Haven't ragged on the diminutive dictator, Mr. Kim, in a while.  The time has come to keep this charter member of the Axis of Evil in mind (in mine, at least). 

North Korea blames U.S. for breakdown in talks

Yeah, that's it.

I'd guess it's the fact that Mr. Kim cannot be trusted.  He hoodwinked Jimma in 1994 (after Jimma went behind Clinton's back) and got economic aid and a free decade to work on his nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Mr Choe, a deputy Foreign Minister, demands that the U.S. makes concessions before North Korea will even consider continuing talks.

Who's in the position of strength here?  Who is in a position to make demands?

That'd be the U.S. and Japan (China, Russia, and South Korea are just as happy to appease and reward Mr. Kim's irresponsible behavior).

North Korea is starving to death.  North Korea has zero economy beyond the black market (nuclear and ballistic missile technology and counterfeiting U.S. currency).  The U.S. and Japan are in a position of strength, and were it not for North Korea's neighbors would be able to impose responsibility on Mr. Kim.

We've had a dozen years of negotiations where all Mr. Kim has done is continue supporting terrorism (on the State Department list of terrorist sponsoring nations, which is why North Korea made the Axis of Evil in the first place: North Korea was, and probably is, one of the leading state supporters of terrorism), continue developing North Korea's nuclear programs and ballistic missile programs, continue exporting nuclear and ballistic missile technology, and continue counterfeiting U.S. currency.

Diplomacy does not work if the weaker party has no incentive to change its behavior.  12 years of failed "talks" have demonstrated to Mr. Kim that he can string along the "international community", obtaining handouts, while at the same time pursuing what he'd be doing anyway, only now it's subsidized by the rest of the world. 

Mr. Kim sets a terrible example for Ahmadinejad.

Both men face no consequences for their intransigence.  In point of fact, both men are rewarded for their irresponsible behavior. 

They are granted concessions.  The EU and the UN are willing to give in to whatever Mr Kim and Ahmadihejad request for the flimsy promise to behave, that niether dictator has the slightest intention to keep.  And how can I claim they've no intention to keep their promises?  Years of deceit. 

They are granted legitimacy.  By engaging Mr. Kim and Ahmadinejad on the topic of nuclear weapons a degree of legitimacy is granted them.  The longer the "talks" drag on, the louder the voices become that say, "Mutually assured destruction worked during the Cold War; they can be deterred".

Even granting, for the sake of argument, that Ahmadinejad and Mr. Kim can be deterred, does anyone want a return to the Cold War: hiding under desks; going to high alert whenever North Korea or Iran runs an exercise; and granting viscious thugs, such as Mr. Kim and Ahmadinejad, extended reigns.  Nuclear weapons are nearly as much about the prestige they will grant to the dictator, thereby solidifying support for him and delegitimizing any opposition, as they are about the ability to impose their will regionally (or provide non-state actors, i.e. terrorists, with the means to strike a horrible blow against the U.S. or a U.S. ally, such as Japan). 

Does anyone want Mr. Kim to be able to force his will in the Far East?  Could we permit that, in light of our allies, Japan, Taiwan, and Australia?

Does anyone want Ahmadinejad to be able to force his will on the Arabian Peninsula, thereby controlling a huge percentage of the world's oil and natural gas resevoirs?  Could we permit that, in light of the fact that we have military personnel all over the area (from Diego Garcia to Qatar and Turkey)?  Could we permit Ahmadinejad to obtain nuclear weapons, in light of our alliance with Israel, or our NATO ally, Turkey?

It is long past time to decide where we will stand.  Will we stand in a corner, hiding from the world, or will we stand with democrats across the world?

I’ve broached this topic several times without ever providing an answer: what is the standard by which success in the war on Islamic fascism ought to be judged?

It is not the death of any one man.  Would Islamic fascist terrorism disappear if and when UBL dies (if he hasn't already)?  The question is so ridiculous as to hardly merit consideration.  Nasrallah and Hezb'Allah.  HAMAS.  Islamic Jihad.  Abu Sayyaf.  Moro Islamic Liberation Front.  GSPC.  GIA.  Many of the preceeding are AQ affiliated, but, with the exception of GSPC, all these groups either pre-existed AQ or formed independantly. 

Nor is it the dissolution of any one group.  How would one even know if AQ has been eliminated?  AQ has used different names, such as World Islamic Front for Jihad against Crusaders and Jews, in its attacks.  UBL has disclaimed responsibility for 9/11 and has claimed responsibility for 9/11 many times.  As discussed in previous posts and demonstrated in the preceding paragraph, AQ is but one example of a larger problem.

Nor is it the pipedream of the elimination of terrorism.  Terrorism is a phenomenon of human nature extending back to the Zeolots and the Siccari to the Assassins to the anarchists of 19th century Russia.  Terrorism will always be the tactic chosen by the violent weak.
 
Likewise, it is not the elimination of Islamic fascism, for one cannot eliminate an ideology.  Consider National Socialism.  Although it was destroyed in Germany in WWII, it took root in Egypt in Nasserism.  The Ba'ath party is an example of National Socialism.  Neo-Nazis are still extant.  Islamic fascism will also not be eliminated.  The only hope is to marginalize it until it is no longer a viable and respected ideology, as has been done to National Socialism in the West (although it is still an accepted ideology in parts of the Muslim world).

When then ought we to be able to consider ourselves successful? What is the endgame? 

A Jacksonian discusses the AQ endgame; what is ours? When can we say, “We have finished, there is nothing more that can be gained”?

Hopefully I can count on the half dozen regulars here to help me out.

We’re facing a much more amorphous entity than at any time previously, in our great nation’s history. It is not like in WWII where we fought until we received an unconditional surrender. There is no one who could surrender to us.

Where I’m at right now is defining victory in terms of failure. If we stop while irresponsible states still feel free to defy us (NKorea and Iran), we have failed. If we stop while states still feel permitted to engage in low-level wars through terrorist proxies, we have failed. If we accept defeat on the field of battle, we have failed, for to do so is to demonstrate weakness and invite attack.

Terrorism, however, will not be defeated, destroyed, or eliminated. The best that we can hope for is to make states unwilling to support terrorism. If terrorists are confined to their own devices, without state-support, I suppose we have greatly reduced the existential threat posed.

This is not the end, though, is it? What about Aum Shrinkyo. They were able to develop weaponized chemical weapons and were working on weaponizing biological agents, such as Ebola, without state support, before Shoko Asaharus was jailed. Aum has not disappeared either.

So, again, what constitutes victory?

Victor Davis Hanson on Islamic fascism

An excellent examination of why fascism is the proper term.

My thoughts:

I’ve been trying to switch over to “war on Islamic fascism” for some time, but I’ve been failing miserably to be consistent. This ought to be a bit of an impetus to stick to a definition. Defining who our enemy is, is valuable to determining the bounds of the war and what constitutes success. Until we are able to agree who we are fighting, even if we don’t agree on the name, we won’t be able to coherently define victory.

Whether we use jihadis, Islamic fascists, Islamism or what-have-you, so long as the definition is the same, we know we’re on the same page and we can determine what will constitute success.

A problem confronting us, however, is the great number of people who define our enemy too narrowly. Whether it be al-Qaida or Ussamah bin Ladin, too many people limit our enemy to something that is “easier” to achieve. By limiting the scope of our just aggression, they serve to make our own defeat more likely. We may achieve such limited objectives, but unless we deal with the “root” of the problem, we will never achieve victory.

And what is the “root” of the problem?

Is it poverty? Consider the engineer, UBL; the doctor, Zawahri; the student, Atta; or the intellectual Qutb. None of these dwelt in poverty and none of these had their options limited. These were all men for whom the world was theirs for the taking.

Is it imperialism? Why did Indians not resort to terrorism to gain independence from Britain? Why did South Africa not resort to terrorism to gain independence? Many nations and people have been subjected to “imperialism” and most have not resorted to terrorism, why do people of independent states cry “imperialism” to justify murder?

Weakness. The Arabian Peninsula was under the control of Turks, Abbasids, and Egyptians over the course of time, why did they not engage in terrorism then?

Weakness. UBL, Yousef, Nasrallah, Qutb, and Arafat were and are all embarrassed by the state of affairs in their countries. SA had to rely on infidel Americans to save them from another Arab state. Qutb’s Egypt was and is virtually totally dependant on handouts from the Dar al-Harb. Arafat’s Arab allies were unable to dislodge a completely outnumbered Jewish state. Nasrallah is declaring victory when Israel degrades Hezb’Allah and invades Lebanon at will, but does not destroy Hezb’Allah (talk about moving the goal posts).

Muslim oil wealth could not have been discovered, developed, or exploited without the infidel West. The airplanes piloted by Atta and his ilk were invented and built in the infidel West. The arms, munitions, and materiel that arm Muslim armies and terrorists were all built outside the Muslim world. This an embarrassment to those who cannot see flaws in themselves. These embarrassments must be imposed by an outside force, as scapegoat.

This weakness, or rather inability to keep up with the infidel west, despite the head start the Muslim world started with by being the receptacles of Greek, Persian, Egyptian, and Roman learning. The West passed the Muslim world by; and UBL’s solution to this turn of events is to return to a time when the Muslim world was pure. 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.

This is why we cannot show irresolution in the face of our enemy. If we were to turn back, unfinished, we would have been better to have not started.

NRO Editorial from 09/14/1998 (turned up on The Corner this weekend).

COMEDY Central's The Daily Show called it "Operation Desert Shield Me from Impeachment." Funny, but too cynical. The U.S. missile strikes against terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan were a response to a real threat: They targeted the operations of Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind who, according to U.S. intelligence, was responsible for the brutal bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and was plotting further attacks on Americans.

Congressional leaders were therefore right to support President Clinton's action. The last thing Republicans should do is add to the inhibitions and hesitations of an Administration congenitally averse to the forthright use of American military power. The White House's blatant exploitation of the crisis for its own political purposes-dragging Mr. Clinton back from vacation for a portentous Oval Office address to the nation-should be a source of amusement only. Richard Nixon, too, tried to claim indispensability for his foreign-policy expertise-a much more valid claim in his case, and at the height of the Cold War to boot. It didn't help him.

Many deserters still got paid

This is an example of the gov't wasting tax dollars, and I find myself not caring about the wasted tax dollars.

These S.O.B.s ought to be in Leavenworth.  These people are a bleeding disgrace.

Thomas Joscelyn unearths yet more information contrary to the Senate Intelligence Committee report.   

"Read the whole thing. While our Senate Intelligence Committee puts out a ridiculously erroneous report on Iraq's lack of ties to al Qaeda prior to the war, the deputy prime minister of Iraq explains that that supposedly non-existent alliance tried to kill him."

Thomas Joscelyn scroll to 14 Sept 06

But what would the supposed victim know, eh?

Mitsubishi radio ad (h/t smalldeadanimals originally from Mark Steyn)

It is obvious that, to many people, the first blow in the war on terror occurred 09/11/01. It did not. The first blow fell in 1979 with the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. It continued apace throughout the ‘80s and ‘90s with barracks bombings in Beruit, and in Somalia, and in New York, with the first world trade center bombing. Blows fell against the Achille Lauro and against a discoteque in Germany. The perpetrators of these attacks were PLO affiliated groups, Libyan agents, and Hezb’Allah. Our enemy is not only UBL and AQ; UBL and AQ are but the most visible manifestation of our enemy.

Saddam got in on the opposite side when he attempted to murder former President Bush. Saddam attempted to destroy RFE/RL when it started transmitting into Iraq. Saddam hosted ANO and took Yasin and Abbas into “protective custody” for their roles in the attack on Achille Lauro and the first World Trade Center bombing. The Clinton administration connected Saddam to the pharmaceuticals plant in the Sudan bombed in 1998.

Why would the war on terror be limited to al Qaida? AQ is merely the most potent manifestation of a global phenomenon. To stop at AQ is address a symptom, while leaving the underlying ailment untouched. One may as well treat a hemorrhage by wiping away the blood without dressing the wound from which the blood flows.

A war on terror (Islamic fascism) must confront Islamic fascism in all of its manifestations, otherwise one would almost have been better off to have done nothing. By failing to complete the war, or in choosing not to fight it, after the war has been joined, one shows oneself to be weak and ripe for the picking. Weakness, real or perceived, invites attack.

To limit the war on Islamic fascism to the most visible manifestation of Islamic fascism is, if I may use vernacular, soup sandwich.

HAMAS firm on not recognizing Israel

At least they’re honest.

Too bad their viewpoint is at odds with reality.

For some reason this is a setback for the formation of a unity government. I cannot imagine why.

Fatah does not recognize the right of Israel to exist either.

HAMAS and Fatah disagree on whether or not to destroy Israel all at once, or if they should take whatever land Israel is willing to trade for “peace” and use that land from which to destroy Israel.

Why then, did Arafat turn down Barak and Clinton in 2000 when he was offered 99% of what he wanted, with the remaining 1% to be negotiated at a later date?

Fatah was already facing competition from HAMAS and Islamic Jihad for leadership of Palestine. All three groups want the same thing, but the group in the position of leadership gets to steal money from the donations that are required to keep the country afloat, to the extent that Palestine has ever been afloat.

Actually, that may be another point of contention between Fatah and HAMAS. Fatah has grown fat on power and is more concerned with maintaining power, for the benefits that power brings, than they are in the destruction of Israel. Donations will slow down if Israel is actually destroyed, and Fatah leadership does not want that.

HAMAS, on the other hand, has not yet grown complacent in power. HAMAS has not yet reached the point where they are content to terrorize and murder Israelis periodically, in order to keep Israel from withdrawing totally from Gaza and the West Bank which would slow down the donations to whoever leads Palestine. HAMAS may be vicious murderers, but at least they’re still principled (t.i.c.).

Arafat launched the second intifada in order to strengthen his grip on the people of Palestine (and on the wallets of western governments). Consolidation of power is the name of the game. The people of Palestine are pawns in the hands of corrupt terrorist/politicians and corrupt dictators in other Arab countries. Palestine is nothing more than a long-running shakedown, with the people as tools. If Arab countries really cared about the plight of Palestinians, they would grant citizenship to the Palestinians living within their borders, but they do not.

In the end, a unity government is merely a means to enrich more “leaders” at the expense of the Palestinian people and the taxpayers of the West.

Corruption.

Terrorism: crime or act of war was posted at viewfromtheisland. I attempted to post a comment, but started heading down an insupportable path (wherein the differentiation was radical v reactionary, which is illogical).  This is the response I wanted to leave.

Whether terrorism is a crime or an act of war depends on the context of the act. The milieu out of whence came McVeigh and Nichols was preparing for a conflict with the U.S. government. The far right of the 1980s (think “war in ’84”) was proactive. The far right of the 1990s was orientated toward the belief that the government would attempt to take their firearms or otherwise degrade rights and freedoms and become an oppressive arm of a world government (the Brady Bill, Ruby Ridge, and Waco were typically seen as signs of this imminent attempt) and was therefore prepared to respond. That milieu was content to be left alone, however. Consider, for example, the Montana freemen and the siege mentality that pervaded many of these groups (cannot remember the name of the complex in Arkansas, but that is another example). These groups were, for the most part, determined not to be caught unawares, as they perceived Weaver and Koresh to have been.

On the other hand, UBL twice issued declarations of war against the U.S. (1996 and 1998). This is not to say that he, or his organization, was capable of actually confronting the U.S. militarily; ergo, the “war” would take the form chosen by the violent weak: terrorism.

The 1990s had been one long running war, from the perspective of UBL. From Somalia, to the East Africa bombings, or the Khobar Towers bombing, or the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, AQ was selecting targets that symbolized, or were part of, the U.S. government. AQ was using illegitimate tactics (What is terrorism? discusses legitimate tactics, legitimate targets, and the like in relation to defining terrorism), but he was striking directly at American interests.

Long story short, terrorism can be treated as either a crime, or an act of war, depending on the circumstances and the context of the specific act of terrorism. This is not to say that law enforcement has no part to play when terrorism is an act of war, but captured terrorists, under such a circumstances, must be treated, not as criminals, but as enemy combatants.

In circumstances where an act of terrorism takes place in a context where it makes sense to treat the act as a criminal act, the act ought to be treated as a criminal act. Doing so removes meaning from the act that the actor had intended to convey. It is further punishment for the terrorist, as oftentimes the terrorist is seeking to demonstrate his existence and his potency.

In circumstances where there is a pattern, or the heinousness of one act is such that it may be elevated to that of a pattern, terrorism must be treated as an act of war. This is so because war allows the government to mobilize more resources to confront the threat.

Clearcommentary posted the excellent Ahmadinejad at the UN. What follows is based upon the response left there.

Iran is an onrushing train and the US, the UN, and the EU are picnicking on the tracks, oblivious to the danger.

Cassandras shout; but unheeded, their prophecies fall on the deaf ears of the EU, UN, and US.

Perhaps the boy has cried "wolf" once too often.

I doubt it.

Iran sees the US as weak. Iran saw the evidence of Viet Nam, Tehran, Lebanon, Somalia, the unanswered provocations throughout the 90s and saw the same weak horse that UBL saw. Forceful American action in Afghanistan and Iraq, in pursuit of U.S. interests, shook Iranian confidence in the notion of the American "weak horse", but only briefly.

Fecklessness and infighting and calls for a precipitous withdrawal of troops and its attendant declaration of surrender have emboldened Iran again. Iran sees an Iraq in turmoil; an irrelevant Saudi Arabia and Gulf Emirates; a Pakistan on the brink of revolution; a useless and foundationless UN; and an appeasing EU. Iran sees its opportunity to thrust itself onto the world stage (and perhaps, trigger Armageddon) and asserts its "rightful" place as a world power par excellance and without peer.

Iran is consolidating power by gathering a circle of sycophants about Ahmadinejad and the altar of America-hatred. Russia bows to the mullahs because the mullahs provide currency to Russia. Putin does not appear to care that Iran is an ideological ally of the perpetrators of Beslan.

Chavez and Ahmadinejad are cementing a partnership to lead the “non-aligned”, developing nations into a coalition to oppose America. Chavez has seized the leadership of Latin American leadership from the ailing Castro and, with Evo Morales of Bolivia, seeks to reverse (or nullify) the Monroe Doctrine.

The House of Assad, like the House of Usher, is in imminent danger of collapse from the evil of its inhabitants. Bashir Assad seeks to prop up the rotting rafters of his house by means of a terrorist-sponsoring alliance with Ahmadinejad.

Iran is building to eruption. The tremors of Ahmadinejad’s desire for apocalypse and the destruction of Israel build to a crescendo.

Ahmadinejad gathers acolytes.

The West gathers wool.

Choices don't have consequences

The US has joined the EU and Russia in endorsing the establishment of a unity government with HAMAS and Fatah.

Apparently, this provides the fig leaf to shield this diplomatic miscarriage. Fatah is just as committed to the destruction of Israel as HAMAS is. Fatah headed the corrupt kleptocracy that preceded the current corrupt kleptocracy.

Why do we feel the need to reward bad behavior in the hopes of changing it?

I’ve discussed this previously, as regarding Iran (feel free to scroll down to find articles concerning Iran), but diplomacy consisting of offering gifts in exchange for responsible behavior is not diplomacy it is bribery, and it is condescending. If concessions are to be granted by the strong party, then they should only be granted after they have been earned (or better yet, don’t bribe people into good behavior; reward responsible behavior and punish bad behavior).

HAMAS and Fatah are both committed to the destruction of Israel. Admitting Israel has a right to exist is a step in the right direction, but it does not come close to responsible behavior. Responsible behavior is establishing a stable state, that does not rob, oppress, or enslave its people and does not use illegitimate (non-state) militias as proxies with which to attack neighbors. A responsible Palestinian government will be more concerned with establishing an economy, than in prosecuting an ancient grievance. A responsible Palestinian government will not need to subsist on handouts.

Wikipedia defies China's censors

Good for them.  

The fiction that Google can subvert China from within, by bowing to pressure, should be lost.  By bowing to PRC censors, google demonstrates the authority of the Communist regime: not a good signal to send to a tyranical government. 

Presumptive PM Abe should continue economic reforms initiated by Koizumi.

Abe will likely continue Koizumi’s support for the U.S., and the missile defense system, especially in light of NKorea’s ballistic missile tests this summer. Abe will likely push for a different understanding of Japan’s Constitution, in order to allow Japan to have an offensive military capability. Considering the part of the world that Japan dwells in, this is something that the U.S. should not fear, but rather should welcome.

Abe wants to make patriotism part of the curriculum of Japan’s educational system.  This, along with the previous are signs of a possible shift to the "right".

The article quotes "experts" who fear Japan may drift to the right, possibly to populism and nationalism, as Abe is not as politically savvy as is Koizumi. I’ve discussed Japan and its possible shift to the right previously.

Thai monarch gave nod, experts say

Thai army promises new PM in two weeks

I confess, I’ve paid little (okay, no) attention to the situation in Thailand.

This is interesting. Thailand apparently follows the Turk model of the military guaranteeing the continuation of democracy.

From what I see in the two linked articles, the deposed PM was attempting to “Chavez” power: he was eroding checks on executive authority. He was also slighting the Thai monarch, who demonstrates that moral authority still means something.

Interesting.

Update Howard shocked at coup.  Apparently I misjudged the situation (what are the chances of that?).  Thank you to Carole at  highmindedlunacy for pointing out another aspect of this coup.