Terror Only Works If We're Terrorized

The true impact of terrorism is found in the ground truth that it is a self-inflicted wound. True, it is difficult in the extreme not to inflict this wound upon one's self. Lenin knew this when he famously remarked, "The purpose of terror is to terrorize."

Lenin was not engaged in making a tautology. Rather he was correctly characterizing the relationship between stimulus and response. His view--which has been repeatedly proven correct over the decades--was that a relatively small stimulus whether the assassination of a high profile personality or the killing of a larger number of no-profile people would rock the larger society and its government.

By extension, repetition of terror acts or the cumulative effects of both self-induced fear and the political/economic/social frictions of counterterror actions would erode the confidence, structural integrity, and political will of the target society and its government. The slow but steady erosion, or, more properly, enervation of political will would lead over time to the target bringing itself into compliance with the policy requirements of the terrorist.

The immediate aftermath of the Underwear Bomber and his Christmas Day misfire demonstrates that Lenin's dictum has lost none of its force with either age or a change in motivation from socialist revolution to Islamist jihadism. The combination of "enhanced" but not necessarily effective security techniques and "reform" of the intelligence community and process may give the appearance of a proper response but in actuality serves to decrease confidence, increase fear, place greater friction in the twin processes of detecting and interdicting threats.

The most important fact of the Underwear Bomber's effort is to properly appreciate how inept, not to say flat out amateur it was. Like Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber of eight years ago, this attack was doomed to fail by an improperly designed detonation system. Like the Reed attempt it did not have the rather sophisticated planning and coordination of 9/11 or the Madrid subway bombings or even the 7/7 attacks in London.

To put it bluntly, despite some rare out-of-theater operations such as that in Mumbai a little more than a year ago, the terrorists of the loose al-Qaeda congeries have lost their strategic vision and operational capacity alike. The use of terror has become far more localized over time centering on active combat venues--Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen--and not on what Osama bin Laden called "the far enemy."

This reality implies that what the US and other countries have been doing over the past several years has been far more effective than the reaction to the Christmas Day attempt has indicated. While this in no way signifies that there isn't room for continued improvement in both intelligence analysis (particularly in the "dot rich" environment of counterterrorism) and the passing of product to the interdiction tasked agencies, it does mean that the overreaction shows that we are inflicting another round of terror on ourselves.

As it was civilians--not the military or the government--who acted effectively to save either the White House or Capitol Hill on 9/11, it was civilian passengers who acted reflexively and effectively on Christmas Day. We are our own best protection.

This is even more the case when the matter of terrorism as a self-inflicted condition is considered. We must make the decision not to be terrorized. We must rationally consider the long odds in our favor. Terrorism is far less of a threat to any of us than the flu or being hit by lightning. All the vast equipment of "security" has not actually made us any safer when we board an airliner. All it has done in reality is lower the pleasure of flying into the deep negative numbers, increase costs, and hassles. Other than that it has provided jobs for the otherwise unemployable and vastly expanded the intrusive sway of the central government.

Think about that the next time you have to stand in a forever line under the baleful glare of a TSA thug.

Our political "leaders" love terrorism as earlier they loved the "war on drugs." Both take full advantage of overblown and carefully stoked fear to expand the public space, restrict private space, and develop more intrusive ways to manipulate perceptions, beliefs, and behavior.

Of course the war on drugs has been long lost. The equally specious war on terror is no where near either victory or even an end.

The only way to win, the way which was followed by the British when the IRA was bombing early and often, is to decouple the link between stimulus and response. Refuse to be terrorized when an act of "terror" happens--or nearly happens.

This is something that only we can do. Not government. Us. We the People. Refuse to be filled with fear--to be terrorized--and the Underwear Bombers, the Shoe Bombers, all the Brigade of Glorious Martyrdom Seekers, and those who wind them up and send them off are defeated. It is that simple. And that hard.

Connecting The Dots Ain't That Easy

In the never ending and totally predictable political sports of Pointing The Finger and Passing The Blame as well as Cover Your Posterior, the expectable has happened. The President of the United States has moved to exonerate Janet Napolitano and her Heimatsicherheitsamt while shifting the onus to "systemic failure" in general and CIA in particular. His flunkies (unidentified but termed "senior") opined that the dots were all there but no one connected them properly until after Christmas Day.

Yup, the dots were all there. No doubt about it. The Underwear Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was surrounded by dots. The National Security Council intercepts referred to "the Nigerian" and, famously, Abudulmutallab's father warned the US embassy personnel in Nigeria of his fears regarding his son's "radicalization." All these occurred in a context which gave Yemen pride of place as the new center of Islamist jihadi terrorism.

Lots of dots.

The problem is not that there were too few dots. Rather the difficulty which confronts every intelligence agency analyst (beyond too many layers of "coordination" and "review") is simply that their universe is comprised of nothing but dots. Lots of dots. Oodles and gobs of dots. Often the dots are smudgy, hazy or flatly contradictory. The venue of an intelligence analyst is rather like one of those French pointillist paintings viewed from close up.

Dots on top of dots. Dots of different sizes. Dots of different colors. Nothing but dots. It is enough to drive one dotty on the best of days. And, the best of days are few and very far between.

It is simple, attractive, and a species of cheap shot for some "senior" administration official or other political hack to tie the tail of blame to the cat of intelligence. It is also, in the longer run, not constructive. As the record shows from the Vietnam War period, unjustified criticism like rejecting intelligence appreciations which do not match political or personal expectations leads to a weakening of the intelligence process and a pollution of the intelligence product.

This does not mean that room for improvement does not exist. It always does. New and more effective ways to see significant patterns in the blizzard of dots as well the distribution of product to all consumer agencies are always both necessary and under development. (Not that most of these mean the view from the worm's eye level of the analyst becomes necessarily more prescient, more precise, or more rapid since the production of dots always exceeds the development of new "dot management" techniques.)

There is little, if any, utility in more presidential or congressional reviews or investigations. All these do (if history is the reliable guide it normally is) will be the manufacture of new, redundant, and typically encumbering levels of "review" and "coordination."

In the case of the Underwear Bomber like that of the Shoe Bomber eight years ago, the combination of inept bomb manufacture and passengers possessed of a healthy instinct for self-preservation and quick reflexes made up for deficiencies in "dot management." The realities of life indicate that the same sort of terminal protection will have to suffice in the future as it has in the past.

This gloomy view is not predicated upon any lack of respect for the always developing capacity of the intelligence community or a similar absence of faith in new security technology, but rather in the historically rooted contention that the bad guys, the Islamst jihadist terrorists, have the initiative. Fortunately, the most recent example of al-Qaeda skill shows that while the initiative is there and is powerfully reinforced by the processes of ideological radicalization, the skill level is low--at least in the critical area of explosive detonation. The extent to which this fortunate low ability level is the consequence of the American and other countries' efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist entities is arguable.

The Underware Bomber is behind us. But the problem of connecting dots is not. This reality is equally present in countering the ongoing threats of terror and formulating a policy regarding Iran and its regime.

The one year deadline set by President Obama is about up. Certainly, the Iranians have made no move toward compliance with the relevant UN Security Council demands. If President Obama is to be taken at his word, push-comes-to-shove time will be upon us long before the first birds of Spring--even here in the Southwest.

Connecting the dots on Iran is even more difficult than identifying the right "Nigerian" and pointing at the correct Christmas Attack chattered about on numerous al-Qaeda oriented websites. It is also (pace those on board NW 253) far more important to the future of the US and the world generally.

Complicating the problem of connecting the massively differing and contradictory dots from within Iran is the twin difficulty of connecting the dots which might indicate the direction which will be taken by both Russia and China without whose cooperation more sanctions will be as much of a waste as their predecessors have proven to be. The questions of just what the Men of the Kremlin and the Gnomes of Beijing are up to equals in importance the questions regarding the stability and desperation of the Mullahs in Tehran.

While a fair amount of public speculation has occurred regarding the relations of sanctions, the opposition, and the mullahocracy, there has been no duplication of that with respect to the latest Russian gambit and the ever more in-your-face attitude of the Chinese government. Yet the stances of both Russia and China are central to connecting the dots on the matter of Iranian political will in the face of domestic opposition which is not fading away and the seemingly resolute rhetoric emanating from the Obama White House.

One factor that cannot be in doubt is the evident belief on the part of both Vladimir Putin and the Chinese leadership alike holding that President Obama is fundamentally weak of both mind and will.

In his effort to hold the pending Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty hostage, Vladimir Putin is betting that the airhead Obama vision of a nuclear weapons free world is so compelling to the president that further concessions can be wrested from the American side. This cynical but far from unrealistic opinion is reinforced by the strong US need for full Russian compliance with any new sanction regime imposed upon Iran. Given the continued asymmetry between American and Russian nuclear capacities, the gambit is well worth the gamble.

If anything the Chinese are playing a stronger hand that the Russians. Their cooperation is utterly essential. Considering that China dictated the course of play in Copenhagen earlier this month and came away victorious and giving proper thought to the amount of US debt held by Beijing, their diplomats play a very strong hand. Further militating against any genuine cooperation with the US on the Iran question is both their investments in the country and their disapproval of internal opposition (to say nothing of external support for such opposition).

Right now, some very unfortunate analysts are trying to connect the dots on the questions of "Probable Russian (Chinese) Courses of Action In Response to An American Course of Action." As neither country is transparent, the dots will be notable in both their density and contradictory nature. In that the success or failure of Obama administration policy regarding Iran hangs on the final pattern discerned (or imposed) by the analysts, this task is more difficult and far more critical than was that of identifying the Underwear Bomber before he boarded the flight to Detroit.

Now, unfortunately, the assorted analytical prognosticators are laboring under the added pressure of investigations and reviews--and damnation from the All Highest. Their efforts and our future would have been far better served if Mr Obama had stuck to improving his golf game rather than attacking those whose efforts are so critical to his policies.

Who Is Janet Napolitano's Dealer?

The Geek has no idea just what sort of mood and mind altering drug the Secretary of Homeland Security is taking. But, it sure must be a pronounced capacity to change perceptions of reality.

The Secretary reportedly averred that the "system worked" in the failed attempt by a Nigerian Muslim to down a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day. Her strange version of actuality was duplicated by White House flack Gibbs. That the official mouthpiece of the administration took that line isn't surprising in this day of The-President-Can-Do-No-Wrong. Heck, lying like that is what Mr Gibbs is paid to do just like his predecessors.

But, the Secretary of Homeland Security is presumed to have a sounder grasp on the reality of threats presenting themselves to the US, its population, and internal interests. To conclude in the face of already compelling evidence of systemic failure that the "system worked" is both delusional and erosive of public trust and confidence.

The only part of the "system" which worked to prevent a horrific incident was the quick and effective reaction on the part of a Dutch film director and others among the passengers. Ms Napolitano alluded to this, "Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action."

Duh!

What about the rest of the "system?" What about all the watchlists, data bases, all the other features of post-9/11 life created by Congress and two administrations? Were they all totally out to lunch? Or, was this sort of attack virtually impossible to predict in detail even with some warnings of an al-Qaeda in Yemen orchestrated event and the finger pointing done a month back by the suspect's father? Was this sort of attack, like that of the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid eight years ago, impossible to interdict even with the high level of security awareness which has existed for years at Amsterdam's international airport?

The most important piece of context surrounding the Detroit affair is simply that the terrorists, the Islamist jihadists, always hold the initiative. The nature of the terror groups, their capacity to use lone actors, to be devilishly inventive in countering security techniques combine to confer a high order of initiative upon them. Without very detailed warning intelligence, it is very nearly impossible to detect and interdict a lone actor executed attack prior to its commencement.

Schiphol Airport the Geek knows from personal experience had excellent security measures in place long before 9/11--and these have in no way degraded subsequently. The reality is that the detection of eighty or so grams of PETN contained in a pouch not more than fifteen centimeters in length in or near the groin is very difficult to detect absent a strip search or a very, very careful pat down of the region in question.

Eight years ago the security measures were not delinquent when Richard Reid got on his target flight with PETN equipped shoe firmly in place. It is doubtful in the extreme that the Dutch were asleep as the bomb endowed Abdulmutallab boarded his target flight.

In both cases, Reid and Abdulmutallab, the failure of the "system" to detect and interdict was equaled by (1) the failure of the detonating devices in shoe and crotch alike and (2) passengers who were possessed of quick reflexes and a powerful desire to keep on living. Accident coupled with fast reactions, not governments and all their apparatus constituted the "system" which worked.

Basing policy on this happy concatenation of bad luck and good reflexes is a very poor notion, but that is all that can be expected much of the time given the advantages which automatically accrue to the terror specialists of the Islamist jihad. The American public if not members of the current administration have had a very cheap "teachable moment" with the event on Christmas Day. We have been reminded in a quite dramatic way that when push comes to shove, we have nothing and nobody to rely upon beyond ourselves--and each other.

In the real world, we and each other, our capacity for self-help and mutual assistance is the "system" which operates where the rubber hits the road of life. With respect to terrorism we are all that we have. Everything else including intelligence, watchlists, data bases, security, armed forces, everything the government disposes from the local cop to the State Department is back up. At best.

If Janet Napolitano would refrain from covering her boss's political hind end for a few minutes, not take her mind altering drug for a bit, perhaps she would realize that ground truth. More, she would both share and celebrate her new found understanding with us--the people (and system) which matters.

A Follow On To Yesterday's Post

Once upon a time the Geek's mother sat him down and said, "Geek don't ever discuss either religion or politics--and above all else don't talk about them together." Mom was right. People tend to see or hear what they want to see or hear and not what is actually said or written.

So it was with yesterday's essay on "Christianism" as the first cousin of "Islamism."

The Geek has been contacted by some good, sincere Christians who took his essay to mean that he was under the impression that all Christians wanted to roll back the calender to pre-Enlightenment times and wanted to install some sort of Christian theocracy.

Of course the Geek wrote nothing of the sort. The fault must, of course, reside with him and not the readers who missed his point, leaping to the erroneous conclusion that the Geekster had turned anti-Christian in his dotage. To make the record clear: The Geek is not against any particular religion or even religion in general.

The Geek is, however, very much in opposition to groups or individuals who attempt to enforce or impose their belief system through either the power of the state or the even more potent force of fear.

Islamism is a subset of Islam in which the goal of the proponents is the eradication of the "House of War" as all non-Muslims are dubbed by the sacred writings of the faith. Similarly "Christianism" is a subset of Christianity in which the political goal of the adherents is the creation of the mythic days of long ago when the Great Chain of Being was the official paradigm for a secure, orderly, harmonious, and just social and political order.

To both the Islamist and the Christianist the accomplishment of the goal reigns supreme. The presumed benefits, it is believed by members of both groups, would be so beneficial to the entire human race that all methods might be used with ethical justification.

The Islamists, particularly those who have embraced jihad have made it abundantly clear that even the most violent and fear producing tactics are acceptable, even laudable, in pursuit of the goal of defeating the "House of War" and those Muslims deemed to be apostates.

Given the nature of the majority of Muslim majority states in which the instruments of democracy are either weak or absent, the rush to violence can be understood even if not applauded. Also quite easy to understand is the frustration and anger bred within the Islamist community by the existence of major disparities in political power, social status, and economic security which exist in so many Muslim majority states. The perceived failure of either society or polity to solve the many problems along with the palpable lack of judicial, economic, and political independence, transparency, and incorruptibility provide a sound basis to advocate a return to the putatively"pure" faith of the early years of Islam as illustrated by the Koran and the life of the Perfect Man, Mohammad, and his Companions.

The motivations of the Christianists in the US are also easy to both see and understand. When the Christianists critique contemporary America, they emphasize their perception of moral decay on a massive scale along with rampant materialism, a degenerate focus on the rights, privileges and worth of the individual, the corruption of business and politics. In these criticisms the Christianists take a position identical to that of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood after his short stay in the US immediately after World War II.

In their criticisms the Christianists are no different from a large number of Christians, Jews, and secular humanists. One need not be a Christianist or even a Christian to view with dismay the end effect of the multitudinous changes which have manifested themselves in the US during the post World War II period.

There is nothing unique, nothing new, nothing noteworthy in the Christianist indictment or its bill of particulars. It has all been said before. Many, many times.

The difference between Christianists and all other Christians--and non-Christians as well--is their view of the necessary solution and the means which might be justified in securing that solution. The Christianist is identified not by religion per se or the nature of the complaints but simply by the nature of the solution and acceptable methods.

This is precisely the same mechanism by which the distinction between Islamist and all other Muslims might be parsed. Or, to err on the side of accuracy, parse themselves.

Now for the hard part. Take a deep breath, we are going to enter some deep historical, anthropological, and psychological water.

The first, most important task for a community of faith to undertake is one of decision. A decision must be made between several options. The community may remain silent, detached from social, economic, and political matters, focusing instead upon the religious development of every member of the community. Or, the community may choose to actively join the political process with a view toward becoming an integral part of the governing elite. Finally, the community may decide to stand back, apart from the political class, and engage in the prophetic activity of criticism and exhortation.

At different times in the history of the US and Europe, the assorted communities of faith have chosen each of these options. The distillation of historical experience demonstrates that a community of faith has the greatest, most positive impact upon the larger society when it uses the third option--the prophetic option.

The avenue of avoidance, of ignoring the problems, turbulence and disorder of the larger society so that maximum efforts can be made on the individual's development in the faith by definition assures a smaller impact on society generally. Still, a close reading of the historical record for both Europe and the US shows clearly that leaders in all fields of endeavor have been guided and motivated by the principals and beliefs of their faith. Sometimes the outcomes have been bad. At other times the result has been good, even very good. On balance, the latter has been more common than the former.

The lure of power is more seductive than any aspect of sex. Indeed it has been observed that power is the greatest aphrodisiac known. Thus it is not at all surprising that communities of faith have joined not only the political process but the governing elite as well. Historically, right on down to the years of the Bush/Cheney administration, this option has been the worst choice.

OK. That is one set of basics. Take another breath. Time for the second round.

In the US a community of faith has three avenues available to it in seeking to address the problems it believes demand solution. These are the same three alternatives available to all groups seeking to solve problems, change the status quo in any manner.

The three avenues are these: persuasion, litigation, coercion.

It must be understood that communities of faith--including those of the Christianists-- deserve access to the Public Square on an equal footing with all comers. Unfortunately, perhaps tragically, communities of faith have been denied their rights to the Public Square increasingly over the past fifty years. This wrong-headed denial of access has been incorrectly predicated upon the requirements of separating church from state.

As a result faith predicated speech in the Public Square has been denatured to the more-or-less formula sort of "God talk" which typifies election campaigns. Far from being a triumph for the secularists amongst us, the suppression of faith derived speech in the Public Square has been a defeat for all of us.

Arguably the blockage of communities of faith from the Public Square has been a major contributor to the sense of alienation and victimization which has characterized much of the rhetoric coming from Christianist groups.

Persuasion is not guaranteed to work. Certainly history demonstrates that efforts to persuade a large and diverse population of the necessity of a given action do not bring quick results. Nor do they bring results which are necessarily satisfactory to the initial proponents.

Everything connected with politics whether local or national is inherently messy, slow, untidy in outcome and the result of necessary compromise. This is guaranteed to dissatisfy many people, particularly those for whom the compromised "cause" constitutes a matter of core belief, basic principle, or, most importantly, personal identity.

It is the slow, messy, and uncertain nature of persuasion in the Public Square which leads groups to seek a quicker, more certain, and more complete solution through litigation. While never predictable in outcome, litigation does have more rules and less ambiguity than the Public Square. It is easier to convince a single judge or a majority of the justices than it is to win an outright victory free of any taint of compromise in the Public Square.

The problem comes with the nature of the final decision. It is imposed from on high, from a remote and unaccountable authority backed by the full weight of the state. Thus the outcome of litigation can (and sometimes does) run counter to the views held by the majority of the public.

In and of itself this is not a fatal difficulty. The courts exist in large measure simply to protect the minority against the power of the majority. Without this factor in play the vox populi could easily become the voice of tyranny.

Over the centuries communities of faith have both initiated litigation or, in the role of defendant, been the cause of major changes in law and social or political attitudes. Resorting to (or even welcoming) litigation is a valid approach for any community of faith including Christianists.

Coercion is the third option. It is a valid approach simply because it works. After all how long could the state exist without the mechanisms of coercion at its disposal? Communities of faith have a long and distinguished record of employing non-violent means of coercion to achieve their goals. The American civil rights movement of the Sixties is an outstanding example of the potency of non-violent yet coercive means to achieve a goal against very significant opposition.

There is no reason that Christianists (or Islamists for that matter) cannot or should not use the methods of non-violent coercion which have been employed often and well by other communities of faith. Used in conjunction with persuasion coercion of this sort has been proven highly effective in altering deeply rooted behaviors in a majority population.

Violent coercion can be justified only on the basis of the pragmatic consideration. It works. The anti-choice movement in the US which is in large measure manned by Christianists has shown the effectiveness of sub-lethal coercion, sub-lethal terror, particularly when punctuated by high profile episodes of lethal coercion, genuine terrorism by anyone's understanding. Violent protests, facility destruction, and the occasional homicide have proven far more effective in preventing women from exercising this particular aspect of reproductive choice than have either litigation or access to the Public Square.

With the possible exception of the use of sub-lethal but still violent coercion there is nothing in the use of methods which distinguishes the Christianist from all other communities of faith or any pressure or special interest group of a purely secular nature for that matter.

So, how come there is any utility to the use of the term, "Christianist" in describing a particular sub-set of Christianity generally? It isn't as if they resemble the Islamists let alone the jihadi.

Well, bucko, the distinction gains its utility from the issue of goals far more than it does methods even if methods employed finally does play a part, even a major one in distinguishing the Christianist from others of the Christian faith.

Whether a single issue entity such as Operation Rescue, a more-or-less moderate group such as the Discovery Institute, or a totalistic (and so far very fringe) bunch such as the Christian Dominionists, all Christianists seek the end to all perceived contemporary problems, turbulence and injustices by turning back the calender to a presumed historical Utopia.

Of the assorted Christianist organizations, Operation Rescue and others of similar nature have the most limited retrogressive goal. They will be satisfied, at least in major part, by going back in time to the years before various court decisions including but not limited to Roe v. Wade provided women with a wider selection of legal mechanisms to control their reproductive destinies.

As the "Wedge Document" as well as various writings make abundantly clear the Discovery Institute as well as other entities in the Creationist camp want to roll the calender back to the centuries preceding the Enlightenment in both its Scottish and French forms. In the estimate of leaders within this segment of the Christianist movement the sins attendant upon the Enlightenment far outweigh its benefits. The campaign against Darwin (to use the incorrectly and grossly oversimplified icon of the totality of evolutionary biology) is intended simply to be the nose of the camel in the post-Enlightenment tent.

The Creationists have used the Public Square in a sort of stealth jihad to gain control of school systems on both the local and state level in order to ban the teaching of evolution unless accompanied with a Creationist or Intelligent Design slant on the comings and development of life on Earth. The expansion beyond Darwin is explicit in such intellectual castrations as eliminating the Big Bang and continental drift from curricula. Even when ultimately rejected by voters or the courts, the effort is to deny the Enlightenment and bring back the supposed halcyon days of stability, harmony, and justice presumed to have existed during the static days of the Great Chain of Being.

The extremists of the Christian Dominion have the most expansive goal. Their intent is to establish a theocracy in the US. In this vision a Godly, harmonious and just society would be brought into existence by the application of the plethora of laws in the Old Testament and complete obedience to the laws of the deity as interpreted and applied by the clergy. (Sound familiar? Thought so, just insert Koran and Shariah in the appropriate spots.)

While there is no realistic probability that the most extreme goals such as those of Christian Dominionism will come to pass, this is no reason to ignore the potency of the Christianists. Nor is it any reason to overlook the similarities in motive and method between the Christianists and the Islamists.

Most importantly the existence of Christianists just like the obvious presence of Islamists in the world today provides the most robust justification for fully understanding not only religious doctrine and belief systems per se, but for appreciating the close, even intimate relationship between religion and politics.

And, this, mom, is why the Geek put your well meant advice aside.

Tis The Season To Be---

Thinking about religion. Not theology or doctrine or liturgy or even the favorite of skeptics, plausibility but rather the ways in which religions become the foundation of political acts.

The Geek has posted often about the nature of Islamism, his shorthand term for politically oriented Islamic groups and individual Muslims. He has also posted frequently on jihadism which is the armed and violent progeny of Islamism.

Overall, in so far as a single goal unites all the Islamist and Islamist jihadist groups it is that portion of the Islamic belief system as expressed not only it Islam's sacred writings but in the vast and ancient corpus of Islamic jurisprudence which calls for constant struggle to both protect the Muslim community of faith and expand that community until it incorporates the entirety of the human race. The "House of War" as non-Muslims are characterized must be confronted and ultimately defeated if the age of perfect peace, harmony and justice for all people everywhere is to be achieved.

The longing for social, economic and political harmony, an absence of turbulence and a presence of community solidarity is deeply rooted in the human mind. It is a longing that is addressed by religions generally--as well as by assorted ideologies which are purely, even militantly secular.

Advocates of a religiously based harmonious and just community, whether it be one which is limited in size or global in nature often point to some allegedly Utopian time and place far in the distant past. The mythic Garden of Eden is such a time and place. So also is the Arabian Peninsula of the Eighth Century for at least a goodly portion of Muslims. And, for some Christians the halcyon time and place was Europe in the centuries between the fall of the Roman Western Empire and the coming of the Enlightenment.

Anti-modernity is the thread which connects Islamists and their Christian counterparts. (Hmm, what to call them? Kierkegaard has already used the term "Christendom" to cover the institutional Church so that one is out. How about "Christianists?" At least that term is equivalent in derivation to the use of the word "Islamist.")

Christianists view the Enlightenment and its aftermath as having destroyed the presumably stable, allegedly communitarian, and putatively harmonious later Middle Ages. In the estimate of Christianists such as those who founded and operate the Discovery Institute and its many ancillaries, the Enlightenment brought in its wake a dissolution of morals, a rampant materialism and a degenerate focus on the individual. In the estimate of these folks and others of like mind the consequences of the Enlightenment regardless of any progress in technological and scientific matters has been destructive overall of both the human community and the human spirit.

It seems that Christianists take as their paradigm for a more perfect society the Medieval Chain of Being. The well-ordered and of necessity harmonious human social, economic and political structures explicit in the Chain of Being with its hierarchical placement of all people, creatures and things from the deity down to the rocks and hills constitutes the ultimate touchstone. In a way which is nearly identical the Islamist sees the life of Mohammad, the Perfect Man, and the society which surrounded him over a millennium ago as being the infallible guide to how life should be lived.

Both the Islamist and the Christianist would agree that individuals and societies which exist in perfect keeping with the divinely appointed strictures would be pleasing to the deity. Each would argue to his listeners that the way to end the unpleasant, discomfiting, disconcerting complexities of life in the present would be by way of invoking the power of the past, the potency resident in either the Great Chain of Being or the life of the Prophet, the Perfect Man and his society.

Both Christianist and Islamist would agree that the evils of the world today have been and are the work of stiff necked people who refuse to submit to the strictures and requirements ordained by the deity. If only these stiff necked and evil doing people would either come to their senses and submit or, in the alternative, be removed, the Utopian past would be restored.

The Geek agrees that life can be very confusing, quite messy, often frustrating, and that it might be nice to call, "Time Out!" every now and then so that changes might be chewed, swallowed, and effectively digested. There is no doubt but that people at all times and places have felt exactly the same.

There is no doubt but that generation after generation, "Those were the good old days." Yep, the Good Old Days when life was simple, orderly; when people were nice to one another, children always polite and respectful; a bygone era when an honest day's work brought an honest day's pay, the customer was always right, the trains (or stagecoach) ran on time; when devout folks met every Sunday at the little church in the valley; a golden hued time when politicians were public servants; an eternal Spring when the ice cream was always made from whole milk and real chocolate. You get the point. The myth of the good old days is as old as the human race.

You also see the corollary, right, bucko? The corollary which reads, "The Good Old Days never were." That one. The one the Christianists and Islamists alike overlook. The corollary upon which their movements will, of necessity, founder.

The Great Chain of Being never really existed. Kings did not bow to Popes--particularly after the nation-state started its long emergence accompanied with such features as armies. Peasants never sweated happily for their "betters" as the numerous pre-Enlightenment revolts demonstrate in all their bloody colors. (Even animals did not walk cheerfully to slaughter back then or now, if the proliferation of wild cows, the escapees from nearby ranches indicates to the Geek whenever he hies himself into the forest seeking firewood.)

Nor is Eighth Century Arabia a halcyon place, a perfect model for life today. In all probability the people of the time periodically bewailed the changes wrought by the Perfect Man--particularly when the inevitable power struggles for succession reared their bloody heads.

A Utiopianized historical period is a pathetic guide for a dynamic life. And, make no mistake about it--human life is dynamic in nature. It must be. The alternative is stultification, decay and ultimately, death.

The underlying dilemma facing all of us is the tension between the need for a dynamic of constant change less we stultify and die and the need for a secure, harmonious social, economic, and political life along with the appearance of security those features provide. With the coming of the myriad events lumped under the names, "Renaissance," "Reformation" and "Enlightenment," the people and states of Europe and North America took one direction--the road sign reading "dynamic." Other peoples, other states, which for whatsoever reason did not partake of the type of events subsumed under these three terms took another direction, the direction of stasis, decay and ultimately a form of national death.

The people at the Discovery Institute who seek to put the genie of the Enlightenment back into the bottle from which it sprang by denying Darwin, denouncing Wallace, pretending contemporary geology and cosmology do not exist are engaging in a labor of Sisyphus. Like that mythic figure, the rock will always roll back upon them. The most extreme Christianists, the men of Christian Dominionism (this merry bunch is Taliban with a Bible, al-Shabaab with a Cross) are doomed to even more ignominious failure.

Ultimately, so also are the Islamists, particularly those of the jihad. As events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even Somalia have shown, people may find the back-to-the-past-as-the-future attractive in the abstract but they find it most distasteful in practice. Christians found the limits of theocratic rule centuries ago in Calvin's Geneva experiment or the pale imitation in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Christianism, Islamism, like Facism and even Marxism-Leninism can exist only if all features of human creativity are well and truly suppressed. Such repression, totally effective repression, can only exist for short periods and then only at the cost of all innovation, all invention, all discovery, all genuine progress. Progress can come in any field only by a dynamic of creativity. And, all creativity in any field comes only with concomitant destruction of the old.

We are divided in our own minds as to which is more important: security or freedom. We are internally torn over whether dynamic change should have priority or should pride of place go to stability, harmony and consequently lowered risk, increased predictability and certainty.

While the chasm may exist in the psyches of each of us, the answers have already been entered on the pages of history. You can read them by comparing the past five hundred years history of Europe and of the Muslim societies.

Any questions?

It Wasn't Santa, But Still It's A Nice Present

Reports from the latest venue of combat between Islamist jihadists and the more-or-less civilized people of the world, Yemen, are of an airstrike on an al-Qaeda conflab in the caves. One of those present may or may not have been the New Mexico born Islamist cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki.

According to the reports al-Awlaki, who is best known for having been the on-the-Internet spiritual advisor of Major Hasan, may or may not have been killed by the Yemeni jets. If al-Awlaki has gone to his reward there is reason to be jolly this Christmas season given that the cleric joyously confirmed on al-Jazzera that the Fort Hood shootist had contacted him to find out if it was legal under Shariah to go ahead and kill his fellow countrymen and service members. Al-Awliki, drawing on his years of profound study of the intricate holdings of Islamic jurisprudence, apparently advised the Major that killing other Americans was just jake with the religion of peace and tolerance.

As al-Awlaki sagely observed to his interlocutor from al-Jazzera, loyalty to Islam by a Muslim trumps any minor consideration such as loyalty to one's fellow nationals or those who wear the same uniform and salute the same flag. Well, as the assorted multi-cultural mavins of the post modern chattering and academic classes have assured one and all for years now, nationalism and its cognates such as loyalty to one's country are both anachronistic and the raw materials for international adventurers such as W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

It is presumed that members of the aforementioned groups will hold memorial services for such a fine exemplar of the post-modernist sensibilities as al-Awliki. While they are at it perhaps they might find a kind word to say for the (perhaps or perhaps not) deceased leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula who may or may not have been at the troglodyte conference. After all these men were simply pursuing the goal of establishing an international comity of Muslims at the sole expense of national governments such as those in Yemen (which is not legitimate in the estimate of most Yemenis) and Saudi Arabia (which is feudalistic at best and paleolithic at worst.)

For those of us who are not members in good standing with either the chattering or academic classes or other self-defined elite congeries, the news out of Yemen, if confirmed, is all to the good. The last thing the US or the rest of the world needs is yet one more sanctuary for Islamist jihadists. Given the flawed nature of the Yemeni government, the influx of foreign jihadis from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as well as Yemen's geographic position, the notion of the place becoming the next stronghold for the Bold and Courageous Warriors of the Prophet is not to be tolerated.

Backing the Yemeni regime in its long overdue efforts to squash the Houthi and abate the growing jihadi presence is the least worst course of action available to the US. Providing intelligence, logistic support, and even the occasional sea-launched cruise missile attack is a much lower risk operational concept than waiting for affairs in that particular global armpit reaching such a dangerous pass that direct on-the-ground intervention is required.

Airstrikes alone will not do the entire job of repressing the Houthi insurgency. Nor will airstrikes, cruise missiles, and limited Saudi Arabian ground incursions end the attraction of Yemen for jihadis displaced from earlier venues in the "clash of civilizations." The Yemeni government will have to use both political and military means to continue the campaign.

The government shows no particular political will for either the task of ground combat or the far more important and demanding one of enhancing its perceived legitimacy among a badly disaffiliated population. Frankly, the historical forces in Yemen, whether one cares to use the overthow of the emirate in 1961 or go back further to the foundations of the post-World War I Yemeni and Saudi states, are far more centripetal than centrifugal in nature.

The manufacture of Yemen was as artificial as the making of saccharine. The country has no organic reason to exist. The regime has no existential claim on either the loyalty or the affections of most Yemenis. These foundation conditions are exacerbated by the chronic poverty of the country which has seen its very limited oil and other natural resources exploited for the benefit of foreigners or a handful of the very well connected.

Yemen, like Somalia across the Gulf of Aden, is a creation of foreign diplomats working with the limited input of a very small number of locals who spoke an appropriate language, wore suits, and could make the right noises at the correct time. To call this process "self determination" is to commit a felony against language and common sense alike. To expect these artifacts of foreign manufacture to evolve into stable nation-states is to be terminally out-to-lunch.

In Yemen the interest of the US, as is the case in Somalia, Afghanistan, and a few other places, is limited to precluding its exploitation by Islamist jihadists. We (and other Western states) have no need to engage in the futile exercise of "nation-building" as such is beyond the capacity of mere humans. There is no need to provide Yemenis with a fully functioning, modern, pluralistic, democratic, secular state (as if such would be possible.) The only requirement is to end the appeal of Yemen to jihadis and those such as al-Awlaki who give them comfort and encouragement.

Al-Awlaki's father is quoted as condemning the US and President Obama for having murdered his son. The father holds that if his son had committed some crime he should be brought before the bar of justice. The retort to the father's accusation is simple: If his son is dead, he, according to his own beliefs, has been judged by the Highest Court of Islam.

As to the verdict of that Court (or as to its existence) the Geek offers no assessment.

There Is No "International Community!"

British Prime Minister, the Right Honorable Gordon Brown, is either totally gripless or gripped by a delusion of monumental proportions. Mr Brown is quoted as saying that the debacle in Copenhagen occurred because "some countries" held the proposed treaty "for ransom." He went on to call for either the reformation of the UN or the formation of a new body so that the "international community" could properly deal with "challenges" confronting the "international community."

Here is the fundamental flaw with Mr Brown's tocsin: There is no such thing as the "international community." Period.

There are a lot of independent sovereign states. Indeed, sovereign states have proliferated at a rate compared to which neither rabbits nor cockroaches can be described as rapid breeders. Of course, every sovereign independent state has to be a member of all possible international bodies including but not limited to the UN. This is one of the reasons the UN--and other subsidiary bodies--have become the havens for inefficiency, corruption, and a shakedown-the-West-at-the drop-of-a-hat attitude.

Mr Brown, and a host of others infesting the self-appointed elites of both Europe and the US, including in all probability the current occupant of the Oval, is of the fashionable post-modernist view that the age of the sovereign independent nation-state is over. Mr. Brown (and Mr Obama) shares the necessary twin of that thought: And, the world is better off for the death of the nation-state.

This understanding of international relations is both unrooted in reality and dangerously counterproductive in practice. Mr Brown's comment about climate change being held for ransom and his prescription calling for the creation of yet another international body show this--on steroids.

The real deal as Mr Brown (and Mr Obama) must know down deep somewhere in the back recesses of the mind is that nation-states are alive, flourishing, and showing all their usual characteristics of operating from subjectively defined self-interest. When China torpedoed the rush to a treaty, any treaty at Copenhagen, it did so out of rationally defined national interest. The same was true of the hijack-the-rich oriented states of the G77.

Even the US operated from the basis of national interest when its president demanded that any agreement include verification mechanisms so as to be more than a paper sham. The resulting outrage from China spoke volumes about the power and persistence of nationalism.

This is the reality. It will remain the reality. Whether the subject is esoteric and absurd such as anthropogenic climate change or down, dirty, and in the mud of reality such as the thwarting of Iranian nuclear ambitions, the motivator of states will remain the same. It will be what it always has been in the past, a careful calculation of what course of action best serves the national and strategic interests of the state--or, worse but more common, what will serve the political interests of the present government.

If Gordon Brown were to be afflicted with a severe case of honest self-assessment, he would have to admit that his obsession with global warming is a calculated effort to divert attention within the British electorate with the very real problems at home, problems which call into serious question the future election prospects of the Labor Party. The national interest, the strategic interests of the UK, were not in play at Copenhagen despite the plentiful catastrophe predicting oratory of Mr Brown. All that was at stake was the ability of the Brown Ministry to bamboozle the public well enough to limit the election damage yet to come.

Mr Obama's performance at Copenhagen was similarly inclined less to furthering the interests of the US and more to bolstering his political interests at home during a time of sinking polls and doubt over the great healthcare transformation effort in the Senate. The President had to have some semblance of success, no matter how insubstantial in substance without at the same time being seen to have blatantly sold American jobs and the national economy down the river in order that the plaudits of the European elite might ring louder in his ears.

Now, back in the real world, both Mr Obama and Mr Brown must deal with the power of national interest as the clock runs out on the end of the year deadline for Iranian compliance with the demands of the "international community" or at least the P5+1. National interest alone will dictate the positions taken regarding sanctions on the part of Russia and China. National and strategic interests will determine just how well the German, French, or British government actually enforce sanctions both past and future.

And, national interest of the most existential sort will determine how long Israel waits before taking solo action to abate the Iranian threat.

The Tehran regime will also have to weigh national interest, including that of an existential variety in determining their posture, including any changes from their so far successful approach of talk and delay, talk and bluster, talk and exploit the differences in national and strategic interest between the members of the P5+1. The Iranians will cloud their picture with the eschatological views of Shia Islam and the personal interpretations of that held by President Ahmadinejad. It will be further clouded by the potential impact of the funeral and memorial rites attendant upon the death of Ayatollah Montezeri.

In any and all these countries the crucial choices will be made by individual governments and not by the mythical "international community." In all these countries the governments, the decision makers, will base their decisions upon the needs, fears, and plans of their own nation's interests and strategic requirements.

So, Mr Brown and the rest of the crowd had best get a grip on the reality of nationalism and abandon the convenient delusion of an "international community." Their future (and ours) depends upon it.