ElBaradei Cashes In His Chips

Dr Mohamad ElBaradei, who has often seemed to be Iran's next best friend (in both the usual and lawyerly senses of the term) finally had an attack of blunt honesty in the waning days of his tenure as jefe grande of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.) The Egyptian has graciously acknowledged that the IAEA's investigation of Iran's nuclear program has reached "a dead end."

This admission does not leave Iran bereft of support. China with enormous and growing investment in Iran's oil fields (120 gigabucks over the next five years with more memoranda of understanding in the pipeline) is more than ready to fill the role of next best friend. Even when faced with a clear message that the Iranian program is seen as "existential" with the consequences for China that implies, the Gnomes of Beijing have been unwilling to go further than not oppose a stiffly worded UN resolution deploring the Iranian lack of transparency and cooperation.

Whoopee! That will sure teach them mad mullahs that the "international community" is as serious as a heart attack about them and their quest for the "Mahdi bomb." You bettcha, bucko.

Dr ElBaradei bemoaned the intransigence of the Iranian regime. Evidently he is filled with sorrow over the failure of the Iranians to take advantage of this "humanitarian" moment by accepting the deal his people brokered some weeks ago. The Geek has to agree. It is such a tragedy that all sorts of Iranians in need of medical isotopes produced in the elderly US built reactor may waste away in misery as soon as the fuel runs out next year.

Perhaps Dr ElBaradei and the Chinese alike should be more concerned over what will happen if Israel sees no options other than either the acceptance of a nuclear armed Iran or taking what military actions it can to delay or end the nuclear effort. The effects of an Israeli attack no matter how carefully designed and skillfully executed will be bad for Iranians generally. It won't be much better for the rest of us.

The time when push comes to shove is not far in the future. Dr ElBaradei seems to have realized this. Perhaps he now regrets his overly polite and delicate handling of the so obviously tergiversatious Iranian government over the past several years. Perhaps he now thinks (realizes?) that the delicacy, the sensitivity, were misplaced and counterproductive. Perhaps he now understands that the Iranian mullahs and their governmental frontmen were working from a vastly different calculus of rationality than was he.

We won't know unless the (almost) former Director General writes memoirs which are a monument to both candor and introspection. By the time that hypothetical happens it will be too late for the Iranians and the world.

The IAEA having failed and the UN sanction effort giving every indication of having done the same the question remains, "What is to be done?" In large measure the answer to this question will be found in one of two places: Washington or Jerusalem.

The Israelis will wait a bit before informing the world as to their answer to the key question. However, the "bit" will not be inordinately long. Particularly if the efforts by the US and others to halt the 800 million dollar deal between Iran and Russia for the latter's S-300 air defense missile system is bootless.

There are limits to the US capacity to influence or pressure Israel into agreement with American policy requirements. The limits are quite constricted where the continued existence of the Israeli state is concerned.

Yes, the Israelis have developed and continue to develop an impressive defensive capacity against missile and rocket attacks. This process has been assisted by heavy American cooperation. Nonetheless, the Israelis recognize the limits of purely defensive systems, a purely defensive doctrine, a purely defensive way of waging war.

When the stakes are high--and none are higher than national survival--the attractions of an active, a very active, defense become overwhelming. Even if the odds are not good as regards total success they are no doubt to be preferred to the odds of overwhelming failure if the enemy gets there "firstest with the mostest."

Few analysts believe that an Israeli attack would do more than retard the Iranian effort by more than a few years with the concomitant of solidifying support for the current regime in Tehran. Further costs would be imposed both on Israel and the rest of the world by the inevitable Iranian riposte.

In the short run the task of dealing with Iran resides with the current occupant of the Oval. That is the place where the questions of what is to be done must be answered first. It is sincerely to be regretted that the response cannot be limited to the area where Mr Obama has shown the most talent: making speeches.

Rhetoric is not relevant. Neither is a very long process of "strategic review." Given the record to date, the use of economic sanctions is not particularly efficacious. Admittedly, the reality of sanctions has never been employed. The sanctions to date have not been designed to really hurt Iran and the Iranians. Additionally, the sanctions have been repeatedly infringed if not down right violated in a wholesale way by China, Russia, and commercial enterprises in Germany, France, Italy, the UK, and elsewhere.

Even if the sanctions already in place were to be imposed in the real as opposed to the hypothetical world it is doubtful they would impair the Iranian will and capacity to pursue the Atomic Grail with success. The same can be said of enhanced sanctions such as those which would hit the Iranian deficiency in refined petroleum products.

Even the most effective sanctions take time to become potent tools influencing the decision making of the target government. The time might simply not exist now.

Because of its failing to exploit the shokku felt by the Tehran regime in 2003 and then frittering away the years following in a wasteland of improperly executed policy in Iraq, the administration of W. Bush set up the US for failure in the great nuclear game with Iran. The successor administration has done nothing substantial to rectify the situation.

Arguably, there is nothing the Obama administration can do at this late date. The Chinese have become far more intransigent, and far more potent in the years since 2003. The same is true with the Russians. Neither has any real world reason to go along with US policy requirements--even though the Kremlin for purely domestic reasons may do so, up to a point.

During the same years the US failings in both Iraq (regardless of later redemption following the surge of 2007) and Afghanistan have severely, perhaps fatally, undercut the will and capacity of the president to use or even consider the use of military force. The advent of the Great Recession did nothing to make the aftermath of a military attack on Iran's nuclear and related target constellation any less unattractive.

Then there is the minor factor of President Obama's personality and priorities. The man is opposed to the messy realities of war. He is post-modern and thus believes such bumper sticker sentiments as "We are all passengers on spaceship Earth." (As French president Nicholas Sarkozy was reputed to have said, "Beam up, Barack.") This orientation is why the president is all for the international campaign against the newest bogey "anthropogenic climate change," but balks at making tough decisions regarding Afghanistan or taking an unapologetic, realistic look at life in the Mideast.

Beyond that, the priorities of the present administration are highly focused on the domestic side of life. The problems in that department are manifold and quite time and energy consuming. The one time community organizer finds enough risk, enough thrills, enough reward at home.

All of this implies that the current administration has made the non-decision decision to learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran while hoping that somehow, someway, somebody, perhaps divine providence, will take a hand and bring the Iranians to accept the US perspective. Since the latter is a little less likely than evil space invaders arriving and so bringing about true global harmony, the former seems the new default position regardless of oratory to the contrary.

The further implication is that Israel will take action in the not overly distant future. That country has little realistic alternative given the totality of the circumstances. Most important, perhaps, in that critical context is the demonstrated inability of the US to deal with the ever growing Iranian threat with any degree of effectiveness.

It pains the Geek to have watched the US slowly degrade in its global influence over the past decade, particularly the past five years. While far from purity in its motives and ambitions, the US was the best or at least least malignant candidate for leadership in a unipolar world.

The Bush/Cheney administration was correct in its assessment five and more years ago that the US was (to update the statement of Secretary of State Olney over a century ago) "practically sovereign in the world." It is to the detriment of the US and many other countries and peoples that the Bush/Cheney administration also frittered away this unparalleled position in a combination of hubris, arrogance, and mis-fought (Afghanistan) or mis-begotten (Iraq) wars.

Bouncing between ideological extremes, We the People compounded the disaster of decline by replacing the overly muscular neocon ninnies with the "progressives" headed by a very nice young man from Chicago who was both post-modern and hopelessly naive in the true ways of the world. In not quite a year the Obama administration has shown precisely what its predecessor demonstrated in not much more time--ideology is the natural and fatal disease of effective foreign policy and military affairs.

As history has shown since written records first existed, the only sort of foreign policy, the only form of military strategy, the only variety of diplomacy which works is one which is coldly realistic as to national interest and national power in all its forms. An over subscription to ideology of whatsoever stripe prevents reality from intruding its ugly head. And, that assures failure.

In all probability it is way too late, but it would be for the good of all if the American president would heed his French counterpart's urging, "Beam up, Barack!"

Who Are We? And, Who Is The Enemy?

Major Hasan, the Fort Hood mass killer, has reawakened the slumbering pseudo-debate about the nature of (A) terror, (B) the role of Islam, and (C) how does the US respond to the threat posed by (A) and (B). Further fuel has been added to the "new" controversy by the decision to put KSM and others of equal ill-fame on trial in a Federal criminal court in lieu of one before a military commission.

Additional impetus has come from the political game surrounding the "strategic review" over the course of the "war of necessity" (per President Obama) and the potential deployment of another large chunk of American troops. This feature gives additional force to the need to finally settle just what we are fighting for--and against. It just is not right either ethically or politically to expect people to put their one and only ass on the line for unknown reasons and unknowable goals.

In past confrontations, in previous wars, on those occasions such as World War I, World War II and, at least at their outsets, the Korean War and the American War in Vietnam, We the People had a reasonable consensus as to both the goal of our fighting and the nature of our enemy. In the cases of the two world wars, the consensus held until after the shooting stopped. With the other two wars, both limited wars in support of policy, the consensus did not hold. As a necessary consequence, We the People (or at least a large, vocal segment) lost political will to continue the effort, the sacrifice.

The First World War consensus was predicated upon a nifty combination of Allied (that is to say, British) propaganda, news management, and perception manipulation with the domestic ideals so well expressed by President Woodrow Wilson of "the victory of democracy" and a "war to end war." The Second World War saw consensus built from diversity in the blinding humiliation and destruction of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The first casualty of the Japanese bombs was the very large, vocal, and politically potent isolationist movement in the US.

The Korean War achieved an almost instant but not universal consensus because the invasion of the South by the North was so blatant, so evident, and so aggrandizing in the estimate of American public opinion molders that a response by the US was virtually guaranteed. The shrewd use by President Truman of the UN (made possible only by the Soviet self-inflicted absence from the Security Council) comforted Americans in their love of multi-lateral action based on the World War II alliance structure.

In a very real sense the consensus on the sending of troops to fight in the Vietnamese Wars was an artifact. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a ready-made, fill-in-the-blank exploitation of the expectable North Vietnamese response to the provocative actions under MarOps 34A and the twin ELINT collection by US destroyers. Waving the red flag of expansionist Communism was both possible and justifiable given the internal political dynamics of the day. (It might be noted that the documents of the day show the leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress were far more hawkish than the administration and far, far more pawing the ground for war than President Johnson.)

The consensus held remarkably well. Even in the closing days of the Johnson administration and the first term of President Nixon, public support for the war effort at its lowest was higher by far than the nadir of support for the earlier Korean conflict. In part this was the effect of the body count--in war the dead often dictate policy. In part the continued support for the war was a response by the "silent majority" to the actions and rhetoric of both the anti-war movement and the counterculture generally.

In any event there was no time during the Korean and Vietnamese wars that We the People had any doubt as to just who we were and what we stood for. Nor was there any doubt as to who the enemy was and what the enemy was all about.

True, in the cold light of history practiced with the utmost of human objectivity, We the People might have been as wrong as a soup sandwich about both us and them, but that didn't matter at the time. Nor, practically does it matter after the fact.

On 9/12 We the People were One. We lusted to strike back against those who had struck not at some far away naval base but in the heart of our greatest city and the center of our nation's capital. Worse, this new enemy had not used military ships and aircraft, soldiers and sailors, but had seized civilian aircraft and turned our own fellows into weapons against us.

The attacks were acts of war. Of that We the People were certain. In the main most still do. A very confusing factor for We the People and the government alike was simply the nature of the attackers. In all of our previous experiences, attacks had been leveled by states, by governments, by soldiers, airmen, sailors. This time the attackers were of no specific nation, no government, no armed force.

It is hard to muster and focus a consensus for war when there is no easily named enemy. Sure, Afghanistan was a convenient and justifiable target given the nature of its government and the total unwillingness of that government to turn over the ultimate architects of the outrage to the US. The invasion of Afghanistan was plausible. It might even be described without undue inaccuracy as having been a "necessity."

But, attacking Afghanistan, overthrowing Taliban, ejecting al-Qaeda to Pakistan did not constitute a blow against the enemy. It may not have been a dangerous diversion as was the later great adventure in regime change in Iraq, but neither was it an effective strike against the real enemy, the (to use another piece of fine old Soviet terminology) "main" enemy.

Eight years ago as today the US government and the vast majority of the chattering, academic, and political classes made and make a bright and shining distinction between Islam and whatever and whomever the "enemy" might be. There were those eight years ago as there are those today who maintain that the "enemy" isn't some Muslim other but We the People and our government.

Despite the well intentioned and tactically justifiable attempt to put great swaths of daylight between acts of "terror" and Islam qua Islam, it is long past time to blow a whistle on the play.

"Wait one, Geek! Don't tell us you're becoming one of them there "Islamophobes."

Not hardly, bucko. Ole Doc Geek isn't a man of the cloth. Neither is he given to the fine details of theological disputations. To the Geekmo, all religions are created equal. They all deserve their time in the public square. None inspire any more "phobia" in the Geekmeister's mind than any other.

Even given the diversity of commitment and belief which must reside in the minds of one and a half billion human beings, there are some very salient, quite clear, and horribly unmistakable facts which have been growing since long before that bright September day in 2001. These are the ground truths which have not been given proper respect in the ever-so-polite, ever-so-sensitive, neverendingly tolerant chambers of the chattering, academic, and political classes in the US (OK, and elsewhere as well).

The first of these never-to-be-spoken brutal truths is simply that the vast majority of "terrorist" acts perpetrated over the past twenty years have been conducted by people who purport themselves to be Muslims. It doesn't matter who the keeper of the numbers is or has been--the US government, the UN, independent organizations, individual students of the phenomenon--the total comes out the same.

The second of these foundation realities is simply that the acts of the suicide bombers, the rocket launchers, the trigger pullers have been and are justified, even sanctified in the sacred writings of Islam. It matters not that the majority of Muslims may not act according to these strictures and requirements or even consider them germane to their lives today. The fact remains that the sacred literature, much (though admittedly far from all) Islamic jurisprudence historically and contemporaneously supports or even compels the actions taken by the bombers and their ilk.

The third basic also comes directly from Islam. The religion is totalistic in nature. It admits of no separation between politics and belief, jurisprudence and faith, the society and the community of believers. Additionally, Islam draws a line between the House of Peace--Islam--and the House of War--everybody else on the planet. The distinction coupled with assorted strictures as well as the record of the life of the Perfect Man, Mohammad, provides the basis to carry war both defensive and offensive against the unbelievers and apostates.

Again, it is irrelevant to aver that these factors play no real role in the lives of most Muslims most places most of the time. It may be a true assertion, but it doesn't matter.

The fourth leg of the table of reality is to be found in the West generally and the US in particular. Neither the West nor, most specifically, the US can avoid being the target of those within the Islamic faith who seek to put the greatest vitality into their beliefs. By its very existence, its size, its geographic reach, its characteristics and values, the US must draw the greatest hatred, the greatest loathing.

Samuel Huntington was right whether any of us like it or not. (Be assured, the Geek does not.) The world is engaged in a "clash of civilizations." The US and the West are in a battle to the death not with Islam per se, but with those within Islam who subscribe to "political Islam" or Islamism. More to the point today we are in a battle to the end with those Muslims who accept armed political Islam (Islamist jihadism) as their duty to and under the faith.

Perhaps this seems to be too fine a parsing to be made by politicians, pundits, and academics. Perhaps these elevated minds believe it is too fine a distinction to be understood by the great unwashed of the hoi polloi who are, after all, the majority of We the People.

In either case the unwillingness or inability of the public opinion molders of the US to make the necessary, properly and historically very well based distinction between Islam and Islamist jihadism assures two outcomes. The first has become very evident with the slow but recently accelerating public disenchantment with the war in Afghanistan.

The American consensus on the "global war on terror" has gone. Period. It will not return unless and until the necessary distinctions are made clearly, repeatedly, and convincingly. We the People must be persuaded that we have a real enemy. And that the enemy is not some amorphous tactic called "terror" but a very real political ideology rooted in specific aspects of Islam which can be distinguished from other features of Islam.

The second outcome of the persistent lack of a proper definition of the enemy is a growing uncertainty as to what positive outcome we might be fighting for. This loops to a growing unease within We the People as to just what we are all about, just what our beliefs might be, our values, the sort of future (beyond material comfort and stability) we might be seeking.

Events in both Iraq and Afghanistan prove beyond a doubt that the old magic words, "democracy," "freedom," "free enterprise" and so forth to the point of projectile vomit are no longer possessed of the charm they held in past wars. Nor, can it be claimed that a victory here or there will "make the world safe for democracy" or "end war."

It may be the case that the Islamist jihadists are both collectivist (as is Islam itself) and certainly addicted to actions such as stonings, amputations, and other delights of Shariah which heap insult and indignity upon the individual. In the past the cause of the individual, the rights and dignities of every single person, have been used quite successfully to mobilize and maintain a consensus within We the People.

It may be that this set of core values is the best, the only means available today to keep We the People grimly dedicated to bear the sacrifices necessary to keep fighting against the denegrators of the individual waging war under the banner of Islam. The Islamist jihadists desire more than anything else to impose their dystopian vision upon us and the rest of the "infidel" world. They want us to submit to the religion of submission and will use any and all means available to achieve this end.

The grim robot warriors of Islamist jihad can be stopped only if We the People are willing to keep on manning the lonely ramparts. We face with the Islamist martyrdom seekers an enemy far more determined and perhaps more numerous than any we faced during the great and lesser wars of the Twentieth Century, including the Cold War.

No doubt. Fighting wears thin. Fast. We the People have already fought way too many wars against all too many collectivist enemies flying many different flags. It is tempting to say, "Enough, already! Been there. Done it. Have the scars to prove it."

In a just and fair world we would be allowed to drop the fight. Put down the burden. To take a well earned and deserved rest.

But this is not a world which is fair or just. It falls to us, the unwilling, led by the inept, to do the impossible. We have stood against German expansionism (twice), Japanese aggression, the Crimson Tide of the Kremlin, Pyongyang, Beijing, Hanoi. And, we won.

We won because we knew what we were fighting against. And, fighting for.

We can do the same today and into endless tomorrows. But, only if we have leaders both in and out of government who can tell it like it really is. Leaders with the intellectual and moral courage to say without equivocation who we are, what we fight for, and what we are fighting against.

Well, it's an idea.

A Really, Really Cheesy Mousetrap

There has never been any secret about the distaste held by "progressive" members of the Democratic Party for either the war in Iraq--or the so-called "good war," the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan. Similarly there is no secret that these same "progressives" have piled up the federal deficit to numbers with which only astronomers--and "progressives" are comfortable.

Also not to be found in the Secret category is the oft-repeated pledge of then campaigner Obama to the effect that there would be no "middle class tax increase" on his watch.

Now in one of the most sleazy efforts to mousetrap a president that the Geek has either witnessed directly or studied as history, the leaders of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives are talking tax increase on the middle class if President Obama makes the toughest (and least incorrect) choice to deploy additional US troops to the war he described a few months back as being of "necessity." House Ways and Means chairman Rangel has been making the noises to this effect.

Rangel, compared to whom Hugo Chavez is a near-conservative, is being backed in this ploy by the new head of the Democratic Party caucus, John Larson, (who is almost to the left of Daniel Ortega.) Both are described as being close political associates of Lady Botox, House Speaker Pelosi.

The notion is being touted as a "pay as you fight" method to assure that the increased costs attendant upon the deployment of more troops would not add to the federal deficit. Suddenly, miraculously, congressional worthies such as Mr Obey and Mr Frank care, they who have been utterly silent as the tsunami of red flooded from the stimulus package, the bailout measures and--soon to come--the Great New Health Care Millennium. The billions and billions just added up during the silence of Messrs Rangel, Larson, Obey, and Frank until now.

There couldn't possibly be a linkage in timing, could there? No. These public spirited representatives of the vox populi (according to their ears at least) have just now noted that wars cost money--and, golly, we just don't want the war to be a burden on our grandchildren.

They have put a potent political gun to the head of their fellow Democrat and fellow "progressive," the President. Send more troops and we will violate your pledge to the American people.

This sort of ideological games playing has no place in a matter as serious as the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. While the war was fought as wrong as a mountain lion chirping for the totality of the Bush/Cheney years, the US has finally made at least some of the right moves in the past six months. These moves, if continued and reinforced, can assure that the US and its allies can achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing."

The reason for needing to attain this minimum goal is simple. So simple that even the mentioned Congress-wallahs can understand it. We need to inflict an obvious military defeat upon Taliban and al-Qaeda so that these as well as Islamist jihadists generally conclude that attacks on the US or its allies constitute a very poor option.

If the Islamist jihadists of whatsoever stripe or whatever name come to a different conclusion, their attacks will come again at some future date. The attacks might well be on a larger, more destructive, more lethal scale than those of 9/11.

Or, in the alternative, the US and the rest of the West might simply accommodate themselves to a new global reality. That reality would feature an American, a Western, retreat from those areas of the world of greatest centrality to the Islamist jihadists. It might also mean adjusting long standing Western and American political, social, cultural values, and customs so as not to offend the most touchy of Muslims lest they call on their stalwart advocates--the suicide bombers, the middle of the night assassins, the wielders of knives, guns, bombs, and, at some future date, nuclear or radiological equivalents.

To "progressives" such as those mentioned, these sorts of dystopian futures have no relevance. Driven by the seductive appeals of ideology, of elitist certainty as to the correctness, the efficacy, the brilliance of their vision of tomorrow, these individuals are willing to impose great risks on their country's future, their fellow citizens' lives.

In terms of ethics, the middle-class-tax-increase ploy against the war is even more reprehensible, more underhanded, more duplicitous than was the "date certain" approach taken by an earlier generation of Democratic Party "progressives" to end the US involvement in the Wars of the Vietnamese. At least that bunch had the decency to wait until the grunts had come back to the world, the famed "decent interval."

Yes, the Democrats then stood by with stony faces and folded arms to watch the defeat of the South Vietnamese Army we had trained, equipped, and promised to support and supply when the final North Vietnamese push came. The ideologically driven indifference of the Democratic "progressives" did assure that the South was defeated even though that was not objectively necessary. These past congressional figures created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now, Rangel, Frank, and the rest want to force the President not to do the right, least incorrect thing. They want to force him to choose between his own falling political stock and the war. Choose between his future in office and the future safety of the nation.

And, they want to do that while the grunts are still grunting and fighting, bashing the mountain sides, going cross eyed looking for IEDs. Killing and dying.

The last time something equal to the action the "progressives" in the House want Mr Obama to take occurred it was on 31 March 68. That was the day Lyndon Johnson said he would not seek reelection. The day the Commander-in-Chief walked away from his troops in the field.

The record shows clearly that the prime effect was in Vietnam. On the guys on the ground. The record shows that in the wake of LBJs collapse of political will both morale and combat efficiency in country dropped fast and hard. Drug use went up. Contact with the enemy declined. The number of fragging incidents went up. Will to fight went the other way.

Sure, back then, in those bad old days, the Army was conscript. Now it is mercenary--whoops! Bad Geek! He meant to write "volunteer." But that difference is in no way directly related to the matters of morale, will to combat, a willingness to keep on going out, facing bad odds even with technology on your side, and taking lumps while hopefully giving more. Pushing on until someone, somewhere can say with honesty, "Mission accomplished. Well done to all hands."

Mr Obama may escape the baited trap. Saner heads in the Democratic Party may prevail. A more suitable target for deficit reduction may emerge. A more rational approach to revenue raising may be discovered.

Even if any or all of these were to happen, the ground truth remains: The "progressives" have shown themselves so ideologically blinded that they were ready, willing, and eager to place their country and all of us who live there at greater risk for decades to come--all for a little bit of belief.

Send Lawrence of Arabia!

The highly decorative and very expensive Army of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been alleged to have done the impossible. Reports from the Yemen Front maintain that the Dauntless Legions of the House of Sand have crossed the international frontier on the ground carrying the war to the Houthi insurgents of the desert waste called "Yemen."

The ground incursion joins with the ongoing air offensive against the Shia Houthi. It also raises the stakes in the rhetorical fusillades exchanged between Tehran and Riyadh.

The UN, or at least one small component thereof, has entered the fray as well. Richard Barrett, Coordinator of the al-Qaeda-Taliban Sanctions Monitoring Committee and a former UK counter terrorism expert, has warned that the game in Yemen has a crucial ramification. In his view the Saudi effort is a "must win" given that the al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP) is harbored in the unstable Houthi dominated region and is very, very focused on toppling the House of Sand.

Barrett uses as support of his contention both the close association between the local leaders of AQAP and Osama bin Laden and the attack last August by a suicide bomber directed against the anti-terrorism capo of the Kingdom, Prince Mohammad bin Nayef. This attack came not that long after the Saudis announced with a globe wide blare that their security forces had busted hundreds of AQAP and related terrorist wannabes and thereby broken up a series of plots directed against the oil infrastructure of the country.

Barrett is right, of course. Yemen has long been a safe haven for al-Qaeda and similar Islamist jihadist groups. It is a state where government is minimal, feuds maximal, insurgencies endemic, and the call of Islamist jihadism loud. Overall Yemen is one very small step from being Somalia.

The Saudis have been aware of this unpleasant reality for quite a few years now. Long before 9/11, antedating the bombing of the USS Cole, prior even to the embassy bombings a decade back, the Saudi intelligence and security agencies have been well aware of goings on in Yemen. They have also been quite well aware of the role their own brand of Islam--Wahhibism--has played in the growth of Islamist jihadist sentiment and its expressions.

It has been knowledge of the latter which in large measure explains the strangely supine behavior exhibited by the Kingdom until recent weeks. As the ancient cliche has it, they have been hoisted by their own petard.

Looping into this inhibition is the Saudi fear of violence. The Kingdom has never (well, at least since the late 1920s) shown any real appetite for war, real war that is rather than the pretense of war, the war of boast, threat, bravado. They have preferred to spend money, pay bribes, cut deals, anything other than put faith in the gods of battle.

Buying weapons, polishing tanks, buffing up the jet fighters, looking good on parade, hiring the supernumerary members of the royal house as officers and gentlemen is one thing. Actually shooting, facing risks, perhaps even (Oh! Horrors!) getting hurt is another thing all together.

Not until the Houthi, having been bought, refused to stay bought, did the Kingdom remember what the guns, the bullets and the (purported) trigger pullers existed to do. Not until the Houthi committed the sin of lese majeste by both openly crossing the Saudi border and humiliating the local army detachment did the Kingdom find the political will to actually do something.

Of course the "something" was both more symbolic than militarily effective, more to its detriment than its benefit--the use of aircraft against remote villages in which genuine civilians were intermixed with Houthi combatants. Not surprisingly this effort even when coupled with Yemeni air strikes and artillery stonks might have produced the odd dead body or two but failed to quash the Houthis. Indeed, as as typically been the case in insurgencies ever since Ogg invented fire, the insurgents were strengthened in both political will and (probably but not verifiably) numbers.

The open and high visibility entrance of the Kingdom into the nasty little war also served to invite international interest. Highest on the list of those interested was and is Iran. While the role of the mullahocracy in the Houthi insurgency is not clear and may be quite limited to words and the occasional arms shipment, the Saudi action raised the ante. The Iranians called and raised in their turn.

Whether or not the Houthi insurgency was actually an Iranian proxy effort a month ago is still open to debate, but not so now. The Saudi high profile, self-defeating action of too much, too late has assured that the conflict now has a strong Iranian component.

The Iranian Deep Thinkers may have been deluded by their success to date with Hezbollah and Hamas or not, but they have now grabbed the Houthi tarbaby with both hands. The situation in Yemen is not akin to that which allowed the creation of Hezbollah as an effective Iranian tool over the past couple of decades. Nor is it akin to the political and religious broth of Gaza which facilitated the rise and continued dominance of Hamas.

Superficially there are similarities between Yemen today and Lebanon of thirty or twenty years ago. Lebanon then and Yemen today defined multi-party armed anarchy.

But the differences are critical.

Lebanon's version of shoot-your-way-to-power was essentially sectarian with the tipping point coming only after the interjection of Fatah fugitives from Jordan. The collapse came against the background of a relatively stable political system which had functioned reasonably well for the years following WW II.

Yemen has not been an organized polity since the overthrow of the Emirate nearly a half century ago. Since then it has been a pastiche of temporary alliances between tribes with an overlay of sectarian rivalry between the Shia leaning folks in the north and the Wahhibist influenced Sunni of the south. The Somali refugees have not and cannot play the destructive role of Fatah in Lebanon.

Another, very important factor is the absence of Syria in the Yemen conflict. Syria played the critical role in Lebanon. While American administrations from Reagan to W. Bush may not have liked nor accepted Syria's dominant place in Lebanon, there is no denying the fact that Assad (the father) imposed both stability and prevented the Iranian presence. While this did not please the Israel Lobby or Israel at the time, the stability provided by Assad's policies did the region more than a little good.

Back to the main point: There is no Syria conveniently adjacent to and involved in stabilizing Yemen and excluding Iran. Herein lies the difference for both policy makers in Tehran and Washington.

Both must make a calculation about the will and capacity of the Kingdom to play the part of Syria in Yemen. Of course, this means deciding whether or not the King has both the mental horsepower and the testicular fortitude of Assad Sr. To date there is no indication that the current incumbent or any likely successor is up to the task.

Actions of the boldness and resolve which characterized Assad pere throughout his rule do not seem to come naturally or easily to the House of Saud. The pervasive belief that money and deal making are always possible is not overcome with rapidity or facility,

The House of Saud always looks to someone else to do the heavy lifting on its behalf. The Saudis depend on the magic of their oil reserves to provide the necessary leverage on the US in particular to assure the lifting is done without pain to the House of Saud.

If this is the ultimate game plan of the Kingdom this time, they are barking up the wrong sand dune. The Obama administration is not casting about looking for one more armpit into which American troops might be inserted. The US currently has neither the political will nor the material capacity to wage one more stinking little war.

There is one caveat to this assertion. Should the Kingdom do something even more impossible to conceive of than putting its troops in harm's way--say, sign a peace treaty with Israel which included a statement of Israel's right to exist with current "settlements" intact and no Palestinian "right of return," all bets are off. The Obama administration would be willing to think the unthinkable and send the Marines in return for "peace in the Mideast."

Short of a miracle on this level, the Saudis are on their little old lonesome in the Houthi insurgency. A miscalculation or two and AQAP will let the House of Sand know all about it. The noise of bombs and smell of oil smoke will make sleep difficult even in the hermetically sealed, air conditioned tents of the House.

This outcome implies that the House and its current King will have to find a bit of old man Assad in the saddle bags of their camels. They will have to do more--a lot more--than drop some bombs and send a few humvees full of troops across the border.

Maybe there is a British archeologist out there somewhere studying some Crusader castle or another in Syria or Israel or Jordan who can channel the spirit of his long dead predecessor and become Lawrence of Arabia, the sequel. If he exists, and if he can dial spiritland, boy does he have an employment opportunity!

Playing Cards With India

The Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, is inside the beltway for a four day state visit. Amid all the glittery hoopla and formal dinners it is time for creative, mutual manipulation of and by two nations which have a very great deal in the way of coinciding national interests. As Richard Nixon played "the China card" against the Soviet Union, so also can Mr Obama play the "India card" against the Chinese.

At the same time PM Singh can play the "USA card" against both the Chinese and the Pakistanis. To work, the game must be one of mutual manipulation for mutual benefit.

India has a very real foreign policy problem in the expansion of Chinese interests throughout Southeast Asia. This comes on top of the conundrums presented by the steadily increasing Chinese interest and presence in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A new add on in the diplomatic challenges presented India by the Chinese is the almost explosive growth of Chinese influence in Eastern and Southern Africa. India has had a long standing interest in those regions as a consequence of the large ethnic Indian communities which exist as a permanent and not always welcome legacy of the British Empire. Economic as well as ethinic, religious, and historical ties assure that the Indian government cannot be immune to the potentials as well as difficulties presented by these indigestible lumps in the African (often Muslim) stew.

India has domestic problems as well as those of foreign affairs. Some of those seemingly "internal" difficulties such as terror attacks in the Kashmir (to say nothing of outrages such as that in Mumbai a year back) have a clear foreign dimension. Others, such as the simmering "Maoist" insurgency or the long running defensive insurgency in Assam may have some degree of foreign connection.

Most of India's domestic problems are of a purely "made-in-India" nature. Most have been apparent in their development since before Independence sixty-two years ago. Most center on two structural features of Indian life--population and asymmetrical economic development and its twin, inequitable wealth distribution.

The rapid and, in many, major ways, skewed Indian economic development of the past three decades brings another set of problems--and coinciding interests. India and the US can, for example, "gang up" on China in the area of global warming mitigation efforts. As another example the two governments can do the same with respect to the continuation of the US dollar as global reserve currency.

In the latter area it is interesting to note that PM Singh said there was no realistic alternative to the dollar in that role just before embarking on his Washington trip. Nothing like a clear, public signal of intent, is there?

The Big Enchilada of the meeting will be AfPak. There is no matter of greater concern to PM Singh or the majority of Indians than that of Pakistan. The fear and loathing of the Pakistani government and military is and always has been palpable in India. While China is a longer term and far more formidable challenge than Pakistan, the latter has been the cause of several wars and the force seen behind terroristic groups from Kashmir to Mumbai and New Delhi.

The American led invasion of Afghanistan opened a new strategic theater in the region for the Indians to exploit. Their presence (unarmed with anything more lethal than money) has grown almost exponentially the past several years much to the alarm of Islamabad.

The Pakistanis have (with some real justification) seen the growing Indian presence and influence in Kabul as a species of airborne invasion of a territory which has long been considered by Pakistani military, intelligence, and political officials as their strategic depth--if not something greater. The Indians are no slouches when it comes either to reading a map or exploiting fleeting opportunities.

The Indian government and military entertains legitimate apprehension that in its apparent rush to an "exit strategy," the Obama administration will genuflect too much to the Pakistanis, grant the Pakistanis too much real or pretended influence in Afghanistan. In short, that the Obama "progressives" will recapitulate the same mistake made by the Reagan administration twenty and more years ago.

The Indian government back then did try to make their fears known to the administration but were ignored, unceremoniously blown off. Of course, at that time as for decades before various left-tilting Indian "neutralist" governments had made the country and its interests anathema in Washington by continuously behaving as if members of the "Socialist Camp."

Those days are long gone. India is a rapidly developing free market economy with a democratic process which works reasonably well all factors considered. As the nuclear technology deal made (at great political cost to and effort by PM Singh) between India and the W. Bush administration makes clear, there are core interests and stances shared by the US and the "world's largest democracy."

Now the Indians want assurances, credible guarantees that the US is not about to cut and run from Afghanistan to the advantage of Pakistan and the necessary and equal disadvantage of New Delhi. In a similar vein the Indian PM will want (demand?) a credible pledge that future military aid provided Pakistan will not be of a sort easily diverted to employment against India.

PM Singh will also be anxious to gain enough of an understanding with Mr Obama to be reasonably sure that the two countries can work together to limit Chinese influence both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In return the Prime Minister will be willing to horsetrade both on climate mitigation commitments and global economic/bilateral trade issues.

If both President and PM (and all the support wallahs) are sufficiently open and honest (strange as that stipulation might seem in diplomatic dancing) there is a lot of room open for the sort of mutual manipulation, deal-making, and so on to achieve progress on most of the coinciding issues before us including both Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is, however, one question which is not being either asked or answered in the pundits and reporters both here and in India.

Here it is--

Will, Mr Obama given his utter disinterest in foreign affairs (to say nothing of his abysmal ignorance of both history and dynamics as such are part and parcel of foreign policy) be able to rip himself away from the healthcare overhaul and other aspects of the rapidly failing "Great Transformational Agenda" to stay awake, focused, and on message for the four day event?

Well, bucko, the Geek ain't about to bet the ranch on the answer being positive.

Turkey And The EU--It Is About History--And Religion

The Islamist leaning government of Turkey is in a bit of a snit over the choice of Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as the President of the European Union. The job which is relatively lacking in any semblance of real power went to the colorless Belgian since both France's Nicholas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel wanted it that way. (Who said nationalism is dead and buried, even in the EU?)

The hair up the Turkish nether region is the consequence of some remarks made by Van Rompuy five years ago regarding the pending application of Turkey for membership in the EU. Not to put too fine a point on it, Van Rompuy is against membership.

The Belgian, who most days has the texture and piquancy of an undercooked Belgian waffle, took the position that the admittance of Turkey would dilute, perhaps even pervert, the fundamental values of the Union. These values, Van Rompuy observed, were "also the fundamental values of Christianity."

This unexceptional, historically valid point is what sent the Turks of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) into their fast boost exoatmospheric trajectory.

It probably didn't help that the Belgian also commented, "Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be a part of Europe."

Not that the Turks haven't tried over the centuries. Just think, "Walls of Vienna." The efforts by the Ottoman Empire, by the Sultan of the Sublime Porte, to extend the sway of Koran and scimitar to Eastern and Central Europe were neither peaceful nor absent a religious as well as a political motive.

The current peaceful attempt by Turkey to "invade" Europe may have economic considerations, but it is also informed by both religion and politics. Given that the AKP seems dedicated to rolling back the secularization initiated by Ataturk gives greater weight to Van Rompuy's views.

There is a fair measure of irony in the words of the AKP's Deputy Chairman for External Affairs, Suat Kiniklioglu, during the course of his interview with the Manchester Guardian. "What is even sadder is that he (Van Rompuy) is making that argument on the basis of the supposed Christian values of the Union. The values we (the Turkish government) envisage are of democracy, transparency, human rights, and the rule of law."

Duh. Just who does the AKP parliamentarian think invented, developed, and died for these values?

Each and every one of the listed values are products of the European historical dynamic. Yes, there are those who can argue that Islam, the Koran, Muslim history can show a dedication to at least the rule of law--provided it is Sharia solely. Yes, there are those who can point to carefully selected and parsed quotes from the Koran to show concern over at least some "human rights."

The same exercise in intellectual masturbation can be undertaken with, for example, the Soviet Constitution adopted in the shadow of show trials and lethal purges during the late Thirties as the Smiling Dictator, Joe Stalin, directed the combined productions. The take away is simply that words can be real pretty--and equally meaningless.

What counts is the effect of the words. The actions taken on their behalf, under their imperatives. What matters is taking the words and making them realities in the street. The history of Europe is a record of taking high sounding words and transforming them from lifeless symbols to street actualities by blood, persistence, and the passage not of years, nor decades but generations, centuries.

While the influence of Judaic thought, Judaic concepts of justice, of law, of duties are far more present in the European cultural matrix and have exercised far greater power on the evolution of European trajectories than many good "Christian" Europeans have cared to admit over the long, long centuries, the primary root of European values are, as Van Rompuy stated, those of Christianity.

The process by which secularism as the leitmotif of government emerged in Europe was one driven by religion. This paradox germinates in the profound ambition on the part of legions of Catholic Popes to be supra-national secular rulers using the force of religious belief as their primary weapon to subjugate or at least control the nascent national rulers of the several coalescing European states.

Secular government must proceed the full flourishing of democracy, transparency, genuine respect for the rights and dignities of the individual as well as the rule of impartial law. It is ironic to say the least that it was Christian ideas, Christian ideals, Christian values which provided the basis to successfully oppose a Christian political institution with theological roots and imperatives--the Catholic Church--so as to bring about the triumph of the secular state.

(It must never be forgotten that organized religions of all stripes are political institutions. That is to say organized religions, even if lacking a centralized and hierarchical structure, pursue political power--defined as the authority, the capacity to materially and directly affect the perceptions, beliefs, and thus the behavior of adherents. Or even non-adherents. But, this is a subject for another post.)

While Christianity, its theology, its many belief systems, carries the seeds of its own removal from institutional political authority, Islam does not. Unlike Christianity, Islam is a total system in which there is no split between the faith and politics, the creed and the legal system, the doctrine and economic activity, the strictures and science. There is no possibility of a state being simultaneously secular (and thus extending benefits, privileges, immunities and rights to all citizens equally) and authentically Islamic. There is absolutely no daylight between the faith and the polity, the community of believers and the community comprising the society.

To put it bluntly: There is no room for the Second Amendment or at least that part relating to the relationship between church and state in the Koran. In the sayings and deeds of the Perfect Man, Mohammad. In Islam.

The Turkish yowls prove that the shoe fits. That the reality, the history of Van Rompuy's comments pinch.

Fortunately M. Van Rompuy is not alone in his views. They are shared by both M. Sarkozy and F. Merkel. They are shared by many, many Europeans even if deprecated by members of the EU's elites, the chattering class, the academics, the Euro-philes for whom the hoi polloi of the many, many streets of Europe are nothing but rude bumpkins, rough peasants, unenlightened, unwashed masses.

In the West, in the US, the notion of "tolerance" like that intellectual perversion of Einstein's mathematics, "cultural relativism," has been raised to the level of a fetish. Our self-appointed elites wave the fetishes of "tolerance," "diversity," and "cultural relativism" while accusing those who do not worship the fetishes as "xenophobic," "Fascist," or simply "prejudiced," "Islamophobic."

It can only be assumed (hoped) this phase of self-loathing will pass before more harm is done by its lamentable existence these past few decades. The West, the US, has much to be proud of, many profound (and profoundly Christian rooted) accomplishments to celebrate.

Not least of these are the very values espoused by the AKP Deputy Chairman of External Affairs: democracy, transparency, human rights, and the rule of law. And, the one he didn't mention but is basic to the others: the triumph of the secular state.

The Muslims Keep Wanting To Gag Us

Two stalwart proponents of the "right" of Islam and its adherents everywhere to be free of the slightest whiff of criticism by anyone for any reason, Algeria and Pakistan, have reportedly taken the point in the never ending campaign to stifle free expression in the name of preventing something called "religious defamation."

Diplomats from these two notedly repressive states have been working the halls of the UN seeking support for a draft protocol which will lead to an international convention banning any and every word, drawing, or other expression which might be seen by some hypersensitive Muslim as somehow "defaming" some aspect of Muslim theology, history, current acts (including shooting people while shouting, "Allahu akbar!"), or any other whim of the putatively "offended" individual or group.

The reasoning propelling the quest is disingenuously disguised as an exercise in "human rights." The proponents of this Global Gag Order which include (surprise! surprise) the totality of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference allege that any "defamatory" expression impairs the "human right" of the believer to exercise his beliefs.

The effort currently underway in the UN General Assembly goes far beyond the previous exercises in passing non-binding resolutions over the opposition of Western nations, including usually but not always the United States. The goal is to enshrine protections for Muslims and Islam in the code of international law and thus personal conduct.

The OIC is plunging ahead with its new approach in order to ride the momentum started by the ill-advised, poorly thought through and generally dangerous Obama administration decision to cosponsor a semi-gag rule in the UN Human Rights Council along with Egypt. (Egypt is another state where repression is commonplace, persecution of religious minorities a daily fact of life, and where internal anti-"defamation" laws are routinely employed to silence dissent and suppress debate on policies both sacred and secular.)

The OIC pointmen are arguing that it is not so much that they are seeking to limit free expression but "to strike a balance between that right and respect for others." Right, dude, fer sure.

Given that international conventions are applied (at least most of the time) by national courts, there is no doubt the "balance" will be struck at vastly different points by different national judicial systems. This is another case where the differences will work not to the advantage of free expression but to its harm.

The use of the term "balance" as well as the invocation of the totem of "human rights" is a slick move by the OIC and its frontline workers. Both serve to undercut any resistance from the West by waving the magic wand of multi-culturalism along with that of cultural relativism. These two pernicious concepts provide extra grease on an already very slippery slope by inducing a sort of soporific head nodding of agreement among many of the Western elites, the chattering and academic classes in particular.

The US representatives at the relevant UN committees and bodies have, in the words of one, "been waging trench warfare" against the OIC measure. Still, given the slickness of the current packaging, the lengthy timeline involved, and related features, the measure has a good or better chance of ultimate adoption--provided the Muslims are persistent.

There is no doubt but the Muslims will be persistent. Alone among the major religions (and as far as the Geek can determine the minor ones as well) Muslims are so fearful as to the nature, basis, and character of their own faith; its historical record; and the actions of some of its present day adherents as to demand special protection, unique immunity, and international guardianship against the normal hazards of daily intellectual life. Only Muslims cannot take even the most legitimate and factually justified criticism.

Beyond being simply persistent, the Muslims can take comfort that the US population contains large and vocal factions ready, willing, and able to support suppression of expression in the name of religion. An example, an early harbinger of this is to be found in Nebraska.

True, the subject at hand seems far from free expression, but the distance is far, far less than first meets the eye. In the Cornhusker State, the elected University Board of Regents is considering the imposition of a ban on stem cell research far broader than either state law or federal regulation imposes.

The Board of Regents appear to be poised to prohibit any fetal stem cell research using any cell line other than the twenty-one authorized by that famed friend of untrammeled science, George W. Bush. The mere prospect of the restriction in free research has already hampered, even stopped the development of the regenerative science effort at U Nebraska. If passed, it will continue to do so--and probably have ripple effects which will ultimately serve to the detriment of every (non-athletic) department in the university.

The justification provided by backers of the Thou-Shalt-Not-Research measure maintain that they do not intend to restrict freedom of inquiry, but rather to protect the "human rights" of the fetus. They also aver that the scientists should be researching the potential benefits from adult stem cells.

The second point is well taken; scientists should not overlook nor ignore any line of inquiry. Similarly, good science should not and cannot be dictated by religious considerations of an admittedly emotional but yet highly abstract sort.

The ground truth is simply that freedom of inquiry and expression are a very basic human right. Arguably, these two constitute jointly the most powerful driving force in all areas of human progress from the hardest of hard sciences to the ineffable but central matters of ethics and epistemology.

There is a second ground truth in play here. Whether free expression or its twin, free inquiry, there are religiously driven opponents who will take the counsel of their deepest fears, their most hidden of insecurities, and act to suppress speech or inquiry which for whatsoever reason, true or false, good or bad, real or artificial which may cross the individual believer's mind.

Gag orders kill more than "defamation" or lines of scientific inquiry. Gag orders kill societies, nations, cultures. More, by giving expression to the deepest, darkest fears, and insecurities lurking in our midst, the gag order kills our essential humanness.

Dithering And Despondency Over Afghanistan

There is still no word from the Commander-in-Chief regarding the deployment of more US troops to Afghanistan. Nor has anyone questioned the wisdom of looking for an exit strategy while the Taliban and al-Qaeda are generally perceived as winning and the Americans seen by and large as on the verge of unmistakable defeat.

As the days and weeks have rolled along, the rationale for delay in making the least worst choice among the many available has eroded. The Pakistani offensive has continued longer than most expected it would--bolstered by the revulsion generally held in Pakistan at the Islamist jihadist resort to indiscriminate suicide bomb attacks on soft targets.

As has been the case so often in both Iraq and the AfPak efforts, the killing of civilians has been shown as quite counterproductive. While the US and its allies have learned the lesson, it is most fortunate that the Islamists are intellectually challenged in this most critical area. The equation is simple and has been seen at work in every war since the 20th Century started.

Killing civilians, particularly in ways which seem particularly cowardly such as air strikes and suicide bombings turns opinion sharply against the killers--not against the side which failed to protect its civilians. When American and other aircraft piled up stinking heaps of dead civilian bodies, sentiment and its handmaiden political will turned against the Americans. When Islamist jihadists blow themselves and oodles of nearby non-combatants into a red froth of protoplasm, sentiment and political turn against the Heroic Warriors of Allah.

The three hundred or so victims of Taliban bombs during the course of the Pakistani offensive into South Waziristan have done much to keep political support on the side of Islamabad. This is good from the American perspective even if Washington does have legitimate grounds to complain that the Pakistani forces have cut deals with anti-American, pro-Afghan Taliban rather than fight them.

However, the American dithering over further troop deployments is serving to erode Pakistani political will within the government, media, and--army. The uncertainty over the willingness of the US under its current administration to pay a higher butcher's bill in Afghanistan has been exacerbated by the never ending delays in the announcement of a decision.

No matter how long the US stays, one month, one year, five years, eventually the last US boot will leave. When that happens Afganhanistan will once more be in play as a proxy theater for competitors in the region. This will be true even if the Karzai regime does the impossible--stops corruption and delivers efficient, competent basic government services and a modicum of economic development.

Iran, Pakistan, India, and at least a couple of the Central Asian Republics see Afghanistan as a theater of political-military operations. Even now with the US still involved, the various external contenders are plumping up those Afghan factions with which they have the most effective relations. Iran has its proxies. Pakistan, just as was the case twenty years ago, has it's. India has made great gains both openly and otherwise cultivating potential proxy assets.

Arriving a bit late but with unlimited ambitions and cash the Chinese have also started finding or manufacturing clients within Afghanistan. At the present their interests are primarily economic but this is liable for change so as to include the political.

The projected uncertainty over the American future in Afghanistan has done nothing to slow the growth of adverse proxy forces in the country. Rather it has done the opposite.

Unless the assorted jihadist groups are neutered to an extent that none are attractive proxies, the scramble for advantage in the war after the war will continue to escalate. Thus the most critical goal of the US--that of destroying the Islamist jihadist groups in Afghanistan and along the porous border between that country and Pakistan becomes even more important.

The improbability of the Karzai regime reforming itself coupled with the strategic plans of neighboring states assures there will be a war after the war. From our perspective the necessity is assuring that the next time around there will be no chance of an Islamist jihadist success being achieved in the manner of the Pakistan created and supported Taliban not quite twenty years ago.

If Afghanistan is not to become a future home of yet one more semi-indigenous, semi-artificial Islamist jihadist government, the jihadists of today must be operationally destroyed. There is no need to create nor to leave behind some sort of imitation Western style secular state--that cannot be done. Nor is there any need to cleanse Afghanistan of Islamist tendencies--that cannot be done either.

What is necessary is to remove the stain of jihadism which covers the territory of both Afghanistan and Pakistan with the color of drying blood. It's simple. Islam? Sure. Islamism? Well, OK. Jihadism? No blinking way!

To achieve even this limited and barely realistic goal it will be necessary to fight directly and back the Pakistanis in their current and (it is to be hoped) future offensives. This means more troops. More body bags. More American blood shed in the hopes that less will be sacrificed in future years.

As the Geek well knows it takes a certain amount of testicular fortitude to enter combat. However, it takes as much--or more--to bite down on an unpleasant, bitter reality and put one's political future on the line and order more men to face the possibility of death, maiming, or psychological trauma in order to have some slight chance of securing a better future for the US.

It is necessary for a real president, or a real man for that matter, to make tough choices, choices between the bad and the worse, choices no one ever wanted to make. But, that is part of a president's job description. In case the current occupant of the Oval has not noticed yet, it takes a lot more than a charming smile and a good way with speeches to be a genuine president. It takes balls.

One can hope that the Nice Young Man From Chicago finds his.

The Lesson For Today: Tough Beats Nice

The Russian Foreign Minister has taken the bland line that there has not yet been an "official" response from Tehran to the UN brokered deal on exchanging Iranian low enrichment uranium for more highly enriched reactor fuel. That was very, very diplomatic but basically irrelevant to the real world.

President Obama's public reaction was not much more realistic than that of the Russian ForMin.

During his final stop on the Asian Dud Tour, the Nice Young Man From Chicago averred that the US would be developing a package of "potential steps we can take that will indicate our seriousness."

What the hey! Has Mr Obama really, really quit smoking dope? Who does he think he is (a) threatening? or (b) kidding? "Potential steps" which just may "indicate" that the US takes the issue of the Iranian "Mahdi bomb" with "seriousness." What have we and other countries been doing the past several years--joking about the spinning centrifuges, the implosion design studies, the constant prevarications, the time-buying stalls?

You mean, Mr President, that the time has come to maybe get serious and do something?

Well, if that is the case the upcoming meeting at the "political director" level of the P5+1 should be short and conclusive. Of course, the palaver will not be short. Nor will it be conclusive.

Unless one considers the continuation of policy-as-usual to be conclusive. Given the abrupt way in which the Obama entreaties were given the yo-heave-ho by the Gnomes of Beijing and the bovine placidity shown by the Russian Foreign Minister, more of the same ole, same ole is already set to be the winner of the next round or rounds of P5+1 interactions.

No one, not even the diplomats with the most personal ego investment in the stillborn IAEA delivered deal can believe that their efforts will somehow, someway prove positive in the next few days or weeks. The deal is dead. Well, perhaps it still has a thin thready pulse which is barely detectable.

That sliver of life's potential exists courtesy of Turkey. The Turks could provide both a temporary storage site for the Iranian three percent uranium as well as the point of exchange between twenty percent enriched fuel plates and the stored uranium.

The Tehran regime has (somewhat grudgingly) admitted that the Turks unlike the Great Powers has not (a) done the Revolutionary Republic dirty, (b) reneged on past deals or contracts, (c) attempted to overthrow or otherwise compromise the Reign of the Mullahs or (d) engaged in generalized anti-Islamic activities. Thus the Tehran Toughies may be willing to turn over the bulk of their enriched uranium to Turkish custody.

The West and Russia, perhaps even China, would allow that modification to the original undertaking as it adds no risk of proliferation--particularly if the Turks allow IAEA monitoring as would seem likely. Russian and France could then work out the mechanism for exchange of twenty percent uranium, the provision of reactor ready fuel assemblies, and the final receipt of the Iranian goods. Technically, this is a more difficult way to do things, but there is no reason in principle why it would not work.

The Turkish custody option would be the final test of Iranian political good will. If Tehran rejects it that act proves to even the most Iranophilic observer that the Tehran regime's intentions have been less than honorable all along. If, to the contrary, the mullahs and their frontmen go along with this modification it buys some time to deal diplomatically with the still unresolved issue of nuclear intents and compliance with the NPT regime.

The important ground truth in all this brouhaha is that any exchange program under whatsoever detailed plan is only a means of purchasing time. Unless and until all parts of the Iranian nuclear program are brought under complete and effective IAEA supervision can their be any let down of guard against latent Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions.

The completion of any deal on the current Iranian uranium stockpile in no way does anything beyond providing another "decent" interval for diplomatic and political processes to work. Or not. Certainly there are no indications from Tehran of any lessening of political will to gain their end goals of regional hegemon and global actor.

Any reading of the rules of the global great game shows that the possession of nuclear weapons immunizes a regime against Great Power threats. Tehran has long watched (probably with more than a slight tinge of envy) the way in which Islamabad has wagged and wiggled the US.

Conclusion? Those with nukes can get what they want. Those without the Big Bang will get the shaft.

The Iranians have also learned another very, very important and quite basic truth about how the great game of nations is played. Toughness and resolve matter more than the realities of military, economic, or diplomatic power.

Of course, in the case of Iran, the presence of diplomatic supporters such as China and Russia have made the appearance of toughness and resolve all the easier to adopt and maintain. Even if Russia should change tack and support yet more sanctions, the Chinese will not. Thus Iran is safe in being as tough talking and resolute acting as the mullahs wish.

There are lessons for the US in all of this. The first lesson is also the most obvious: Niceness does not matter. Nice nations are far more likely to finish last than nice guys. The second is a corollary of the first: Toughness trumps. This does not mean it is necessary to be a global, unilateral bully but rather it is necessary to take a stance which is unmistakable and unambiguous, and to put that stance into effect with consistency and resolve.

The third lesson is not quite so open air transparent. Point three is the interrelationship of the world, particularly the Great Powers. When Bill Clinton handed the key to the American market without appropriate safeguards for our national interests, he and his successor assured that the Chinese would be willing, able, and eager to thwart American interests if doing so advanced their own. Ten years ago Beijing would have supported, or at least not blocked, sanctions against Iran. Now, they can do so with total impunity as regards American responses and with profit as regards their interests in Iran and the surrounding region.

Had not Bush/Cheney been so lame of mind as to treat Russia as a defeated rival worth only of disdain, scorn, and hortatory advice, the Kremlin might well have been less obstructionist in its approach to Iran. The nice words which Mr Obama and others in his administration have poured in the general direction of Moscow have not and will not reverse the harm done by Bush/Cheney.

To reverse the harm and structure a working relationship with Russia requires a combination of treating the Kremlin as a Great Power--as great a Great Power as we believe ourselves to be--with the capacity to be firm, resolved and ever-so-politely tough. Respect, predictability, and a well concealed fist join to provide the basis for a relationship in which intersecting national interests can be pursued with overall positive effect.

Mr Obama, listen up and listen tight. True, you did not want to be a foreign policy president; true, you have little interest in, knowledge of, or flair for foreign policy. It isn't like community organizing on a grand scale. You are sorry about that. So is the Geek.

Still, you are a bright, young, and ambitious man. So, there is time to learn the most important lesson of all in the Great Game of Nations: A nice smile and the crowd's applause will not foreign policy successes make. No, that takes a grim sort of guile and an understanding that one can be tough without being George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.

Obama Losing Streak Goes On And On....

Coming off of a big, big loss to the Ayatollah Isotopes which once again showed itself poised and ready to rumble, President Obama was handed a second hard right to the chin by the Gnomes of Beijing.

Despite fears that the President's Own Homeboys would not be up for the challenge of Beijing, the Homeboys were set to go and definitely amped to the max for the encounter. Overlooked in the pre-scrimmage chatter was the basic problem--the Homeboys just didn't have the power play.

And, power is the only fact of life the Gnomes of Beijing respect. If you ain't got the juice, you can't stay on the field with the Gnomes. This is a back-to-basics reality which the Obama Homeboys now have to contemplate as they lick the wounds of an all too evident defeat.

The totally scripted, quite stilted, even stylized post-game press conference (without questions) showed that the Captain of the Homeboys understood how badly the game had ended--and been played. This press affair was at a complete variance with the one held by the victorious American capo of the Clinton Stargazers back in 1998.

The upbeat, even ebullient President Clinton, flush with the transitory triumph of the moment, welcomed questions regarding the dangers of open trade with China. In those palmy days of early season play, Mr Clinton poo-poohed the trade deficit with China and minimized the extent of the US-China trade. (Concerning the latter he pointed out that American trade with China was a mere fraction of our trade with Mexico.)

The Geek remembers the sour thought that crossed his usually light and sweet mind, "Yeah, partner--but for how long?"

In this piece of solid negativity the Geek was guided by a memory from thirty more or less years earlier. He was flying over San Francisco's harbor and noticed what looked like acres of identical small Japanese cars parked at dockside. Musing out loud on the fields of rice burners down below, the guy in the next seat set the Geek's thinking straight.

"All those cars down there," a firm thumb with a well trimmed nail gestured in front of the Geek's nose in a general purpose outside-the-airplane way. "They got off the boat a couple of months ago. Customs wouldn't pass them. Don't meet some new federal safety standard or air pollution thing."

The Geek merely nodded as the plane leveled off on its final approach.

"We won't be seeing them again, I'll bet," the guy in the next seat opined.

"Don't bet the ranch on that, bucko." The Geek kept his thoughts to himself. But, he was firmly convinced on the basis of having lived and worked one place or another in Asia for most of the past ten years that the Japanese imports would be back--in full force. Asians learn quickly, and from their mistakes even more quickly.

Later years taught the Geek one additional point. Asians learn most rapidly and completely from the mistakes of others. So, back when President Clinton was singing hosannas onto free, open trade with China and what a great benefit this would be to all Americans as well as the Chinese, the Geek was not willing to sing along with Bill.

While open, "free" trade may have benefited many American consumers somewhat in the very short range, this benefit has been purchased at great cost. Even the benefits which have accrued to major purchasers of Chinese made items such as Walmart will eventually find the costs to the context which created and nurtured them--the United States including its ability to operate freely in the diplomatic context--will outweigh the bottom line successes.

The real winner in this game of open, "free" trade has been China. Not the American corporations, not the Chinese billionaires, not the Chinese workers, none of these has won to the degree attained by the Gnomes of Beijing.

The speed, decisiveness, and totality with which the Gnomes of Beijing cleaned the collective clocks of Obama and his Homeboys were underscored by the soft, soothing mood music played later by Chinese Prime Minister Wen on a matter of trade--specifically the enormous imbalance which exists. His words, as the president must know, were both moot and self-serving.

On the real issues, on Iran, on the value of the yuan, on the growth of China's offensively oriented military forces, there was no movement toward the US position by the Gnomes throughout the many hours of meetings including the one-on-one's with the Chinese president. The Homeboys were, to put it bluntly, dissed.

China will continue its tilt toward Tehran having made the rational decision that the US cannot live without China's continued cooperation on the huge American debt it holds--a trillion bucks and rising. The Gnomes calculated that Obama and the Homeboys now lacked the juice that Clinton had a decade earlier.

Beijing had, it is evident, learned much from our mistakes. The biggest mistake of all from which the Gnomes have learned and profited the most is that of opening our trade door to them without any of the necessary safeguards.

Clinton and his successor, W. Bush, apparently were seduced by the ideology that "free" trade makes for good and permanent friends. They and their fellow ideologues (and the profit at any cost crowd such as Walmart) were wrong. Dead wrong. And, now we will have to live (or die) with the consequences.

As the Geek has posted many times before, buying Chinese origin products whether at Walmart or anywhere else under the conditions which have prevailed since President Clinton embarked on the ill-advised and very poorly thought through policy of "globalization" is trading with the enemy. No mistake must be made about it--China is the enemy. More than Russia today or even the Soviet Union of yore, China is and will continue to be an enemy of the US.

The status of enemy is inherent to the very long standing belief in China of its privileged and unique existence as the "Central Empire." Not the "Middle Kingdom" as the phrase is normally and incorrectly rendered in English--but the "Central Empire." The Big Enchilada. The Honcho Empire.

For a long while after Mao's triumph the Chinese lacked the means to realize its ambitions. Now thanks to "gobalization," thanks to Bill Clinton, thanks to W. Bush, thanks to ideology and the drive for profit without any regard for long term costs, thanks to the American desire to acquire more for less, the Chinese have both the will and the capacity to act without much heed to the US desires and needs anywhere in the world. More than ever, the old saying of the cartoon character Pogo is accurate, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Obama and the Homeboys will put the best possible gloss on the defeat in Beijing. They have no choice. But, We the People can hope that somewhere, someone, somehow, is looking at the loss for lessons.

Lessons on how we can still claw our way back from the looming verge of second class status, of dancing in the Beijing end zone.

The Gutless Media And Muslims

In the torrent of yarns on the Fort Hood massacre several words have been conspicuous by their absence. The words "Muslim," "Islam" and "terror(ist) seem to be utter anathema to the main stream media both print and electronic.

Finally the solid ranks of denial through silence have been broken by at least two outlets. One is American. The other hails from North Ireland.

Both editorials are well written, well argued, and properly point to the fact that fear and fear alone have inhibited honesty in reporting and public discourse on the shooting episode perpetrated by Major Hasan. The American piece, in the Miami Herald, focuses on the pop psychology aspects of the coverage and discussion of Major Hasan's act. The Belfast Telegraph takes on the matter far more bluntly, far more honestly, and far more accurately as it directly links the religious grounds of the Major's exercise in mass murder with the larger subject of Islamist jihadist terror generally.

The religious roots of Major Hasan's act (and those of Muslim jihadists generally) are treated by the Herald with an undue degree of care. The writer of the Telegraph piece has much more of a "damn the torpedoes" attitude as befits a person who has witnessed up close and personal the years of religiously affiliated political terror in North Ireland.

Admittedly Americans, particularly those of the chattering, academic, and political classes, like to see themselves as ever-so-sensitive, ever-so-careful, ever-eager to avoid giving unintended offense to anyone, anywhere, at anytime. Beyond that, the talking heads of TV as well as the keyboard pounders of the print media have no capacity to trust the good judgement and basically good will of the mass of We the People.

As the Miami editorial carefully avers, there is a widespread fear that We the People, the great majority of us who are of the hoi polloi and not members of the self-appointed elite of journalism, politics, and academia are a passel of peasants replete with pitchforks and torches eagerly salivating over the possibility of running down fugitive Muslims in the deepest dark of a foul night. This level of distrust, of a willingness to think the worse of one's fellow citizens who are not in the elite is a far worse offense against truth than is the unwillingness to acknowledge reality about Major Hasan and his trigger pulling.

In the immediate (and not so immediate) wake of the Fort Hood shootings, politicians, bureaucrats, senior Army officers and the media generally tripped over their tongues and typewriters alike warning of the dreaded backlash against Muslims which might (would?) ensue as word of the massacre percolated through We the People. Interestingly, there were no warnings of "backlash" against either Army majors or psychiatrists generally considering that the shooter was a member of both as well as being a Muslim.

It appears that the same self-designated elite, the same molders of opinion, the same politicians who are convinced the American public is ever eager to whomp-a-Muslim is able to distinguish between the categories of "Army major" and "psychiatrist" and one specific psychiatrist and major. Just where in heck are these pundits et al coming from?

It is self-evident that We the People can be trusted to act responsibility and restraint whether the words "Muslm" or "terrorist" or "Army major" or even "psychiatrist" are employed in examining the events at and before the Fort Hood shootings. In the days after 9/11 there were no mobs besieging mosques. Most violations of the rights and dignity of individual Muslims or Arabs were not committed by outraged citizens seeking revenge on any convenient symbolic target but rather by the myrmidons of law enforcement, particularly those acting at the federal level with the full backing and encouragement of the Bush/Cheney administration.

The same lacking of mobs taking the law into their own grubby hands was observed in the UK following the murderous bombings of 7/7. Muslims in both the US and the UK were and are safer after even the most bloody of terror attacks than is, say, a Christian in Egypt or Pakistan, or Iraq.

The only reason which can be adduced to the cowardly treatment of Major Hasan's religiously predicated act by the MSM is fear. And, not fear of the Great Backlash but rather fear of maybe, perhaps, possibly offending some Muslim somewhere. Perhaps not a fear of Muslm martyrdom seekers, but rather of Muslim advocacy groups with their default response to any criticism no matter how fact based.

The default response is loud and repeated cries of "Islamophobia" (whatever that might be in the real world) and equally loud assertions of "discrimination" or "xenophobia" or, worst of all, "racism." It is quite true that Muslims have, as the writer of the Telegraph editorial remarked, a hyperdeveloped sense of victimization and an equally high capacity to announce just how Muslims have once again been victimized by the dominant culture in the US--or UK or wherever.

Now, not to put to fine a point on the matter, this cry of "victim" is a crock of nitrogen rich solid waste--and the leaders of CAIR and its fellow groups know it. The assorted "advocacy" groups and their apologists within the chattering, academic, and political classes are exploiting for their own advantage an unfortunate aspect of American life--the rise of the "politics of victimization."

There are a handful of groups indigenous to the US which have a somewhat legitimate claim to the status of "victims." But, beyond Americans of African ancestry and Native Americans, the demands for special status and protection attenuates to zero. For Muslims to muscle in on the historically justifiable grievances of the two specific groups is both a travesty and a mockery.

For the MSM and others in the opinion molding elite to both allow and facilitate this Muslim hijacking of "victimhood" is beyond travesty. It is a self-loathing gesture which casts the worst aspersions on the American public generally.

It is this willingness on the part of the elite--including President Obama and his Secretary of Homeland Security--to heave billingsgate on We the People as if all of us in the hoi polloi are mentally challenged juveniles which is the most disgusting part of a tragic affair. The lockstep way in which the MSM and others have marched along with the don't-trust-the-common-folks message is frankly nausea producing.

Only the honest courage of a couple of isolated voices in the great media wasteland serves the public interest, the public's often celebrated "right to know." If there were only more!

But, that halcyon state is too much to hope for as long as the phony voices of Muslim "victims" is given priority over the truth, and only the truth.

Beaucoup Tough Talk In Saudi Arabia--And Iran

The Houthi insurgency in Yemen is taking on more aspects of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. There are strong hints from the Kingdom that the Iranians-Are-Behind-It-All school of thought is gaining both traction and momentum.

In addition to that growing consensus there are expressions of fear concerning the intentions of the Iranian government to "politicize" the Haj perhaps to the extent of fulminating another armed attack on the Grand Mosque along the lines of the embarrassing shoot-out at the Kaaba years ago. The Iranians are doing nothing to reduce the fears and anger in the Kingdom. To the contrary the men of the mullahs are pouring hot rhetoric on the flames.

The verbal attack on the Kingdom has been led by Ali Larjani, the current Speaker of the Majlis and former nuclear negotiator. Larjani is a very hard hard-liner as his his brother the recently appointed capo d'tutti capi of the Islamic Republic's judiciary. Both are strongly affiliated with and supported by the Supreme Leader, Khamenei. It is worth noting that Speaker Larjani is both slicker and smoother than president Ahemdinejad and is often seen as a necessary counterweight to the overly populist Orator-In-Chief.

With a measure of duplicity noteworthy even among the mendacious Tehran regime, Ali Larjani observed to a audience of visiting Sunni clerics--that's right, Sunni--that the Saudi Arabian air and artillery attacks on the Houthi (and any civilians unfortunate enough to be down range) were a clear violation of the Islamic stricture against Muslims waging war on Muslims. He concluded that the Saudi "massacre should cause all Muslims to feel outrage."

Fer sure, dude. You are kind of selective in what sort of Muslim-kills-Muslim episode is worthy of generating outrage in Muslim hearts and minds.

Not to be outdone in the rhetorical offensive, Ahmedinejad, while in Turkey called for dialog and restraint in the conflict. With a (presumably) straight face the Orator-in-Chief stated that Iranian policy "is only to strengthen the unity, brotherhood and cooperation among all nations."

The word, "all" must be defined in the mind of Ahmedinejad in a very strange and narrow manner. Certainly his view of "unity, brotherhood and cooperation" does not extend to the US, Israel, most, if not all, of Western Europe or Arab Muslim states which have the temerity to push back against the mullahs' attempts to export the Revolution.

Iranian ideas of cooperation are very narrowly construed if recent reports from unnamed diplomatic sources to the effect that the Iranians have completely rejected the UN backed nuclear materials plan are correct. The time for any sort of cooperation (and unity and brotherhood) on the nuclear contretemps other than a US and EU capitulation is apparently no longer short but totally exhausted.

The Iranians are quite willing to extend the benefits of "unity, brotherhood and cooperation" to non-state actors such as Hezbollah as the recent Francop Affair demonstrates. This is what has the Saudis riled.

There is a palpable fear in the Kingdom that Tehran intends to transform the Houthi from an annoying but minor insurgency to a full bore Hezbollah clone. This apprehension is far from groundless. The government of Yemen is quite reminiscent of the government of Lebanon in the days before Hezbollah, in effect, took it over.

The cloning of Hezbollah in Yemen would provide a powerful advantage to the Iranians in their strategy of becoming the regional hegemonic power. At the very least the growth of Houthi into a permanent feature in the politico-military landscape of the Arabian Peninsula would divert the Saudis, force the Kingdom to focus on internal security, and, lessen the capacity and will of the House of Sand to buck up the smaller states of the Gulf.

The gamesmanship of the mullahs in Yemen should be of major interest to the US. It is self-evident that the US would find some important national and strategic interests compromised if the Houthi become a larger feature in Peninsular politics. The US has gone through several painful (and way back in the Fifties one non-painful) engagements with the Lebanese political arena.

This should be enough to teach even the Americans that one Lebanon, one Hezbollah, is one too many. The time for the use of leverage, support, and assistance in helping the Saudis chart a course of stability in Yemen is right now--not a few weeks or months hence.

In the process the basic reality of Yemen must be understood. Yemen has no history of a national or even a well defined geographical identity. The current government is both corrupt (what else is new?) and inefficient (ditto.) The tribal congeries which constitutes the human terrain of Yemen is badly fractured as it has been most of the past century and more. The probability of a government generally conceded to be legitimate is next to zero.

The Yemen swamp is one where Uncle Sam cannot and should not tread directly. The Saudis, while far from overly competent, possess the necessary fundamentals of understanding, leverage, the willingness to safely if not discretely use force and something very real at stake--its own national security.

In any event the very best that can be hoped for in Yemen is the blockage of the Iranian ambition: the prevention of another Hezbollah arising in a very critical small corner of the world. The way in which the Saudis and whatever passes for a government in Yemen deal with the Houthi and the Iranians over the next few weeks will determine whether Yemen becomes (A) one more Lebanon complete with an Iranian puppet or (B) another Somalia or (C) stumbles on as it has for the past several years, doing a drunkard's walk along the cliff with a single misstep plunging it into the Gulch of Failed States.

All the Geek can offer by way of encouragement to either the House of Sand or the Nice Young Man From Chicago is a cheery, "Lots of luck, dudes."