Russia And China Get It Together

The state of play in Russo-Chinese relations shows the two behemoths moving closer together on a couple of key fronts.  One is economic.  The other is diplomatic.

In economic matters it is clear that the two are close to a pricing agreement on the sale of thirty billion cubic meters of natural gas annually starting in 2015.  The deal is good for both.  There is no doubt but China needs the energy and Russia would very much like to diversify its hydrocarbon market--and pocket a good deal of cash in the process.

While the natural gas agreement is important, it must take a backseat to the increasing harmony between Moscow and Beijing in international matters.  It is clear that both are using the Libyan adventure of NATO (and, at least indirectly, the US) as the catalyst for what the Russians have termed "tight cooperation" on such key questions as the UN, R2P and interventions generally.

Both states have guarded the rights of states to be free of UN interference for decades.  Since the end of the Cold War, the stance of both in this area has become, if anything, more and more hardline.  Both countries have more than a bit of self-interest at stake in their guarding of national sovereignty as each faces recurrent political unrest.  While both signed the convention on responsibility to protect there is no doubt but each saw the document as being one of those feel-good productions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which everybody signs but not everyone takes seriously.

The doubts held by the Lads in the Kremlin and the Trolls of Beijing regarding the interventionary ambitions of the US and the West were given a shot of growth hormone by the passage of the Security Council resolution authorizing the no-fly zone in Libya and further calling upon member states to take actions such as to protect the civilian population of that country.  While delicately (and misleadingly) worded so as to avoid a veto, the resolution was troubling to Russia and China as well as other countries such as India and Brazil because its loose wording could be generously interpreted by Western states.

That a generous interpretation was intended from the beginning was obvious in the statements of assorted leaders including President Obama which declared goals far more expansive than simply assuring the safety and humanitarian relief of endangered civilians.  As the bombs fell in ever widening patterns, the Russians took the lead in stentorian denunciations of the NATO effort.  In the past few days they have been joined in the chorus by China.

When Chinese president Hu goes to St Petersburg on 16 June to attend the "Russian Davos," it is highly probable that the opportunity will be used to further orchestrate joint Sino-Russian opposition to an extension of the no-fly mandate as well as any introduction of NATO ground forces under any guise.  The fear is the US and its NATO partners, France and England, will arm twist Secretary General Ban into requesting NATO protection for UN humanitarian operations with the result the troops will land in regime changing force.

While there is a whiff of the conspiratorial in this Russian (and Chinese) apprehension, it is not baseless.  The air campaign is not only obviously biased in favor of the rebels, it is also not working rapidly or all that well.  Despite the attrition inflicted on loyalist arsenals, the pro-Gaddafi forces still have a robust combat power, effective tactics, and political will.  Even if the rebels are no longer losing dramatically, neither are they winning in any meaningful sense of the word.

To the Russian and Chinese observer, it seems only natural that the West would seek to retrieve victory nearly lost by the introduction of ground forces.  Should this move occur before the mid-June sidebar summit, one can anticipate very vigorous resistance from both states.  They will be joined by others.  Brazil, India, South Africa, various Central Asian republics--and the members of the Arab League.

The Arab League has repented of its early enthusiasm for internationalization of the Libyan internal conflict.  This is seen by the monolithic opposition from both the AL and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to any robust action being taken against Syria.  The AL, having tossed one Arab leader off the troika, is now covering itself with self-protecting protection of Bashir al-Assad.  To circle the Arab and Muslim wagons under the protective banner of two Great Powers is comforting to the Arabs and the OIC alike.

It will be comforting as well to the African Union (AU), which has been consigned by events to the further shores of irrelevance not only in Libya but deep in the heart of the continent with the way in which the UN and France dealt with events in the Ivory Coast.  This has allowed the Russian and Chinese diplomats to pull out and play the fear of neo-colonialism card with effect.  To many in Africa as in the Arab and Muslim majority states, the specter of Western neo-colonial acts has risen from the grave (if indeed it was ever really buried, which is debatable at best).

All of this implies that push-comes-to-shove time is arriving rapidly in Libya.  Unless the NATO/rebel combine can pull a rabbit (or better yet, a dead Gaddafi) out of their collective hat, there will be very rough diplomatic waters ahead.  Renewing the no-fly zone mandate (due by 24 June) or the use of ground forces will produce a diplomatic contretemps at Turtle Bay of major proportions.  Even absent that, the opposition to future application of R2P by China and Russia backed by an impressive number of lesser states will be massive and monolithic.

Even though the current administration has been staying deep in the shadows, the US still has a bull in the herd.  Our declaratory policy is still one of Gaddafi must go.  We are still more or less committed to R2P--at least when it is convenient and doable.  We are still trying to sort out just what direction we will take with the fast and sharp changes in Egyptian foreign relations.

All of this implies the US must carve out a defensible and credible stance vis a vis both Russia and China in their current mood of totally distrusting NATO and the force they perceive to be motivating the alliance--the US.  This may mean concessions to the Russians on the ABM basing issue as well as current plans to base US aircraft in former Warsaw Pact states.  It may mean backing down a bit in Asia to mollify Chinese fears.

Both of these would be quite negative for American national and strategic interests.  Yet the temptation to offer appeasing gestures of some substance may prove all too appealing to members of the Obama administration who would like to see foreign policy concerns recede to the back burner.  After all they have an election to win in only slightly less than eighteen months, an election which will hinge far more on economic issues than foreign policy concerns.

Or, of course, Mr Obama might want to see if Boat Six can take a whack at Brother Leader.

Where Is The OIC?

Considering the most prevalent form of violent death for Muslims today is that of being killed by another Muslim, one might be forgiven for thinking that the Organization of the Islamic Council (OIC), which is the world's largest agglutination of Muslim majority states, would be taking action.  Not merely expressing concern or regret but taking collective and forceful action to stop the killing.

It is not that the OIC lacks the means.  Among the member states are the great oil kingdoms and theocracies of the Mideast and Persian Gulf.  Turkey, which provided the current jefe grande of the outfit, has one of the largest armed forces in the world.  Pakistan, another leading and ever-so-vocal member, is no slouch in the big army department.  Saudi Arabia has one of the most well equipped armed forces on the planet.  In short, the OIC has within its number the ways and means of imposing peace.

The OIC obviously lacks the political will to take action.  Usually the OIC has political will dripping out its collective ying-yang.  No problem attaining consensus on a UN measure which would gut Western norms and values regarding free inquiry and expression.  No problem achieving unanimity for condemning Israel about anything and everything.  There isn't ever a problem in gaining a majority for any proposal which would cast the US in the designated role of villain.

So, what's the problem?

One contributory factor is simply that Muslims have no particular hostility to the notion of Muslims killing Muslims.  As events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have demonstrated beyond any doubt, Muslims have an unlimited capacity for outrage when an "infidel" kills a Muslim--even a Muslim gunslinger who has a fine record of killing his co-religionists.  When the inevitable happens, a civilian non-combatant is killed, the Muslims go utterly ballistic accusing the "infidels" of "waging war on Islam," intentionally "murdering" the "innocent" and being motivated by some strange syndrome known as "Islamophobia."

Should non-Muslims kill Muslims as was the case in Bosnia the reaction from the Muslim community is to condemn any failure on the part of the "infidel" West to intervene immediately on the side of the endangered Muslims.  If, again as in the case of Bosnia, there is any delay in intervening, Muslims and Muslim groups, including the OIC, will charge "Islamophobia" loudly, stridently, and repeatedly.  Muslim spokesmen, once more including the OIC, will not tolerate any debate, admit that national political processes take time or that the "infidel" states may have interests not served by intervening.  No.  There is and can be no reason for an "infidel" country not to leap to the rescue of some purportedly threatened Muslim community beyond fear of and loathing for Islam.

When Muslims kill Muslims the reaction of the Ummah typically is a large, collective yawn.  If the killing goes on long enough or involves a sufficiently large number of victims, the default response of massive indifference shifts to one of denunciation.  Not denunciation of the Muslim killers.  Oh no, that would be, shall we say, divisive.  At this point it is worth recalling that one of the supreme duties placed upon all believers is the eschewing of any sort of division within the great nation of all Muslims.

Events in Libya have brought the three alternatives into sharp relief.  The insurgents have made it clear that they do not want "infidel" combatants to enter the war on their side.  At the same time they have demanded the "infidels" use air attacks against Gaddafi's forces even though this would mean Muslim deaths.  And, most recently, the insurgents and their supporters have been alleging the West--particularly the US--has been delaying taking action because the people of the West are unconcerned by Muslims slaughtering Muslims.  It's that old devil "Islamophobia" striking again.

Of course should an air campaign result in non-combatant fatalities, the same voices will scream (literally) bloody murder.  Bloody murder because of--you guessed it--"Islamophobia."  Return of the Crusaders and all that rot.

There is only one reason for the US or any Western country to intervene in any manner in Libya.  That is to prevent a Gaddafi victory.  Gaddafi staying in power after crushing the insurgency will mean a world of hurt for the West.  Even if the combination of sanctions and isolation weakens the Gaddafi hold on power, that process will take time.  Time which Gaddafi can and will use to hurt his antagonists to the greatest extent possible.

Yes, other, less pragmatic, less national interest oriented, reasons can be adduced for intervention.  But the power of these reasons is attenuated severely by the inevitable, negative reactions of Muslims, including Libyan Muslims, to the unfortunate fact that "infidel" weapons will kill Muslims.  The repercussions of this aspect of military reality will echo widely and for some time.  They will be amplified by entities and states hostile to the West.  Muslims dead as the result of even the most well-intentioned Western interventions will become part of the narrative holding that the West is waging war on Islam and kills Muslims because of "Islamophobia."

Unless the national interest of assuring it is rid of Gaddafi for once and all prevails, no Western state should intervene in the Libyan insurgency.  The full consequences will prove far more negative than positive.  This may well mean watching Benghazi turned into a slaughterhouse of Biblical proportions.

When and if that happens there will be no need for Western guilt feelings.  There will be no requirement for self-recrimination.  The responsibility will rest not with the US or the West, but with the Arab League, and, even more, the OIC.  The latter group should be the upholder of humanitarian considerations, the staunch supporter of the gentle virtues contained within the Koran, the maintainer of community unity.  The OIC is the collective representative of the Ummah in international politics.  Let it act in the best interests of threatened Muslims rather than seeking to offload the burden and the blame to the "infidels."

The OIC has been surpassingly solicitous of Muslim sensibilities as it has sought the UN imposition of a global gag order on any mention of Islam that is other than uniformly laudatory.  It has been lovingly concerned with the wellbeing of Muslims living in fear of persecution due to "Islamophobia."  Is it not time the OIC show some consideration for Libyan Muslims facing extermination at the hands of the Gaddafi Killers?

As push-comes-to-shove time has occurred in Libya, the statesmen of the West might consider publicly tossing the ball to the OIC.  The Arab League has already taken a half-way measure toward an All Muslim solution with its support of a no-fly zone.  The almost certain failure of the UN Security Council to act in a timely and appropriate way backs the notion of handing over the problem presented by the Libyan insurgency to the OIC.

Should the OIC not pick up the ball and run, hard and fast, to the goal line, then it will have demonstrated to the entire world not only its institutional bankruptcy but also the sheer fraudulence of the Great Muslim Ummah.  If the OIC does act quickly and effectively to end the Muslim on Muslim killing in Libya, it will have provided a genuine service not only to that country but established the important precedent of serving as an All Muslim peace imposition force suitable for conflicts in any Muslim majority state.

Either outcome would constitute a major diplomatic success for the West generally and the US in particular.  So, Deep Thinkers, why not give it a test spin?

Firing A General Won't Make The World Better

The MSM as well as some of the new media have been looking for the bright side in the firing of General McChrystal. Reading these assorted attempts at top spinning a major disaster of the self-inflicted sort leads one to alternate tears with laughter.

There simply is no bright side to Mr Obama's exhibition of toughness, his resolute protection of civilian supremacy against the nonexistent threat of General McChrystal's negative assessments of the collection of time servers, people suffering under a delusion of adequacy, and lofty thinking lamebrains.

Tossing McChrystal off the troika to the wolves just as the time sensitive Afghanistan war is reaching the critical moment makes as much sense as inviting Osama bin Laden to help himself to the contents of the large nuclear warehouse not far from downtown Albuquerque. Not even the dual hatting of the politically acceptable and Iraq experienced General Petraeus alters the facts on the ground.

The removal of McChrystal will not boost morale and confidence among the US, allied, or Afghan National Forces. The removal will, however, give a boost to the morale and confidence in victory within the forces of the enemy.

Beyond the AfPak area of operations, the Obama decision will have consequences which equal or exceed those within the theater. Mr Obama's move will, for example, engender good cheer in Tehran.

So far, Mr Obama's dealings with Iran have been a record of continued complete failure. It is perfectly OK, considering this, to ask just how canning McChrystal makes matters worse. To do this, we have to get down to the basics.

The most basic fact of late is this. The Iranians have announced that their efforts at enriching uranium to twenty percent have resulted in producing seventeen kilograms of the stuff. This implies that their current rate of production is at least five kilos per month. A quick extrapolation shows that Tehran will have enough twenty percent feedstock to produce sufficient weapons grade uranium for two Hiroshima sized devices by the time of the midterm elections.

Another, equally basic fact is this. The sanctions including the fourth round of UN Security Council impositions as well as the additional measures taken by the European Union and those wending their way through Congress (against the opposition of the Man In The Oval) will not, can not, have a desired, positive effect on the quest for the "Mahdi Bomb."

The failure of both diplomatic engagement and sanctions implies that the US now has only two options regarding Iran. The first is the oft mentioned (in hushed tones) military option. The second might be called the Dr Strangelove approach. Remember the film's sub-title? That's right, "How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb."

This translates to some version of containment. Now containment worked when directed at the Soviet Union. It worked because both the US and the USSR shared a common value: There is no profit in committing national suicide.

To assume the Iranians have the same calculus of rationality is dubious at best. The Shia form of Islam as practiced in Iran is notably eschatological in orientation. The leading clerics as well as the country's president share an end-of-time world view which celebrates the necessity of a final war for the coming of the Mahdi. Given this consideration, it is not at all prudent to base policy on the efficacy of containment even a containment backed by relatively effective ABM systems and the threat of American nuclear retaliation.

The Iranians have been justifiably worried about the US employment of the "military option." The removal of General McChrystal from command on the eve of an operation which even Iranian observers believe would be successful shows Tehran that the US is most likely to blink first when standing eyeball to eyeball on the precipice of war.

The Iranians came to know General McChrystal quite well during the general's duty in Iraq, during the time when his special forces units cut great swaths through the ranks of the Iranian trained, Iranian supplied, sometimes Iranian commanded Shia insurgents. The mullahs and their Revolutionary Guard Corps bully boys also took McChrystal's measure during his abbreviated tenure in Afghanistan.

Frankly, General McChrystal assumed the same role in the mind's of Tehran's military leaders that George Patton did in the estimate of the German high command--the bogyman from hell. The removal of McChrystal proves to the mullahs and their men that Barack Obama has not been and never will be serious about any use of the "military option." Tehran has concluded with a certainty never felt by Mao that the US is "a paper tiger."

Not to put too fine a point on the matter, no president who is serious about the possibility of waging war in support of policy would remove a genuine, successful fighter of wars. Not even the replacement of McChrystal by Petraeus changes the algorithm as General Petraeus, no matter how beribboned, is not the warfighter that McChrystal is.

Beyond Iran lurks a legion of Islamist or Islamist leaning governments. The evident withdrawal of American support for Israel has encouraged the Islamist states to become more so. It has also forced other governments to lean ever closer to the more extreme stance of political Islam.

The muscle flexing of the adherents of political Islam has become more evident with every day which has passed since the IDF stopping of the "humanitarian flotilla." The fifty-seven member OIC has taken the point in both the UN Human Rights Council, and, most recently, in the Security Council. Our "allies," Turkey and Pakistan, have been carrying the OIC freight. Now these two stalwarts of political Islam have been joined by Malaysia in calling for an emergency UN session on the question of the IDF boarding of the flotilla.

The intent of Malaysia and its fellow members of the OIC is the launching of yet one more diplomatic assault on Israel. President Obama's previous efforts at "outreach" to the Muslim countries coupled with his transparent appeasement of the "frontline" Arab states provided the basis for this move. However, his firing of McChrystal has served to turbo-up the political courage of the OIC bloc.

Once again, the firing of a competent warfighter shows the hostiles of political Islam that the US has no "big stick" to support its softly spoken diplomatic words. The ground truth which has eluded Mr Obama and his "team" is simply that all diplomacy, hard or soft, spoken or acted, must finally rest upon the credible capacity and will to use force. Putting a successful warfighter out to pasture on the verge of a critical campaign because of a few poorly chosen (if accurate) words incautiously spoken near the ears of a "progressive" journalist shows the US is not currently willing to countenance the use of war as an instrument of international politics.

Mr Obama has shown he can be decisive. He has shown a willingness to seek revenge for attacks on members of his "team." It is to the misfortune of the US, to that of the civilized countries of the world, that he chose to demonstrate how tough and decisive he can be in a way which gives direct and real aid and comfort to the enemy.

Those Darn Pesky Kurds

The Kurds are ethnically, linguistically, and culturally different from the Turks, the Arabs of Iraq, and the Persians. That is a reality. It is also a reality that the Kurds have been forced by the winds of the past to live under the domination of the aforementioned Turks, Arabs, and Persians.

This leads to a third reality. The Kurds are not at all happy about having no country to call their own. In one way or another, the Kurds have been expressing their displeasure with the status quo for generations.

The goal of the Kurds is simple. They are a nation, self-conscious, aware of the ties of history, culture, language, and geography. But as such they are incomplete. To be complete, the nation must have a state to call its own. In this dynamic the Kurds are not different from the Palestinians.

There is a fair measure of irony in considering that the Kurds are kept down, divided, oppressed, even, in the estimate of many Kurds, "occupied" by the Islamic states of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. With an astigmatism endemic to Islamic regimes, no member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference seems at all perturbed by the willingness of Muslim majority countries to suppress their fellow Muslims.

Not surprisingly, Ankara which is ever ready of late to hurl rhetorical bombs at Israel over presumed Jewish wickedness in the Gaza Strip is not only silent on the plight of the Kurds, but quite willing to send troops and fighter-bombers over the border into Iraq with the intent of killing Kurds in large numbers. Over in Tehran, Orator-In-Chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not only unusually quiet regarding the Kurds but has shown himself eager to send Iranian shells and troops into Iraqi Kurdistan with the goal of killing as many of those pesky people as possible.

In Baghdad, the current political stasis is in no way lessened by the role adopted by the Kurds who seek any and every advantage at the expense of the national government. In all probability, there are more than a few members of the new Iraqi government who wish they had the freedom to deal with the Kurds as bluntly and terminally as did Saddam Hussein.

The most aggressive of the several Kurdish insurgent groups, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) is aimed at Turkey where nearly fifteen percent of the population is Kurd. PKK is of the view that a Kurdistan comprising the Kurdish majority portion of Turkey and the semi-autonomous province of Iraqi Kurdistan would be viable in all respects, political, economic, social, and cultural.

This is a correct apprehension. Iraqi Kurdistan on its own would be viable. The melding of the arbitrarily divided major portions of the Kurdish homeland would make an even more impressive new state. The envisioned entity would have both oil and water--the two fluids without which life in the 21st century is impossible. While "greater Kurdistan" would include sections of Syria and Iran, the exclusion of these would subtract nothing of importance from a hypothetical Kurdish state.

In an ideal world, a world where the Wilsonian principle of "self-determination of nations" had trenchancy, there would be no bar to the peaceful creation of a state to match the Kurdish nation as it is currently distributed between Turkey and Iraq. Given Mr Obama's obvious affection to Wilsonian notions of internationalism, it is passingly strange that he has not embraced self-determination for the Kurds. But, that musing cannot detain us.

The reef upon which the potential Kurdish ship of state must founder is the determination of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran to disallow any alteration in the comfortable current status quo. The Turks and PKK have been engaged in a slow motion shooting war since 1984. Neither belligerent has been either willing or able to seek a knock out blow. At the same time neither has been willing to call the war off, to seek some sort of negotiated compromise.

When not engaged in the planning and execution of provocations directed at Israel with the goal of establishing Ankara as the beacon of hope for the Palestinians, the Islamist leaning AKP in Turkey has been going after the PKK with a renewed frenzy of killing and dying. Prime Minister Erdogan with his usual over-the-top oratory has vowed to fight against PKK without hesitation and regardless of the number of "heinous" attacks the "terrorist" organization might mount.

From Erdogan's language one might think PKK had just hit Istanbul with a chemical attack or poured anthrax in the water mains of Ankara rather than simply hitting a border police station and killing a dozen or so Turkish cops. The PKK action was purportedly in response to the border incursion undertaken by Turkish troops and aircraft which cost the lives of a couple of dozen Kurds, some of whom might have been combatants.

This set of exchanges are typical of the war during all of its twenty-six years. The same is true of the Iranian artillery stonks across the border. Bloody "tit" followed by a sanguinary "tat."

For several years the Kurds of Iraq convinced themselves that the American invasion and its aftermath would serve as a game changer for the Kurds generally. In this the Kurds were doomed to be disappointed. While there were (and are) any number of good reasons based both in principle and in national interest for the US to take the lead in facilitating the "self-determination"of the Kurdish nation, the US was inhibited by visions of a destabilized Turkey.

This inhibition need apply no longer. Turkey has changed sides in all but formal announcement. In another of those ironies which makes the Muslim world so interesting to the observer, a reason for the realignment of Turkey with Iran and away from the US, EU, and NATO is the shared interest both countries have in suppressing the Kurds. But, in making its switch so quickly, so openly, and so completely, the Erdogan regime has eroded any US interest in keeping Turkey stable.

This new consideration particularly when taken in conjunction with the self-serving hypocrisy of the OIC as well as the Muslim majority states directly involved, open new possibilities for a US coordinated effort to support the Kurds in their ambitions and, in so doing, embarrass the governments of Turkey and Iran (and, it deserves mentioning, Syria as well) severely. It would also expose the OIC as the duplicitous body which it is.

There is a collateral which, on balance, is more good than bad. That collateral is the truncation of Iraq. To be viable any new Kurdish state must include Iraqi Kurdistan. That province quite literally is the odd man out in Arab majority Iraq. The fact that Iraqi Kurdistan has significant hydrocarbon reserves which the Kurds hate sharing with the Arabs in no way lessens the antipathy which has long typified relations between these two people who uncomfortably cohabit in common borders.

As Baghdad is loath to let the oil leave Iraq much as it might like to see the Kurds exit the area, any divorce between Arab majority and Kurd minority will not be as amicable as was, for example, that between Czech and Slovak. A divorce would require a "realignment" of US forces in Iraq to Kurdistan (perhaps under the ostensible need to protect the Turkmen minority in Kurdistan against ethnic cleansing.)

The Kurds have been in favor of a US presence in Kurdistan. Several times since 2003, the authorities in Kurdistan have extended an invitation to the US to reposition its troops there as a security against outside interference. While it might be difficult to take up the invitation, doing such would not be impossible. Certainly it would be less difficult than trying to support a central government beset by multiple insurgencies and lacking broad gauge legitimacy.

As a side benefit there is no doubt that the Kurdish government would be far more open to seeing US rather than Chinese oil companies develop the reserves in the region. This stance is at sharp contrast to the attitude in Baghdad. An open American presence in Kurdistan would definitely inhibit Iranian (or Turkish) military actions which is also in distinct contrast with the supine reaction of Baghdad to incursions and artillery attacks.

The Kurdish Question is not one amenable to solution by the UN or any other manifestation of the "international community." It is one, however, which can be answered by the US even over the objections of Russia and China.

The partitioning of Iraq would be only the first step in solving the dilemma presented by the Kurdish nation in its search for a state. Ultimately, the Turks would have to accomodate themselves to the reality that they cannot suppress the Kurds forever. The gestures of limited democracy and constrained economic development offered by Gul, Erdogan, and the rest of the AKP are too little, too late. And, their effect has been offset by the moving of ethnic Turks into districts which have been Kurdish since the time of Saladin.

The Turks are discovering that there is a force greater than that of political Islam. That force is nationalism. The Kurds become more committed to their nationalistic vision every time a Turkish bullet kills a Kurd. To put it bluntly, Erdogan and the AKP are on the wrong side of history this time.

There is one fatal problem in considering the new options open to the US. President Obama lacks both the vision and the wisdom needed. He is without the moral and intellectual courage necessary to seize the moment. He does not have the spine of George Washington Plunkett, the spine needed to, "see me opportunity and I took it."

Like Cockroaches They Are Back Again

The insecure, fear ridden Muslims are back at the old trick again. No, this time, they're not blowing something or somebody up. Rather, the fifty-seven member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) are trying to ram their collective censorship boot down our free speech dedicated throats. Running point in this latest attempt to stifle even the most mild, well-mannered, and fact based criticism of Islam and Muslims are two key American "allies," Egypt and, (drum roll, please) Pakistan.

The chosen forum is the UN Human Rights Council. No surprise in the choice. OIC members along with such other stalwart defenders of open inquiry and expression as Russia, China, and Cuba have an absolute majority in this body. Since raw power assures the reactionary and primitive states of the OIC can pass whatever bit of repressive resolution might be wished, it is shocking that the OIC member states try to offer a rationalization for their effort.

It seems that the Always Vigilant Protectors Of The One True Faith have discovered that a new form of "racism" is abroad in the West. The new form is termed, "Islamophobia" and manifests itself by any number of icky-poo things directed at Muslims including criticizing the faith itself, casting factual aspersions upon the Muslim historical narrative, and, actually expressing disapproval of Islamic characteristics such as stoning adulterers, chopping the heads off of apostates and blasphemers, putting women in garbage sacks, and, The Greatest Blood Libel Ever, animadverting that men who shout, "Allahu Akbar!" before flying aircraft into buildings or pushing the clicker on the suicide vest might be Muslims.

The Egyptian delegate wound himself into a state closely approximating apoplexy when he charged, "People of Arab origin face new forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia..." The diplomat also claimed that these unfortunate people suffer "intolerance, discrimination and marginalization."

The Egyptian's play was quickly backed by his colleague from Pakistan. The Pakistani demanded that the Council's Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom investigate this "racism" particularly "in Western societies."

Wowie! Zowie! If these two diplomats were Jewish, it would be fair to say they possessed chutzpah in truckload quantities.

The nerve of these duplicitous purveyors of tergiversation. The OIC members as well as the OIC itself want the world to believe that they are motivated by a sincere desire to protect all religions from abuse. They hope that people generally are so intellectually challenged and historically ignorant that their protestations (to quote the Pakistani representative at the HRC) of a need to "create and promote an atmosphere of respect and tolerance for religious and cultural diversity" will be believed.

Fer sure, dudes. If this really, really, really is the goal of the OIC, perhaps the group and its members can establish a greater street cred by answering a few simple questions.

In what "Western societies" and the polities they have created is it illegal for a Muslim to proselytize openly? In what "Western societies" and the polities they have created is it illegal for a Muslim to pass out copies of the Koran on a public street? Or wear symbols of their faith? Or denounce Christianity? Or Judaism? Are not any and all Muslims free to question, criticize, or flat out defame Christianity or Judaism or any other religion throughout the "Western societies?"

While you are at it, boys (it is not possible to address the question to those of the distaff given the strictures of Islam) please name any Western state where conversion to Islam from any other religion is a punishable offense? That is, punishable by any measure, a civil fine even, unlike the death penalty which is authorized in Muslim countries for the "apostate."

In a similar vein, Sincere Upholders Of Islam, please name those "Western societies" where a woman's testimony in court is held to be worth less than that of a man? Or, those "Western societies" which disenfranchise a person on the basis of their having mammary glands? Or those "Western societies" which authorize the police to arrest (or administer on-the-spot physical chastisement) to any woman caught in the company of a man other than her blood relative or husband?

In how many "Western societies" are revolting antisemitic works not only sold in bookshops and in the bazaars, but spewed forth on television and radio (including those broadcasters owned or controlled by governments) available to the degree they are in, say, Egypt? In how many "Western societies" do clerical, political, or civil society leaders call for killing people simply on the basis of their faith?

The list could go on, ad nauseam but the point has been made.

The OIC members, including the two American "allies" referenced, are engaged in one more attack on the values of the West, on the very roots of Western greatness. Beyond that, their effort demonstrates yet again that the fear ridden and insecure nature of Islam and the societies and polities predicated on Islam are not simply reactionary, trying desperately to roll the centuries back and transform as much of the world as possible to a simulacrum of the Arabian Peninsula in the Seventh Century, but that they are primitive enclaves in a world which has passed them by.

That's the ground truth, Islamic majority societies, and the polities they have created have been responsible for little or nothing positive over the past thirteen centuries. Islam, by its very nature, by its reliance upon the "will of Allah," has not and cannot practice genuine science. By virtue of its many strictures, Islamic societies can not add measurably to the general store of human knowledge, artistic brilliance, scholarship, or make any other significant contribution to the overall improvement of the human condition.

Other than a certain crude capacity for the waging of war, for killing people and breaking things, Islam is not to be noted. Well, it can be argued that Islamic polities have demonstrated a skill at repression, suppression, and oppression, but these are not generally numbered among desirable accomplishments.

Perhaps there exists a dim awareness deep in the semi-consciousness of the assorted Islamic majority states that they are not the jewels in the crown of humanity. Perhaps it is this awareness of inbuilt primitiveness which makes the OIC membership (and so many individual Muslims) so insecure in the value of their faith that extraordinary measures of self-defense are indicated.

As these states and their citizens lack the self-confidence, the sure sense of self and its value which immunizes against both insult and criticism, they have no choice other than to seek to stop the voices, halt the pens, of those who would be so bold as to question, criticize, and utter unpleasant truths. The OIC and its members must try to silence the opposition lest they perish.

The Muslims and their fellow travelers on the Oppression Express may have the votes in the Human Rights Council. But that is all they have. The other side, the civilized states and their relatively secure and self-aware citizens, have both truth and history as allies.

So it has been. And, so it will continue.

Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter The UN

The UN has once more failed. In both the Security Council and the Human Rights Council member states have forsworn a course of disinterested commitment to the peace and stability of the global political order or the common rights of all humanity. Rather both entities fell into the possession of demonic passions, passions of pure ideology far surpassing what occurred in the same venue during the most glacial days of the Cold War.

The hatred was palpable in the words of supposedly mature, rational, reasonable representatives of what, by consensus if nothing else, are presumed to be governments capable of playing a responsible role in world affairs. The thundering denunciations of Israel following its legal if arguably quite unwise act of self-defense were based on no knowledge of what transpired before or during the commando raid on the Marmara.

At least the Security Council admitted ignorance. The resolution specifically acknowledged that it and its members had no independent information regarding what happened. The resolution and the vote depended completely upon media reports or quite possibly false and malicious gossip from partisan sources. The reality that the Security Council acted without knowing is borne out by the wording of the resolution condemning Israel in which it was alleged that ten "passengers" on board the Marmara had been killed. While that number had currency in the media, it was wrong as the later figure of nine demonstrates.

None of this bothered the worthies of the Security Council currently with Turkey in the chair. It was with a whoop and a hollar that the resolution went through. In double quick order and to its permanent disgrace and loss of credibility, the Security Council in essence legitimized the intentionally provocative action of Turkey in facilitating the movement of the "aid flotilla" knowing, even hoping, that the Israelis would stop the maritime parade and some good Muslims would attain the martyrdom they were seeking.

The haste of the Security Council's lynching of Israel stands in very sharp contrast to the apparent indifference within the body's membership to the act of aggression committed by North Korea in the Cheonan Incident. Even though weeks have passed, an international investigation undertaken by a credible group including at least one neutral nation, and the finger of culpability firmly pointed at North Korea, the Security Council is in no hurry to render a judgement not even a mild censure directed at Pyongyang.

Given the contrast between the Security Council's action on Israel and inaction on North Korea, it is hard to see how the Council can claim any legitimacy as an arbiter and enforcer of international norms of governmental conduct. This is not to imply that the Council would have been in the right to ignore the Marmara Affair as it has the Cheonan Incident but rather to argue that once the impartial investigation has occurred in either of these unfortunate matters, then it is proper for the Council to condemn or offer condolences. But, unless and until the facts of the matter are known in sufficient detail to meet some form of the "rational person" test, the Council should sit down and shut up.

The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) can never sit down and shut up. Neither can it ever be bothered with finding real, honest-to-gosh, objective facts as opposed to convenient artifacts and anti-facts which meet a particular political (or, to err on the side of accuracy, political-religious) need or desire.

While the rhetoric in the Security Council was rather restrained, polite, civilized even, the oratory over in the HRC was over the top. Epithets were hurled at machinegun speed. These included "piracy," "act of aggression," "brutal massacre," and "war crime." The fast roping Israeli commandos were also held to have committed an act of "terrorism," a "crime against humanity," and a set of "murderous attacks."

The Festival of Insults provided the context for the passage of a Pakistani resolution introduced on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Sudan on behalf of the Arab League. Irony permeates this scene as it does most of what the HRC undertakes. In this case it is furnished by the reality that both the OIC and the Arab League are comprised in the main of states which routinely, systematically, and violently abridge most of the human rights they have committed themselves to upholding in assorted international undertakings.

Not that this sort of logical and ethical disconnect bothers the majority of the states comprising the HRC. As has been the case before, Israel was convicted instantly. Following conviction, the HRC called for a "fact finding" mission which would serve to justify the speedy conviction.

In the past four years, the HRC (and its predecessor) held thirteen special sessions. Of these, ten dealt with country specific issues. Of the ten, six focused on Israel. This is in keeping with another critical index of HRC priorities. The HRC (again including its immediate predecessor) passed fifty-nine country specific resolutions. Twenty-nine of these--that's right, half--named Israel as the target.

It is easy to recall that the HRC was responsible for the Goldstone Panel and its report. The travesty of fact embodied in this report demonstrates in one (admittedly difficult and painful to read) batch of cynical distortions the reality of the politicization of the HRC. Now the HRC is bound and determined to usher "Infamous Prejudice II" into existence despite the presence of the supposedly moderating influence of the US.

President Obama reversed the policy of his predecessor and the US rejoined the HRC. The president as well as Secretary of State Clinton and any number of others in the Obama foreign policy "team" have declared the HRC to be "flawed." This designation is on a par with calling the RMS Titanic "unsinkable."

The party line at Foggy Bottom and within the magic circle of the Oval Office is the US can work effectively from the inside to reform the "flawed" HRC. If the action taken by the body regarding the Marmara Affair is any indication--and it most assuredly is--the Obama administration and the president himself have given birth to one more policy failure. The failure of the US to influence in any way the immoderate, prejudicial, dare one write, "antisemitic," resolution shows clearly that the Obama foreign policy is not only bootless but that the US lacks any real diplomatic clout--even in the lesser venue of the HRC.

In a sorry, painful way the lack of real influence in the HRC simply is a shadow of the diminished capacity of the US in the far more critical arena of the Security Council. Perhaps the issue of a resolution of condemnation and sorrow was not considered worth the use of the big gun of a Security Council veto, but the obvious unwillingness of the Obama "team" to use the veto reinforced the already prevalent perception of American weakness of political will.

Not even in the dismal days of Jimmy Carter was the US so widely seen as lacking the intestinal fortitude necessary to exercise influence in the Security Council. The hemorrhaging of American diplomatic influence has little to do with the presumed hatred engendered around the world by the actions and policies of the Bush/Cheney administration as has been alleged to the point of nausea by apologists for the Obama administration.

Rather the loss of that most precious of international commodities--influence--is the direct and immediate result of the Obama policies of appeasement, accommodation, political correctness, and "outreach." None of these have been seen by adverse states as indicative of a creative new approach to foreign relations on the part of the US. Rather, all have been understood as signs of weakness, irresolution, loss of faith in ourselves.

The administration and its media flacks are attempting to rationalize the Obama stance as one of mediation, of counselling of the relationship maintenance sort seeking to restore good relations between two key allies--Turkey and Israel. Not only is this an exercise in squaring the circle, it is arguably doomed to fail simply because Turkey has changed course over the past three years.

The emergence of AKP to power brought politicians rooted in political Islam to power. Not surprisingly the Erdogan government has tilted increasingly to the East, to using its Islamic commonalities not only to creep closer to Iran but to become an ever more leading power within the successor states of the old Ottoman Empire.

Turkey sees no particular advantage to its pursuit of its national interest by keeping allied with either Israel or the US. Erdogan and many others in Turkey today see the future of their country deeply rooted in the past. They see Turkey as once more becoming the seat of the "caliphate."

Reality has slapped the Obama face. Perhaps even this slow learner president can overcome his disinterest in foreign affairs, his mental inertia, and his fixation on outdated ideologies and recognize that Turkey is not an American ally--and will not become one again in the near to mid-term.

While he is at it, perhaps it is possible, at least in principle, for Mr Obama to wake up to the fact that the US is playing a very weak hand in the UN. As a result, thinking the unthinkable becomes attractive. Do we really, really need to be a member of and chief financial backer of a dysfunctional institution in which our influence is nil?

Or, paradoxic as it seems, might we not gain both influence and freedom of action by leaving the UN to stew in its own increasingly anti-West, anti-democratic juices?

Well, it's a thought.

The OIC Warps History One More Time

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC.) He is also a PhD in history from Ankara University's science faculty. Presumably the science faculty was considered the proper venue as Professor Ihsanoglu purportedly specializes in the history of Islamic science and culture.

Leaving aside the bitter reality that the history of Islamic science needs only the shortest of short courses to cover more than adequately, Professor Ihsanoglu has demonstrated his total and absolute ineptitude in the study of history just the other day. At the same time he showed his complete and unquestioning dedication to the goals of the largest collection of chronic whiners, complainers, and malcontents in the world today--the OIC.

Specifically, the professor warned of an impending "religious war" prompted by Israel having restored and reconsecrated a synagogue in the well-recognized and long-extant Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. The synagogue was originally started in the Seventeenth Century when Jerusalem was under the sway of the Ottoman Empire.

(Remember the Ottomans, Prof? You should given how long you lived and taught in the successor state, Turkey.)

The synagogue was not finished until the Nineteenth Century having existed over the years as a partially completed ruin. Hence its name, Hurva, meaning "ruins." When the Jordanian Army captured the Jewish Quarter along with the rest of the Old City, the synagogue was once again returned to a state of ruin--along with twenty-eight other Jewish houses of worship--at the behest or actions of the Jordanian army and government.

After ten years the Hurva synagogue has been restored. This act has taken place in the Jewish Quarter, which was both established and "protected" by the Ottoman Empire along with the Armenian, Christian, and Muslim quarters. These separated enclaves constituted the majority of the Old City during the many centuries of Muslim rule. It deserves mention that the apologists for Islam generally and Islamists in particular make constant reference to life in the Old City as having demonstrated that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance.

Now the OIC SecGen and purported professor of history, Ihsanoglu, chucks the real past into the Great Muslim Memory Hole in order to press on with the OIC (and thus Muslim) agenda of demonizing Israel. The PhD from Ankara has been so unhinged by the reconstruction of the synagogue in the historic Jewish Quarter that he not only implies it is an act of new construction on a par with the Israeli "settlements" but that it is an insult to and a blemish upon the near-by al-Aqsa mosque.

Apparently Professor Ihsanoglu's knowledge of urban geography is as tenuous as his grasp of history. He makes a particular point of the close proximity between the synagogue and the mosque. Of course, considering the Old City is at most a half mile square it is a bit hard for anything to be very far from anything else--including the Temple Mount and its cargo, the al-Aqsa mosque.

In an expression of a conspiracy theory of history which is breath taking in its grandeur, the professor uses the rebuilding of a synagogue destroyed by a Muslim army and government after having existed for centuries in a section of Jerusalem established and ordained by a Muslim overlord as "making clear the grave implications of Israeli schemes that target the Noble Sanctuary (al-Aqsa mosque) and the future City of Al-Quds."

Duh! and, say what? And, even, oy veh!

But, that was nothing, bucko. The alleged historian of Islamic science and culture moved on to his peroration (sounds nicer than calling it a "rant.") Professor Ihsanoglu demanded in the name of the OIC (and, presumably, all Muslims everywhere) that "the international community shoulder its responsibilities in pre-empting Israel from dragging the region into a religious war by continuing its blatant assaults on sanctities of Muslims."

Oh, well, perhaps Prof. Ihsanoglu has been so preoccupied looking for some sign of either Muslim science or culture to have noticed that Muslims have been very busy shouting "Allahu akbar" as they fly aircraft into convenient buildings, pushing the clicker on suicide vests, and even, attacking mosques. Or, perhaps, Muslim "sanctities" do not include the lives of others. What do you say, prof?

It is in this context that he makes the final statement of his OIC release. He called upon all members of the OIC and "Islamic institutions" to support the "Palestinians" in "their defense of the Ummah's sacred shrines, sanctities, and interests."

That last tocsin is equivalent to issuing a broadcast invitation to a BYOB (bring your own bomb) party in and around Jerusalem. You're quite a guy, prof. Quite the propagandist, but a piss-poor excuse for a historian.

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.

Yemen And The US, A Growing Connection

Once upon a time, a very long time ago, just a couple of years or so after the Brits fought the "Battle of the Crater" in what was then called "Aden," the Geek had occasion to spend a miserable but thankfully short period of time in what was by that time known as "North Yemen." The only factor which made the stay slightly more enjoyable than a similar period of time in the First Circle was the climate and terrain (and insect life) which closely resembled the Geek's home territory in New Mexico.

As the Geek got on the airplane out he thought, "Praise be to the Fates, but this is one place Americans will never have to be involved." How wrong the Geek was--or, to err on the side of accuracy, seems to have been.

The US has been indirectly involved in the Yemeni mess for some time. Yemen is, after all, the place of origin for Osama bin Laden's family. It was the scene of the suicide boat bombing of the USS Cole. Our Predators once took out an al-Qaeda heavy on one of Yemen's dusty trails. And, Yemen is where Anwar al-Awlaki, the New Mexico born, Yemeni descended, Islamist jihadist cleric and email pen pal of Major Hasan now holds forth in all his bloody mouthed sway.

Now the VoA reports that the official Yemeni news agency has announced the signing of a new military cooperation agreement between the current pretense of a Yemeni government and the US. From the photo in the VoA story showing an elderly (WW II vintage) British artillery piece in action it is evident that the Yemeni government and military could use some assistance. The report, unfortunately, does not outline what the purported cooperation agreement contains by way of specifics.

If the US has made any specific commitment to Yemen it may be akin to sticking one's finger into a particularly sticky tarbaby. Yemen has not been a genuine nation-state ever. Following the coup nearly fifty years ago and the ensuing British withdrawal from "East of Suez," Yemen disintegrated into an internal morass facilitated by the efforts of outsiders (most importantly, the Egypt of Nasser's time.)

For a while the situation more or less stabilized with the formation of two countries, North Yemen and the Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen. Ultimately the two recombined as one--at least on paper. Since the "reunification," the Yemeni terrain both physical and human has been littered with insurgencies and become a way station as well as area of operations for transnational Islamist jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda.

By most standards Yemen is a failed state today. The government is riven by internal rivalries which typically are a carry forward of tribal politics. The efforts of this government and its military to contain let alone terminate the insurgencies, particularly the one being waged by the Houthi of the north, have been fruitless. The army has shown little capacity beyond that of generating refugees and turning the stone and adobe huts of northern villages into candidates for urban renewal.

The Iranians and Saudis have both become involved in the contest between Houthi and the central government. The Iranians have attempted to be ever so secret in their involvement but, with the usual blundering of the mullahs' regime, have dropped the "c" from covert. The Saudis have finally entered the venue openly after their earlier attempt at deal making with the Houthi failed miserably.

While some "analysts" such as Joost Hilterman of the International Crisis Group downplay the involvement of the Iranians beyond their offer to take part in a "collective approach" to solving the instability in Yemen, the case for the Iranians not using Yemen as a venue for proxy warfare is far from conclusive. There is no doubt that the Iranians were caught with hands quite red (but not faces to match) when their shipload of arms for the Houthi was seized last month.

It is too pat to portray the Iranian-Saudi contretemps as being simply another episode in the thousand year conflict between Shia and Sunni. To do such is to underrate current strategic planning in the pursuit of national interest. While the invocation of confessional loyalty may be a useful tool for mobilizing support or justifying involvement, it is simply an adjunct.

The stakes in the current game are those of regional hegemony. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have concluded long ago that it is in their individual subjectively defined national interest to be the hegemon of the Arabian Peninsula and the adjacent water of the Persian (or if you are from Saudi or another Arab country) the Arabian Gulf.

The region is not big enough for two hegemons. It's like one of those old black and white cowboy movies, "This town ain't big enough for the two of us." During the Nixon administration the US made a choice, Iran under the Shah would be our proxy, our regional hegemonic power in the area. Not that this choice gladdened the hearts of the House of Sand, but even the assorted Kings and Princes of the Realm of Mosques and Oil admitted at the time that Iran had more military muscle than they. So, they went along, grudgingly.

After the Iranian Revolution put paid to the grand scheme of Henry Kissinger, the fall back for the US was initially Iraq. Iraq was resolutely anti-Communist, determinedly anti-Iranian, and possessed considerable military capacity (or so it seemed at the time.) The US tilted strongly toward Iraq during Saddam's ill-considered and worse executed war of aggression.

Kuwait changed all of that. Now the US needed another "reliable" partner in the strategically critical region. By process of elimination Saudi Arabia was the last country standing.

Risking the opposition of the Israel Lobby, administrations of both parties have authorized the sale of advanced weapons systems to the Kingdom--even though some of these endowed the Saudis with a hypothetical capacity to attack Israel directly. At the same time the US has made enhanced guarantees to both Saudi Arabia and other Arab states of the Gulf to provide for their defense against any Iranian threat.

The result has been the very unsystematic drawing of a line of containment around Iran. While the line is broken in several places (Syria, Turkey and Russia) it does circumscribe Iran to a great extent--particularly from the point of view in Tehran. The Soviets showed during the long decades of the Cold War that lines of containment can be jumped through the use of proxies.

This lesson was not lost on the Iranian regime. Iran has carefully executed a strategy of rendering the implicit doctrine of containment irrelevant through the creative use of allies and proxies alike. Aided by Syria the Iranians have manufactured or strengthened proxies in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Tehran has done the same to a much lesser and far more noiseless way in Sudan and Eritrea.

To expect Tehran not to employ the same approach in a way which would discomfit the Saudis to an even greater extent with support for the Houthi in Yemen is to deny reality. While the Houthi may practice a form of Shia, the religious dimension is far, far less important than the potential of tying the Kingdom down in a no-win way in the rocks and sand of Yemen.

The intentions of Tehran to both embarrass and weaken the Saudis by creating a focus on the Houthi insurgency and, even more, the response of the Saudi supported Yemeni government to that unpleasantness are easily seen in a very recent demarche from Tehran. The Grand Ayatollah Ali Safi Gopaygani has demanded that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) "end its silence" on the "suffering" inflicted on Yemeni civilians by that country's army and "certain neighboring countries."

The Grand Ayatollah also denounced the hands off approach of "international human rights groups" including at least implicitly, the UN Human Rights Council. The goal of casting both Yemen and its patron Saudi Arabia in the same light as Israel is obvious. While Saudi Arabia is a harder target for the human rights advocates than is Israel, it is not immune to attack and marginalization from that side. The vulnerability is greater if Iran can gain sufficient sway within the OIC to bend that group even slightly against the Kingdom. As a tactic it has much to recommend it, particularly its potential for high payoff over time at very low risk to Iran.

It is self-evident that the US cannot simply sit back with folded hands as Yemen dissolves further, until it becomes equivalent to the place across the Gulf of Aden--Somalia. There is too much at stake in that fly bitten stretch of near barren rock. The vise on the Gulf of Aden. The development of another "safe haven" for Islamist jihadists. A weakening of Saudi Arabia including an increase in its liability for destabilizing and oil price increasing attacks.

The Yemen Affair adds another layer of complication to the formation and implementation of a policy toward Iran on the part of the Obama administration. Even the most multi-culturally inclined post-modernist in the administration must realize by now that talking nicey-nice to the Tehran regime is a waste of time, energy, and credibility.

In a very real way it is the Iranian president, its Orator-in-Chief, Ahmadinejad, who has pointed the way for policy. The internationally renowned statesman has presented President Obama with a clear cut choice--Israel or Iran.

In his speech to the 25th meeting of the Standing Committee on Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the OIC, the more-or-less elected Iranian leader pulled no punches, essayed no nuances, he directly and bluntly told the assembled confreres that to have real "change" the American president must make real choices, and the most important of these was picking one over the other--either Iran or Israel. He averred there was no way Iran could take the hand of a country who held the "Zionist entity" with the other.

So, Mr Obama, why not take the man at his word? Admittedly Israel is not the most docile or comforting of allies. But, Israelis have never seized an American embassy. They have never taken Americans hostage. They have not sponsored and aided Islamist jihadist groups to engage in terror attacks.

Sure, the Israelis have a substantial nuclear capacity. But, they have never threatened to wipe another country off the map. They have never denied an established and internationally recognized state the right to exist. The Israelis might have exhibited a desire for lebensraum which does neither that country nor its supporters any good, let alone a reason to be proud. But, they have shown a willingness (grudging to be sure) to slow "settlements" and at least every now and then exchange land for peace.

Israel may not be perfect in its protection of the human rights of all who live in its borders or under its control, but it does not stone adulterers, hang homosexuals, ban the press, stifle expression, block the Internet, suppress those faiths not observed by the majority. The government and people of Israel may be prickly, but they do have a full fledged, fully functional democracy, an independent judiciary, a military which is under civilian control (even though most successful politicians were military successes first), and a blustering willingness to argue, to disagree, to dissent, to fight it out with words.

Given such a blunt choice, making one is a no-brainer. Following through with the ramifications and implications, these demand first quality thinking. It is necessary, for example, to change from containment-by-inadvertence to containment by policy. This means making difficult deals with Syria (and getting the Israelis on board,) wooing Turkey back to the West even though the current government is Islamist leaning and the process of cozening the Turks will demand the assistance of the Europeans--even the Turkey-phobic French.

Hardest of all, a policy of containment would need the agreement of the Kremlin. This is very, very difficult, but given the current and projected difficulties Moscow faces with Islamist jihadists supported by Tehran, there is a coinciding national interest in play. It also gives an opportunity to treat Russia as it wants to be treated--as a fellow Great Power.

Then there is Saudi Arabia. Well, it's their existence which is at risk in the race for regional hegemonic power status. They can take their chances or work with us to a common end. In the end the House of Sand is pragmatic--survival of the House and regime trump all other considerations.

There it is, Mr Obama, short and not at all sweet. Yemen is part of the problem. But, Tehran has made the choice simple. It is up to you and the people you selected to do the work of implementation. Ahmadinejad was man enough to put the choice to you. Are you man enough to follow through?

Dr Ihsanoglu, The Geek Is Calling You Out

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), is Turkish, a Muslim, and, reportedly, a historian by education and background. The Geek is American, NRP, and, for sure, a historian by education and background.

This means the fight would be fair. So, the Geek would like very much to challenge the SecGen to a debate, an open, honest, full, fair, and frank exchange on the question of "religious defamation" and the substance of freedom of inquiry, opinion, and expression.

Of course, such a debate either through written exchanges or up close, live, and personal is impossible. Not because the SecGen is a busy and very, very important person being in charge of the affairs of a large and powerful bloc of Islamic dominated states, but because the SecGen and the organization he heads as well as its member countries fear open and honest debate. Period.

The OIC in keeping with the prevalent Muslim ethos of the day greatly prefers whining about presumed victim status and alleging unfair treatment at the hands of prejudiced and hateful "others" to an open and vigorous heuristic exchange of differing views. The default position of Muslim groups and many individual Muslims whenever and wherever and however confronted with disagreement and challenge is to claim victimization at the hands of "Islamophobes."

One can confidently expect the recent episode of a Muslim Army psychiatrist going a tad bit funny at Fort Hood will raise a storm of protest to the effect that even mentioning the shooter's Islamic affiliation is unfair, unjustified, prejudiced, and defamatory. Only Muslim groups will howl with protest and charges of prejudice, discrimination, and hatred. There is no probability that the American Psychiatric Association will sternly warn of the improper linkage between a lone shrink going postal and the psychiatric profession as a whole. Nor is it likely that the United States Army will complain that identifying the trigger puller as a Major in its Medical Corps will cause violence and threats to be leveled against military personnel generally.

No. The complaints and the whining will emanate solely from the Muslim quarter. Along with dark cautions against the exacerbation of "Islamophobia" will be the obbligato and formulaic denunciations of violence and the demands that Islam be held harmless in the event.

Instead, the focus will be on the person--not the religion which is part of the person's internal structure and motivations. Excuses, usually those of discrimination or alienation will be offered as to why the shooter "snapped" and ran amok in a blizzard of bullets. The power of religion, of belief, of internal imperatives in conflict will be buried in drifts of psychobabble, charge and counter-charge, and, as the context, fear of offending people.

Ah, yes, the fear of offering offense, no matter how unintended--or justifiable--on the basis of fact. What compelling power that particular fear has today for presidents, potentates, popes, and even those of us in the hoi polloi. It is a fear which is both endemic and epidemic in the US and the West generally today.

It is, however, a fear which is remarkable only in its absence in the Muslim world, in the OIC and in the recent writing of Secretary General Ihsanoglu.

Which is why the Geek would dearly love to debate the Secretary General. The subject would be the "defamation" of religion resolution which whizzed through the UN Human Rights Council to the ultimate detriment of that most basic of Western and American rights, the right of free inquiry, opinion, and expression.

Mr Ihsanoglu has taken the standard Muslim line in defense of the unfortunate document co-sponsored by the US and Egypt before the UNHRC. He argues passionately that this resolution and, by implication, both the OIC and Muslms generally have been the victims of a "smear" campaign at the hands of unnamed non-governmental organizations and "interest groups."

You gotta love that. Sinister NGOs and an evil cabal of "interest groups" all plotting a vicious "smear campaign" against the innocent Muslims, adherents one and all of the religion of peace and tolerance."

Oh, the Secretary General's position is not simply that of branding the opposition as the legions of darkness. He also portrays the OIC as the force of light.

Let me reiterate the willingness on the part of the OIC to engage constructively with the US, the EU and others with a view to taking a holistic view aimed at defining and maintaining a delicate balance between freedom of opinion and respect for all religions and incitement to hatred.

Notice the finely nuance wording (the sign of an academic mind at work.) There is no way to "balance" freedom of inquiry, opinion, and expression with the other two considerations when only one religion--Islam--is specifically named in the resolution and when the most vocal advocates for the special position of that religion consider even truthful, factually based critiques of the faith and its works to be "defamatory," to be "incitement to hatred."

The "delicate balance" to which Dr Ihsanoglu refers is already impossible in Muslim dominated states which outlaw any criticism of Islam no matter how mild, how truthful, how factual, how justifiable. Given the totalistic nature of Islam which denies any possible distinction between the state and its politics on the one hand and the community of faith on the other, there is no way that the balance to which the Secretary General alludes can be made.

To put it bluntly, there is no tradition of free expression in any Islamic dominated state. There is no allowance for freedom of opinion in Islam qua Islam. Nor is there any probability that such would emerge in this world in the foreseeable future.

Dr Ihsanoglu is aware of this. He has to be. He is Turkish. Turkey, until quite recently at least, has been unique among Muslim majority states. It has had in an off and on sort of way a glimmering of free speech. Of course, as the heritage of Ataturk is cast off by the new Islamist rooted government there, the point will be moot in the future.

Dr Ihsanoglu must also be quite aware of the realities which exist in Muslim dominated states such as Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so many others of heavy handed repression of disagreeable opinions, disagreeable writings--and disagreeable writers. He must know to his very bones that it is in Muslim dominated states that freedom means only the freedom to conform one's thoughts, words, and actions to the approved protocol.

He must also know, even if faintly, that it is not the words written and spoken by non-Muslims about Islam which creates any hostile attitudes toward either the religion of Islam or its adherents. Rather, it is the actions, the words, the behavior of Muslims which cause the reactions which the Secretary General finds so appalling.

It is very difficult for a person residing in the West to find good in a faith which either allows, or worse, impels the use of suicide bombers, the stoning of women, the amputation of the limbs of petty thieves. It is difficult to say nothing but good about a religion when that religion's sacred writings extol war, applaud the decapitation of Jews, demands violence be directed against those of another confession, calls for the death of apostates, and generally revels in both blood and visions of hell.

The Secretary General may even suspect that the root cause of the recurrent Muslim demands for special protection against the words and views is fear. He may even on rare occasions feel a quiver, a deep inner feeling which warns Muslims are not actually convinced of the worth of their own belief structures. If the believers truly believed in the value and worth and certainty and accuracy of their beliefs they would not tremble before criticism, they would not quake before attacks, they would not whine after special protection, and allege that only sinister and dark forces opposed their need for legal wrappings against the views and expressions of others.

Whining, protestations, and accusations of ill-will are not the sign of strength either in an individual or in a system of beliefs. So, Dr Ihsanoglu, what does this say about Islam? The OIC? Or you?

Not Everything Is Bad In The USA

While there have been any number of obituaries written for the status of the US in international affairs recently as well as many, many doom laden forecasts regarding the inevitably downward trajectory for the US on the world's stage, perhaps all these negatives need to be reconsidered. Reconsideration is required when one considers the latest report from Legatum. This group, located in the UK, performs an annual ranking of countries using broader criteria than the usual hard power, hard infrastructure matters of GDP, per capita income, and the like.

On the basis of the broader criteria which include such "soft" features as governance, education, entrepreneurial innovation, and personal freedom, the US ranks number nine among the over one hundred countries rated. More to the point, the US is number one among large population countries defined as those with more than fifty million residents.

Finland is number one. But, it like the rest of the eight which score better than the US, are all small population states. Most, again like Finland, have homogeneous populations. None, not even multi-lingual Switzerland (number two) and bi-lingual Canada (number seven) have the linguistic, ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity of the US. And, none have the emphasis on the individual, the rights, prerogatives, and responsibility of the individual which have characterized the US since the gitty-up.

Of interest as well is the fact that with the exception of Japan (and the questionable semi-autonomous Hong Kong) all of the top twenty are either Western European or Anglophone states. Members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference do not show up until the United Arab Emirates lists at number forty-seven.

That means that the OIC is outranked not only by Israel (number twenty-seven) but even by countries not typically thought of as "rich" whether by "hard" or "soft" criteria such as Estonia (thirty-one), Latvia (thirty-seven) or Chile (thirty-six). While many countries in the top half of the rankings have problems in the categories of "democratic institutions," "personal freedom," and "social capital," none present the dismal picture shown by most of the Muslim dominated countries.

Indonesia, the largest population Muslim state in the world and often proclaimed loudly to be a democracy, comes in at number sixty-one. It is dragged down by such "soft" features as education, health, and "personal freedom" where it ranks number one hundred out of one hundred four countries.

American "allies" in the effort against Islamist jihadists such as Turkey (tied with Russia at number sixty-nine), Egypt (eighty-eight), and Saudi Arabia (eighty-one) are not hallmarks of democracy, personal freedom, enterprise or any of the "soft" power and infrastructure features. Turkey, for example, is at one hundred and three in the "social capital" category, which is far more important than the rather uninspiring name implies.

Showing the depth and breadth of the problems confronting Pakistan as it attempts to deal with its own internal war as well as its role in sustaining the Islamist jihadists in Afghanistan is its ranking: ninety-nine. It hits the middling level only in "economic fundamentals" and "social capital." In the other seven categories it ranks at the bottom of the global well. Even Iran at ninety-four does better with only six criteria falling in the bottom quartile.

The Legitum rankings imply that there is still a profound linkage between the "soft" power and infrastructure features of the US and its role in the world. It is the soft power facets of the American mosaic which provide its most potent set of levers in the increasingly horizontally connected world today--and tomorrow.

While the US may rank rather poorly in the "health" category at twenty-seven (for comparison, considering the health care "reform" bill(s), Canada with its "single payer" approach ranks only five places higher), this factor is far outweighed by the US rankings in enterprise, innovation, social capital, democratic institutions, and personal freedom. While there is room for improvement to be sure, particularly in education where the US is rated at number seven, the fact remains that the US has one heck of a lot going for it.

"If you've got it--flaunt it" is a far better and more accurate approach than is the constant murmurings and occasional shouting of apologies. The Obama administration would be well advised to reconsider its approach to other peoples, other countries--particularly those of the Arab-Muslim world.

They have little to be proud of and much for which apologize to their own citizens as well as to others in the world. To the contrary the US has much to be proud of--and little to apologize for whether to its own residents or people elsewhere in the world.

The Legatum survey might not be perfect as the group openly acknowledges, but its results comport well with the gut feeling a well informed person must have from simply looking at the affairs of the world. It has few surprises beyond that of a European based organization actually finding the US to be worthy of a very high rank.

As the old saying has it, "The truth will out." And so it has.

If Only It Weren't So Tragic

Somalia would be world beating comedy series were it not for the blood, destruction, fear, flight, and misery the antics of the Islamist jihadist thugs of al-Shabab have caused. And continue to cause. Even the name of the gang is funny--"the youth" or, more informally, "the kids," if it did not apply to a group that makes Taliban seem almost civilized.

In their latest act the "Kids" have declared three UN agencies to be "enemies of Islam," to say nothing of being "enemies of the Somali people." Presumably the "Kids" Department of Political Affairs and Regional Administration wore a collective straight face as the statement was issued.

Backing the expulsion of the UN agencies by the forthright diplomacy of violence, the Kids sacked the compounds occupied by the UN Development Agency in the south of Somalia stealing the vehicles and equipment in the process. This approach indicates that the Kids have taken lessons in the practice of international relations from the Iranians.

Of course, lessons in diplomatic protocol are not the only support the Kids have sought and received from the outside world. As Ahmedou Ouid-Abdallah, the UN Special Representative for Somalia makes clear in an op-ed piece in today's WaPo, the Kids are no longer some sort of homegrown collection of exuberant young practitioners of Salifist/Wahhibist Islam. They may have started as a ramshackle array of homeboys in search of excitement, power, and a sense of mission, but those days are long behind them.

The "Kids" are the sharp edge of the Islamist jihadist movement. Their trigger pullers and bomb wearers come from areas far removed from the sand and blood of Somalia. The money--and much of the agenda--comes from Islamist leaning governments and NGOs which share both a given interpretation of the Koran and a deep seated hatred for the US and its allies. Both of these contentions have become so commonplace that they need no further documentation.

Also not requiring either documentation or riffling through files of classified information is the fact that jihadists who have found Iraq and Afghanistan a little too hot for their personal comfort have been heading for the more salubrious clime of Somalia. There they will meet other like minded folks from both Europe and the US, folk drawn from the mission or sensation seeking younger members of Somali expatriate communities. United in faith and hate, the jihadists, old and new, can cross-pollinate and reinforce each other's views of Islamism and the Global Caliphate.

The critical consideration is not the movement of Somalia from the Third Circle to the Second in Hell but rather what, if anything, can the "international community" do about it. Ahmedou Ould-Abdullah argues passionately that the "international community" has a (his word) "duty" to Somalia. By this he clearly means a responsibility to intervene in force to squash the "Kids" and support the Transitional Federal Government.

In principle he is correct. Given the length of the Somali coast, the volume of trade which passes that coast, and the fragility of the global economy, there is a very real measure of self-interest involved in the stability of the geographic expression called Somalia. The potentially destabilizing impact of the refugee flood upon Kenya and other countries in the region also makes a serious and realistic claim upon the consideration and action of the larger world community.

The gulf between principle and practice is huge. And, in highest probability, unbridgeable. Just who is going to do the heavy lifting in Somalia?

Not the US. As SecDef Robert Gates warned over the weekend, the American population will not support an unending effort in Afghanistan. The war there must, in his view, turn the corner within the next year or eighteen months or the political will of We the People will be exhausted with predictable consequences.

While Iraq may be winding down as Afghanistan ramps up, one thing is sure. The American public, to say nothing of the economy, cannot and will not support another expedition into a land of inhospitable human terrain and little probability of rapid, low cost success.

The same is true in the UK. Only more so. The British Parliament, press and public, is torqued off over the recent high body count in Afghanistan as a result of the new offensive strategy taking the war to the Taliban stronghold of Helmand. While the number of combat fatalities is low in both absolute and historical terms, it is becoming too much for the British political will. The stakes and goal are equally incomprehensible to the majority of the British public. The same would be true on steroids were Her Majesty's Government to send the lads to Somalia.

The days when the Empire could calmly accept the bones of their troops bleaching in the sun in some far away place for obscure reasons are long gone. The Brits, like their Yank cousins, want a clear cut success in short order at a low cost for easily understood and emotionally compelling reasons.

The rest of the governments of Europe are even more adversely inclined to sending troops to some nasty little pimple on the planet for reasons which might be understood by geopoliticians but not by the man and woman on the street. The Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, are all in the same category. Russians and Chinese support direct national interest only. The Japanese are too canny to get involved, and, anyway, their constitution forbids military employment in any endeavor which is not clearly self-defense.

So, what about Africa? That is the region with the most direct interest in containing both instability and refugees which carry the germ of instability.

The African Union has been long on paper commitments to Somalia. It has been equally short on performance. The long-on-pledges and short-on-deployment AU peacekeeping force is hard pressed keeping a mini-Green Zone around the presidential compound and the air and sea port facilities in Mogadishu. There is no real probability the situation will change.

The AU has always fielded peacekeeping forces which are notably risk averse. Assorted national contingents deployed on sundry UN sponsored peackeeping missions around the world have repeatedly demonstrated a reluctance to engage in combat which has been equalled only by the speed and eagerness with which some have sought plunder, extortion, and forced sexual favors.

The constant excuse presented by the AU as well as its member states is the lack of money and equipment. There is much to the excuse. AU forces are poorly equipped. They are also poorly paid. In addition they are poorly trained, poorly officered, and generally ill-prepared to take on an opponent that has guns and the willingness to use them.

Generally the history of the armed forces of the AU nations shows them to be very good at coups. Reasonably proficient at pushing unarmed civilians around. Better than average at looking good on a parade. And, somewhere between pathetic and mediocre at actually fighting.

The exception to this general statement is the old army of South Africa. Since the political transformation of that country, there has been no occasion for the South Africans to show whether or not their combat proficiency has declined and, if so, as is likely, how much.

The US and other countries could (and, perhaps should) pour money, equipment, and training into the AU contingents. While an exercise in upgrading the capacity of the AU member states in peacekeeping operations might have a very real benefit in the future, any positive effects would take too long to be practically applicable in Somalia. The "Kids" will have taken over the place long before a training and equipping effort would have measurable impact.

Casting around for alternatives some decision maker or another might have the bright idea of asking the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to call upon its members to hammer together an all-Islamic peacekeeping force. What an idea!

It has been argued more than a few times that Muslims understand Muslims. That Muslims would treat Muslims with greater sensitivity and thus greater effect than non-Muslims. That argument may or may not have a substructure of truth. It is also irrelevant.

Just which Muslim country or countries could be expected to volunteer forces for Somalia? And for what reason?

In principle Saudi Arabia has the capacity to send a few thousand reasonably well armed, trained, and led troops to Somalia. The Kingdom might also be persuaded that its national interests would be served by so doing. After all, Saudi clerics have long been involved in transforming the Somali version of Islam from a rather laid back sort to the austere Wahhibist version. Saudi is concerned with the stability of Yemen and the free transit of the Red Sea and adjacent waters.

However a Saudi presence, even if it were to slap the "Kids" into line would also assure the continuation of an Islamist leaning government. This might be the best of all possible outcomes from the Western perspective.

Militating against any hypothetical Saudi peacekeeping force is the fear of Iran. Iran has not given up its ambitions to be the regional hegemon in the Persian Gulf. Any decrement in the Saudi military presence at home would be to Iran's political advantage. The House of Saud is aware of this. The House is also aware that its army is the necessary final support of the House in the event of internal unrest such as is continually sponsored by Tehran.

"No thanks, we will stay right where we are," has to be the most likely reply to any call for peacekeeping assistance.

What is true with Saudi Arabia is true in spades for the rest of the Gulf states. None of these oil sheikdoms have the spare troops standing around itching for a chance to engage in real combat against real people with real guns.

Egypt might be cozened (bribed) into furnishing a few brigades, but Mubarak would be very cautious about such an exercise. The regime faces many internal threats. These will grow as Hosni grows older. A succession crisis is possible. This means the army and the government alike will want to keep all their cards in the deck, not spread some in a rather no win situation far from home.

There is a dearth of candidates for the task of putting the kibosh on the "Kids." The risks are real. The costs are potentially high. The benefits are nil or at least obscure. There is no inducements and a lot of constraints.

In short, there is no one willing in the real world to exercise the "duty" proposed by Ahmedou Ould-Abdullah. He is right in principle. Unfortunately in the gritty real world, principle is always trumped by the practical, the pragmatic weighing of risks and benefits, costs and gains.

So the tragedy produced by the "Kids" will continue. Eventually the leaders of the US and other countries may well regret not having dealt with the "Kids"now rather than the consequences later just as the US learned to regret the spineless response of the Clinton administration to the terrorist acts of al-Qaeda or our unseemly retreat from Somalia after "Blackhawk down." The real deal is that governments live in the here-and-now, the present, not the future.

"Take care of today and the future can look out for itself," seems to be the watchword of governments no matter how often it has been proven to be a destructive short-sighted way to make and execute policy. That's the way it goes--unfortunately.