May You Live In Interesting Times--And We Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Far Can A Collapsed State Collapse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People (And The Media) Talk Too Much

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

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

The DNI did not respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pakistani Cleric: Allah Says Democracy Sucks

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

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

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

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

Right. Don't you just feel the trust?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calling It Like It Is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The US Should Engage In The Durban II Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surrendering To Islamists In Pakistan And The US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fer sure, Dudes. Right. Must be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

There is precedent for all these speculations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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