Another question arises, even if one is a connoisseur of nuclear plants, would one trust one’s safety to an Iranian built, Russian designed nuclear power plant?

North Korean scheduled nuclear test raising tensions. Perhaps this may convince South Korea of the folly of the “Sunshine plan”.

North Korea is being forced to conduct the test because of American sanctions and the threat of nuclear war from America.

That is the nuttiest thing I have ever seen. Mr. Kim is upset that American ire is focused at Iran and Iraq. He launched missiles this summer to gain attention. Now he threatens nuclear tests to direct the world’s attention at him and his brutal Stalinist dictatorship.

Beijing continues to push for a return to the Six party talks—they’d worked so well in the past—and believes that the talks are the only way to resolve the issue. Beijing wants to keep North Korea out of the UN Security Council; as though the Security Council would do anything, even assuming it could do something. Beijing warns other countries not to take actions that might escalate tensions, conveniently forgetting that tensions are being raised by North Korea.

North Korea refuses to return to the Six Party talks until the U.S. relents on its financial sanctions against the regime. North Korea is in no position to make demands. Supposedly, they are the international pariah; in a world that made sense they would capitulate to the demands of stronger nations. However, in the upside down world we live in, weakness is seen as a sign of strength, and strength is a sign of weakness. Strong nations, such as the U.S. are afraid to exercise that strength—for good or ill—because if they (especially we) do, they will be seen as a bully. Strength should be used in the pursuit of Justice and just Peace. Instead, we see strength being used to prop up weak regimes that oppress their peoples and threaten their neighbors.

Perhaps the most disgusting part of the article is the last paragraph:

“State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said the United States remained willing to talk to Pyongyang "as often as they want within those six-party talks".”

That is unacceptable. Talking is not diplomacy. Talking for the mere purpose of talking is dangerous and stupid. There must be a goal in sight. If talking is not advancing the objective, then change course; adapt and overcome. When something is not working, it isn’t a time to try it again: this is failure to recognize sunk costs.

Diplomacy has not only failed to restrain North Korea, it has emboldened Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim will be a threat to Japan, as long as he is in power. A crisis between North Korea and Japan would provide the PRC the cover necessary to seize Taiwan and “unite” the Chinas.

North Korea’s continued saber rattling, at a time in which the U.S. is confronting another nuclear threat in Iran, is a difficult test for the U.S. The U.S. cannot afford to show any more weakness. Chavez is watching. Assad is watching. The intellectual descendents of UBL are watching.

Failure is not an option. We must not accept failure under the cover of “talking”.

Victor Davis Hanson on traitors to the Enlightenment.

VDH writes brilliantly of a the capitulation of "brave" Europeans, who think nothing of insulting Christians, Sharon, or red-state Americans, but quiver in fear at the idea of running afoul of Islamic fascists.

Al-Assad clings to Nasrallah for legitimacy, as the Syrian populace embraces a new breed of fascism: trading in the Ba’athist Arab Nationalist Socialism, for Pan-Islamic fascism.

The al-Assad regime, which had previously (under Hafez al-Assad) crushed an Islamic Brotherhood movement to replace Ba’athism in 1982, by shelling and bulldozing Hama, the epicenter of the movement, is now posting pictures of the “hero” of the “resistance”, Nasrallah, together with al-Assad.

Assad sees the only opportunity to maintain power to harness the current of Islamic fascism underpinning so much of the Near East today. Assad, a member of the Alawite religion, a splinter of Shia’ism, and his clan would be up for the high jump if the Assad regime were to fall. No one likes the Alawites. Everyone considers them to be heretics. Therefore, hanging on to power is, literally, a matter of life and death for the Alawites in Syria.

Assad does have some necessary credentials to play in this game of his: his reflexive anti-Americanism; his visceral opposition to Israel; his permanent state of war with Israel over the Golan Heights, even after Jordan and Egypt have surrendered claims to land taken by Israel in the defensive 1967 war; his tacit support of terrorists in Iraq; and his mutual defense pact with the mullahs of Iran. Previously, Assad leaned on his pan-Arab nationalism to control his people: locate the problem outside the borders and people will turn their focus away from the local problems of the regime. Now, Assad sees the support for Nasrallah, and the weakness of the Israeli response under Olmert, and believes that Nasrallah made provide the way to destroy Israel and strengthen his hold on power.

“Now, across the region, the pan-Arab nationalism that Syria championed for 40 years is quickly being displaced by a pan-Islamism.”

Assad has decided to travel the path of Saddam (no doubt he hopes to avoid the destination of Saddam). Just as the western “oppression” of the Iraqi people became a call to arms for UBL in the 1990s, Assad hopes that “oppression” of his regime will become a call to arms for Islamic fascists. Mouthpieces of the Syrian regime now open their speeches with the first line from the Qur’an (Bishmillah Al-Rahman al-Rahim). Islamist flags are as common as Ba’athist flags in the streets of Damascus. Jihadists return from Iraq with calls for a return to “pure” Islam.

It is safe to assume that Syria will continue to be disruptive in the region. With Syria’s current friendship with Iran, I consider it likely that Syria’s WMD programs will improve greatly. The imminent fall into chaos of Pakistan, Iran’s unstoppable acquisition of nuclear weapons (but it doesn’t have to be unstoppable!), and North Korea’s willingness to sell anything to anyone to bring in currency, will provide Syria with ample means to increase its ability to project power over a much larger area than Lebanon.

I am still not convinced that the attack on the U.S. embassy in Damascus was not carried out by Syrian agents, or at the behest of Syria.

Speaking of “weak horses”, the EU is the poster child. The EU invites attack: Madrid, Germany, London, and et cetera. The EU has a fifth column of Islamic fascists within their own borders: native and immigrant. The EU hopes to buy the Islamic fascists’ good graces by being a stumbling block to the U.S. and by knuckling under to Iran and by taking the part of kleptocratic thugs over the liberal democracy of Israel.

Considering I’ve declared Pakistan lost, I suppose I should look at some of the larger ramifications of such a turn of events.

Pakistan has already demonstrated an inability to properly secure its nuclear secrets, when it was ostensibly an ally of the U.S. Consider the AQ Khan case. AQ Khan set up a network where nuclear technology was sold to the highest bidder. Iran, North Korea, and Libya are known to have been buyers of the AQ Khan nuclear bazaar. North Korea continues apace with its nuclear program, supplementing it with a ballistic missile program. Iran continues to jerk around the EU, the UN, the IAEA, and the US about its nuclear program. Libya gave up its nuclear program after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but considering the U.S. ineffectiveness and continued slide to weakness, Libya will probably restart its nuclear program—this time having diplomatic relations with the U.S.

With the ISI increasingly subverting Musharraf—consider the Waziristan deal; the NWFP deal in the works; ISI’s support for terrorist groups in Kashmir, such as Jaish-e-Mohammed; and the ISI’s sponsorship of the Mumbai train bombings this summer—this is a recipe for disaster. The ISI has ties to terrorists in Kashmir, and the Taliban (the ISI was the original sponsor of the Taliban). The terrorists with whom the ISI breaks bread are of the Islamic fascist bent (the Kashmir Information Network alleges ethnic cleansing in Kashmir). It is not a stretch to consider the ISI more than capable of restarting the AQ Khan network, in order to bring in currency for the country.

The loss of Pakistan will also hinder U.S. ability to conduct fly-overs of Pakistan (unless the U.S. is prepared to start showing some spine, again).

Musharraf has been able to deliver such terrorists as KSM and the killers of Daniel Pearl. The loss of Pakistan would entail losing whatever local support from Pakistan existed.

Musharraf is presumably able to rein in the ISI to a degree, so long as he still maintains control of the military. Considering the brazen actions by the ISI in supporting the Taliban, it’ll get much worse with the fall of Musharraf.

Tempers will again flare over Kashmir, with the ISI in command. India and Pakistan were on the brink of war three years ago: increased support for Kashmiri terrorists may again push these two nuclear powers to the brink, and perhaps over the brink. In such a case, the U.S. would have a duty to support India—being a neutral party between a democracy and a totalitarian, terrorist state is immoral (where else does that ring true?)—likely not militarily, as India should have no problem defeating yet another Pakistani invasion.

All told, nothing good can come from the fall of Pakistan and Musharraf, but at the present rate of decline in the state of affairs in Pakistan, Pakistan may fall without Musharraf falling.

Protests in Zambia over vote counts. You’ve got to love these party names: Movement for Multiparty Democracy, the United Democratic Alliance, and the Patriotic Front. I don’t mean to make light of a serious situation, but this brings to mind the axiom that if a country has democratic and republic in its name it is neither one nor the other. The MMD sounds like a traditional kleptocratic party. This, however, may be a case of truth in advertising. The MMD ran on a strengthening economy and being able to get much of Zambia’s foreign debt forgiven.

Mr. Sata, of the PF, promises the more “equitable” distribution of wealth. I can see why he’s upset to be running third right now. Evo Morales won on that same platform, and that seems to be a major plank of the Democratic party platform in the United States.

Mr. Sata alleges that many paper ballots are missing, but “International observers have generally praised the electoral commission for conducting an efficient and transparent poll”.

Southern Africa is already in turmoil because of Bob Mugabe, of Zimbabwe, and epidemic AIDS across the region, Zambia doesn’t need to add fuel to the fire. Hopefully, this can be sorted out peacefully.

The New Thai PM sworn in is a retired general. He promises to focus on the people’s happiness—not a good sign[1]. He is described as interim, so hopefully he is not able to do much damage seeking the people’s “happiness”. The retired general has previously spoken against involvement in politics by the military, but “felt he had to take the job”.

The retired general, Surayud, swears to stamp out an Islamic insurgency in the south of the country. Surayud is respected by both the military and by the civilian leadership. He has been appointed by the king and he replaces a formerly popular PM who had campaigned on “… offers of cheap medical care and debt relief, [a] nationalist platform and [a] contempt for the "Bangkok elite" in politics.”

[1] Perhaps his desire to achieve “happiness” for the people is a result of his being a political neophyte, if not attempts to promote happiness by governments usually end up in the whole “war is peace”, or “slavery is freedom” realm.

UN hail's Israel's pullout from Lebanon. This is usually a bad sign. If the UN thinks you’re doing something right, you’re usually not.

Israel is slowly complying with UN resolutions calling for them to leave Lebanon. Hezb’Allah continues to refuse to comply. This is not a surprise. I don’t believe anyone actually expected Hezb’Allah to abide by the terms of the ceasefire. Hezb’Allah is granted the status of a State by the UN, but with none of the responsibilities of a State.

Israel continues to hope that the UN force and the Lebanese military will be able to disarm Hezb’Allah. Realists know that this is as likely to happen as donkeys are to fly out of Nasrallah’s nose.

“…most Israelis believe the fight with Hezbollah is not over once and for all…” –no kidding.

Putin compares Georgia's leadership to Stalin, and he should know. Georgia has arrested four Russian army officers for spying. Putin calls the arrests an act of State-terrorism. Putin’s remarks seemed to set the stage for a potential “intervention” in the nation of Georgia. Putin has also recalled Russia’s ambassador to Georgia and ordered the partial evacuation of diplomatic staff. Putin also ordered the halt of Russia’s withdrawal of military from Georgia. Russia is seeking UN Security Council action to “restrain” Georgia.

Putin has seen his political influence in the former Soviet states fall precipitously. His intervention in the Ukraine failed miserably. I expect Russia to attempt to pull off a Syria here: subversion in the name of regional stability. All this occurs as Georgia is seeking closer ties to NATO. Look for NATO to blink.

Austrian elections yield a split. The center-right People’s Party took just over 34% of the vote, while the center left Social Democrats took just under 36%. Two parties described as far right groups received 11% and 4% (the Freedom Party and the Alliance for the Future of Austria parties, respectively). A grand coalition between the two centrist parties is possible, as the Social Democrats could only supplement their take on the left with 10% from the Greens.

Either way, I cannot see a coalition lasting that long.

Discord in Hungary as the President of Hungary criticizes the Prime Minister (I’m not even going to attempt the names), alleging that the PM lied about the state of the Hungarian economy to win re-election. The President implicitly called for the parliament to depose the PM. Opposition demonstrations have taken place in Budapest and there have been calls for the PM to resign if his allies do not do well, once the votes have been counted.

Hungary demonstrates the strength of its democracy by handling its questions in the political sphere. This should not be a surprise considering they’ve only recently escaped the boot of communist oppression.

Pakistan's ISI behind Mumbai bombings this summer

Pakistan is a mess. They've got nuclear weapons, a long-running feud with another nuclear power, India, over Kashmir, and a "President" who is very close to completely losing control over the country.

The intelligence community has made a deal with the Taliban, behind Musharraf's back, to cede control of Waziristan to the Taliban. The North West Frontier Province, never governable at the best of times is said to be going the same way.

Pakistan has a long history of political turmoil: swinging from so-called democracy to dictatorship to "benevolent dictatorship". Pakistan has fought (and lost) three wars with India over the Indian territory of Kashmir. Pakistan's intelligence community has also funded, trained and directed terrorism against India in Kashmir. The intelligence community established and supported the Taliban against the Northern Alliance.

If you think the CIA undermines President Bush, that's nothing next to the behavior of the ISI. Pakistan is too weak to stand another war against India. If it comes to blows again, India will win again, (The U.S. would have to support India b/c they are a democracy and the U.S. is desperately trying to keep India out of the PRC camp) and Pakistan could not count on the U.S. to do much.

Pakistan is a powder keg. The citizens agitate for shari'a and shari'a has been granted legal status at the local level. It is only a matter of time before one of the most stalwart allies of the U.S. in the war on Islamic fascism is chased from power. Musharraf never had much control over the intelligence community--he was a military man who seized power through the military--and he is increasingly isolated from the military that has kept him power.

The ISI is more interested in subverting Kashmir through Lashkar-e-Taiba, and may provoke war with India. The ISI is also interested in consolidating power to the north, and they do not see that happening through a democratic Afghanistan, but through a resurgent Taliban.

Pakistan is only an ally of the U.S. so long as Musharraf wields power. He seems to be a democrat at heart, or he recognizes that he did not have the tools to control Pakistan himself, and he has gradually ceded authority on the local level to local entities. These local entities are not allies of the U.S. The ISI is not an ally of the U.S. Increasingly, Pakistan's army is not an ally of the U.S.

I'm an incurable pessimist. Pakistan is as good as lost.

Hopefully, Afghanistan does not go the same way.

Afghanistan does have the benefit of Hamid Karzai, a much more charismatic and popular man, than Pervez Musharraf.

With the Taliban being given free rein in northern Pakistan, Afghanistan faces an existential threat. The U.S. cannot lose Afghanistan without appearing weak and inviting attack. The U.S. must not lose Afghanistan.

Greece adds blackmarket profits to its GDP

Why would they need to do that?

Because they need to escape fines (from the EU) that are levied when a country has a deficit that runs too high.  Of course, now Greece has to pay a larger amount into the EU budget and Greece may miss out on some funding, so it balances out.

My question: why would anyone want to be a member of an organization that fines you if you make too little, but taxes the snot out of you if you make too much?  Is there a happy medium?

I realize that membership in the EU has other benefits, such as ease of movement, access to the deep pockets of richer nations (for the poor), and a regionalized trading community. 

This is still ridiculous.

Mario Loyola writes on the “non-aligned movement” (NAM) at NRO. It is becoming obvious now, that non-aligned nations are aligning themselves against the U.S.

The “non-aligned” nations may well burn themselves out, as happened previously, but before they do, they can do much more harm than “non-aligned” nations were capable of during the Cold War. Today, the “non-aligned” nations have ballistic missile programs and nuclear weapons programs. “Non-aligned” nations have extensive WMD programs. The weakness of the U.S. demonstrated in the U.S.’s handling of North Korea and Iran will likely lead to Qaddaf’i restarting his weapons programs.

“Non-aligned” nations have also embraced modern Islamic fascist terrorism, in all of its nihilistic “glory”. The force multipliers available to “non-aligned” nations are dumbfounding, considering that the “non-aligned” nations are all basket-cases, economically, and otherwise. These force multipliers include ballistic missile technology, which allows them to project influence far outside their borders; the use of non-state actors (terrorists) to fight proxy wars and terrorist insurgencies; and access to vast amounts of mineral wealth, which permits these nations to purchase both influence and what they could not create on their own.

These are countries—Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and others—incapable of running themselves, and yet, they all seek to cast down the U.S. from its pedestal of the world’s sole world power: to cast down and replace. These nations are subject to the whims of their irresponsible leaders. The leaders of these nations care only for personal aggrandizement, or bringing about the apocalypse. The citizens of these countries are pawns to be cast aside by the leaders, when necessary. Mutually assured destruction will not deter men seeking apocalypse. MAD will not deter those who believe that they, themselves, would be safe in the event of a response from the U.S.

Iraq may be used as a terrorist recruiting tool, but it was used that way prior to the Iraq War. Tucking tail and running will only serve to embolden the autocrats of the NAM. “Strategic redeployment” will only serve to provide verification of the weakness of the U.S. “Strategic redeployment” will provide an affirmation of their belief that they are purifying their nations, while the degenerate U.S. “slouches to Gomorrah”.

These thugs have identified the U.S. as the source of their problems and a symbol of all that is wrong with the world. Any sign of weakness will serve as an invitation to attack. With Chavez organizing a coalition of thug-ocracies in Latin America, it is dangerous to invite attack. With Taiwan and Japan presently in range of North Korean warheads, it is foolish to demonstrate that we are unable to stand by our friends in the face of resistance. With Israel, Turkey, and Iraq within what Iran deems to be their sphere of influence, it is madness to permit them the opportunity to act with a free hand there.

An excellent article on Kazakhstan appeared at NRO today. This is another example of granting legitimacy to brutal autocrats.

Mark Goldblatt writes an excellent article on terrorist recruitment tools, pointing out that Iraq was a justification used to recruit terrorists and attack the U.S. long before the Second Iraq War.

Finally watched the Wallace/Clinton interview.  I stopped, rewound, and paused frequently.  It was interesting on several levels.  It's been covered from the political level countless times and political food-fights don't typically interest me all that much.  I found it much more interesting on a forensic level (which explains the stopping, rewinding, etc).

Wallace set the interview up perfectly by establishing a baseline of Clinton's typical voice pitch, tone, and cadence and of his movements and body language.  Once the baseline was established, Wallace got into it. 

This is much the same as conducting an interrogation or interview (the latter being an area I'm much more "familiar" with).  The interviewer asks innocuous questions in order to gauge what is the interviewee's typical reactions and behavior.  Once the baseline has been established the interviewer will be better able to gauge the interviewee's truthfulness.  Several things, however, may skew this.  One of these is a righteous anger.  Not having seen a righteous anger from Clinton, I haven't a baseline there, so, what follows is conjecture based upon my own observations of a limited sample (I am also constrained by the media, i.e. watching a recorded interview rather than watching, or conducting, live).  Wallace did end the interview with more innocuous questions in order to formulate a contrast-type baseline, which is helpful.

I'm not going to go over the interview frame by frame, but will focus on patterns of behavior. 

At the start of the interview, Clinton was leaning back in the chair, with his shoulders squared to Wallace, and one leg crossed over the other.  This is basically the natural position of an interviewee: relaxed, alert, and portraying honesty and openness.  He answered the first few questions in this manner.  His movements were fluid.  His voice was steady and measured.  His face was natural and relaxed.  His body position was stable.  His hands stayed within the "box" (within the torso) and were used in a natural and non-threatening manner.

Once the trap was sprung, Clinton leaned forward aggressively (the fight position of the fight or flight reaction).  He changed his body position frequently when answering questions, suggesting extreme discomfort (or hemorrhoids).  His hands moved outside the "box" and were used aggressively to make points.  His movements were jerky and unnatural, and he frequently changed position.  His facial expressions became increasingly unnatural.  His forehead was furrowed and his eyes were wide, an expression usually associated with a haunted house, or narrowed, which is just kind of weird (unless you're Lyle Lovett).  His voice pitch varied from his regular pitch to increased pitch.  His speech pattern quickened and was far less measured and considered.

These reactions can all be associated with nervousness or anger.  Clinton is not nervous and demonstrated that during the establishment of the baseline.  Clinton is an experienced television personality and I believe it is safe to discard the possibility of nervousness, or a related state.

Anger can be anger at being caught out, or innocent anger, and at this point in my discussion I don't believe I've discussed anything that needs to push the scale, definitely, in either direction.

When one considers Clinton's responses, one is struck by the fact that he was more interested in questioning the motive of Wallace, his accusers, or the 9/11 Commission Report, than he did in responding to the underlying accusation.  This is a response far more common among the guilty accused, than it is among the innocent accused.  The first response of the innocent accused, typically, is to deny the accusation; the first response of the guilty accused, typically, is to question the source of the information.  Also, Clinton's answers tended to be qualified by appeals to authority: "no one knew",  "Richard Clarke", or "read his book". 

Then we arrive at the end of the interview, when Wallace asked more innocuous questions.  Clinton calmed down rather quickly.  He resumed his relaxed, stable posture (if striking a petulent demeanor, possibly consistant with either guilty accused angry at being caught out, or innocent accused angry at being accused), leaning back in his chair (the threat is gone).  (He did use many stress relieving movements with his hands around his face, which is associated with nervousness.)  His voice was again steady and his responses considered.  His face relaxed and his forehead was no longer furrowed to an odd degree.  His arm and hand gestures returned to the "box" and became again explanatory, rather than aggressive.

At the end of the interview, Clinton forced Wallace to lean far into the handshake, while he did nothing more than put his hand out.

All in all, it was a rather pathetic performance.  I will, however, keep the tape in order to maintain a practice tape of identifying verbal and non-verbal cues (I didn't listen all that closely for verbal cues, as the passage of time has made my memories of the relevant situation rather less than I'd like, to be certain that I'm noting actual verbal cues and not my own biases).  Clinton demonstrated many cues consistant with deception, but nothing is a be-all end-all.  That said, I'm fairly certain Clinton was deceitful in the interview.

One last thing that struck me was his eye control.  It was amazing.  People typically have a recall side and a creation side, that they look to when thinking.  Clinton never took his eyes off of Wallace.  Maybe this is Clinton's long experience on television, but it did not even appear stressful (I've seen people come close to pulling a muscle in their neck when trying to avoid moving their eyes, during exercises)

I’m willing to stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the Iraq war is “creating” terrorists. What of it?

Iraq is an excuse. AQ did not need Iraq as recruiting tool. They’ve used U.S. support for Israel; U.S. oppression of Iraq in 1998; U.S. occupation of The Land of the Two Holy Places; and now, U.S. rejection of the Kyoto treaty, U.S. economic imbalance, U.S. budget deficit, and U.S. uninsured. If these guys want a justification, they’ll find it. If all else fails, they can hark back 900 years to the sack of Jerusalem, or 500 years to the Reconquista.

AQ turned from the Soviets to the U.S. (after UBL’s mentor, Azzam, met an unfortunate end by natural causes: a car bomb). This is the late 1980’s. We weren’t in Iraq yet, for anyone cursed with a public school education. We had assisted the mujahideen in Afghanistan, through Pakistan’s ISI (too bad we either did not know or did not care that ISI was basically a terrorist organization, supporting terrorists in Kashmir and creating the Taliban). Since then, we’ve intervened on behalf of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. We’ve brought attention and pressure (far too little) on the Sudan on behalf of Muslims.

What we do has not a whit to do with why they would like us to die or submit. Who we are has everything to do with why they want us to die or submit. We are liberal (in the Walter Williams sense). We separate the state from religion. Hollywood makes vapid, stupid (and embarrassingly entertaining) movies and television shows.

Unless we are prepared to submit to dhimmitude, the Islamic fascists will find reasons to kill us. It is so easy to find justification these days: the culture of victim-hood and moral relativism make it easy to claim that one is merely responding in kind, even if the original harm was centuries ago. Those who live in “non-aligned” nations are permitted institutional memories that would put the proverbial elephant to shame. Any harm, at any time, committed by anyone is justification for the most horrible acts (on/off topic: Bob Mugabe destroying his country to reverse “imperialism” that he ignored for two decades)

If we were to leave Iraq now, in the misapprehension that so doing would make us safer, we would hand AQ not only a powerful recruiting tool, but a victory, which would have all kinds of repercussions:

"…If the Ummah is cleansed, then the glory of the Ummah will return. This is, according to VDH, one of the hallmarks of fascism (desire to return to a time of purity).

This is why any sign of weakness in the West is grasped by UBL (and Nasrallah, and Ahmadinejad...and Chavez, et cetera). It is an affirmation of their belief that they are becoming more pure and growing stronger than the West. It is a fulfillment of their belief that they are close to overthrowing the source of their problems and flaws."

(Good Lord, I just cited myself). We would be validating AQ’s belief of their eventual and imminent victory.

Andrew McCarthy at NRO has article discussing “terrorist creation” in light of our pre-Iraq war policy.

A key paragraph:

"Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, jihadism is attractive to tens of millions of people in what is called the Muslim world. Out of a total population of about 1.3 billion, that may not be a very high percentage (although I daresay it is higher than we like to think). But it is the ideology that attracts recruits. Grievances are just rhetoric. If the bin [Ladins] did not have Iraq, or the Palestinians, or Lebanon, or Pope Benedict, or cartoons, or flushed Korans, or Dutch movies, or the Crusades, they’d figure out something else to beat the drums over. Or they’d make something up — there being lots of license to improvise when one purports to be executing Allah’s will."

Ideology is the driving force, and that ideology is Islamic fascism. Islam is the vehicle in which they drive and the excuse used to justify terrorism (it doesn’t help that the Medina verses—newer verses that abrogate older, peaceful Mecca verses—justify murder, rape, pillage, and dishonesty, cf. Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet; Robert Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers; or Rev. Menezes, The Life and Religion of Mohammed).