Joe, you and others of your age might recall a chant from the Sixties. "The whole world is watching!"

And, it is.