Cannot remember the source--some radio news, ABC, CBS or whatever--but I heard a report that Nasrallah is declaring victory.  Here's a surprise. 

Nasrallah also said Hezb'Allah would use the ceasefire to repair damaged homes (read: rebuild fighting positions), gather aid (read: get arms from Syria and Iran), and distribute aid to those harmed by the air strikes (read: position the newly gained missiles and small arms).

Wow this is way more informative if one reads between the lines and fills in the blanks with what Hezb'Allah has done with every other break in the fighting. 

For anyone who still has a question: Hezb'Allah has no desire for peace.  Hezb'Allah only desires to destroy Irael and push the Jews into the sea.

Why does the civilized world do anything other than arrest or kill them?  They have no desire to negotiate.  They will offer no consideration to make one believe they have any desire to negotiate in good faith. 

Sheer idiocy.  At the UN.  Go figure.

Did anybody else notice that Ahmadinejad could have been Howard Dean?  "I'm sorry to hear that 1% of your population is incarcerated...And 45million of your citizens don't have health care..." (poor paraphrase, but you get the idea).

That's just eerie.  Same thing with UBL when he checks in.  I think the NYT can rest assured that whenever they disclose a classified program, the bad guys are reading it.  Good for you NYT.

(Notice how this post just went off the rails...sweet)

Radke stymies Blue Jays

I don't know why this is a surprise.  He's been one of the most consistent right-handed starters in the American League over the course of his 12 year career and, since 2002 (especially since 2003), it's been Radke and Santana leading the playoff charge for the Twins.  Schnikes.

Go Twins.

Sri Lanka Crisis

Tamils reject peace overture

Why does the world only pay attention to the Palestinians?  The Tamils have been seeking to govern themselves for three decades.  The Tamils even popularized the suicide bomber; granted they have been much more discriminatory, targeting politicians, such as Rahji Ghandi in 1991.

The UN holds no conferences equating the majority Sinhalese state of Sri Lanka with racism.  The UN Human Rights Committees (in whatever manifiestation) hold no hearings on the "atrocities" committed against the Tamils, such as denying them an autonomous state.

The same can be said of Armenians and Kurds, and countless other minority ethnic groups.  The only appreciable difference is not that the Palestinians commit acts of terror and others do not, for the Tamils have their own terrorist organization, LTTE, and commit acts of terror.  What, then, is the difference?

I'm going out on a limb here.  The UN is made up of dictatorships.  Many third world dictatorships are allied with the Arab League, against the West.  Arab League members, such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, promulgate the "Lie that won't die": The protocols of the learned elders of Zion. 

For those of you fortunate enough not to have encountered this work of forgery from around the turn of the 20th century, it is a work that purports to tell of a Jewish plot to control the world.  There are other elements, such as freemasonry and the like, but the central plot line concerns a Jewish plot to control the world.  This has been documented as a fraud; it was most likely written by members of the czar's secret police, and justified pograms against the Jews in imperial Russia.  I believe it was based on a French work from the middle of the 19th century.

Where then, does this leave us?  Anti-Semitism.  But not really anti-Semitism, as Arabs are Semitic peoples, ethnically speaking.  It is the same hatred of the Jews that has manifested itself throughout history: from Haman, to the blood libel, to the Third Reich.  The UN is a body that fundamentally hates or fears Jews.  Many peoples throughout the world hate or fear likewise.  (Fear and hatred of the unknown are concepts I don't feel the need to address at the moment).

Palestinians are paid attention to because their opponents are Jews.  Granted, Palestinians are second-class citizens, or worse, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Arab world, whereas Palestinian Arabs are full-fledged members of Israeli society.  Palestinians are paid attention to, solely because their opponents are Jews.

The US is presently facing a series of choices that will determine how we are viewed by rogue regimes, and terrorists. The US faces calls to withdraw from Iraq. Afghanistan still faces large hurdles.

And now we have NKorea test firing its missiles, threatening US allies, Japan, Taiwan, and SKorea, and possibly the US itself.

This is concerned primarily with the Global War on Terror. I don’t like the phrase; as has been pointed out countless times, one cannot fight a tactic. The politically correct notion that we cannot name our adversary for fear of offending someone hinders the proper definition of this war, and therefore, the war itself. If we are unable to determine who our enemies are, how can we defeat them?

Terrorism is the tactic chosen by our adversaries. What is terrorism? Crenshaw defines terrorism by what it is not, guerilla warfare[1] . Fanon and Herman held that only states can be guilty of terrorism[2] . Laquer reports the DOD definition of terrorism[3] as: “the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce and intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives”. Hoffman spends the first 30 pages of Inside Terrorism (1998) discussing the changing definition of terrorism. Stern defines terrorism[4] as an “act or threat of violence against non-combatants with the objective of exacting revenge, intimidating, or otherwise influencing an audience”. White, in Terrorism: An introduction (1998) gives many different definitions of terrorism[5] .

The common themes of these definitions are:

1) illegitimate force;

2) directed against non-combatants;

3) in the furtherance of control, or a political or ideological goal.

We now have a basic definition with which to work. Each element may be subject to further definition. An example of this is the definition of “non-combatant”. Palestinian terrorist groups hold that all Israeli citizens are legitimate targets because all Israelis serve, or have served, in the military, and Israeli children will grow up to serve in the military. This is not an accurate depiction of Israel’s military service requirements, but that does not matter to those who seek the merest shred of legitimacy to cover themselves with. The US Department of State holds that military members are non-combatants unless there is a declared, recognized state of hostilities. The State Department definition seems to be more just and logical, but this is merely one example of the definitional problems within the definition.

Pyramid structure of terrorist organizations

To return to a point briefly alluded to previously concerning the “danger” of giving offense by identifying our enemy, I will briefly discuss the structure of a terrorist organization.

Terrorist groups have a pyramid structure: very few people at the top, and many people at the bottom. Located at the top are the planners and ideological leaders. Osama bin Ladin and Ramzi bin al-Shihb were both examples, now only OBL is. Burke argues that Al Qaeda consists of roughly two dozen “venture capitalists” in the Tora Bora[6] . These do not typically get their hands dirty. They tend to remain above the fray. They may have graduated to leadership, by clawing their way up the ranks, or by getting their hands dirty and surviving; or, like the Blind Sheikh, they may have provided “moral” guidance and rationalization for acts of terrorism.

Beneath the planners is the cadre, the lieutenants. These are the people who carry out the acts of terrorism. Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Yousef were examples of cadre.

Beneath the cadre are the active supporters. They provide logistical support. They run safe houses and provide money or special skills, such as document forgery.

Lastly, are the passive supporters. These are those who identify with the cause, but who may be uneasy about the tactics. These provide the milieu in which the cadre may move without fear of being turned in to the authorities. The passive supporters may be unwilling to actively support a group that may lose. In other words, they are still invested in the status quo.

Passive supporters

The fear of the politically correct is that by identifying our enemy we will drive the passive supporters into the active camp. Passive supporters are not our allies. At best, they are unwilling to commit. At worst, they are a fifth column that will undermine us.

If we cast off fears of political correctness we can shine light into the corners in which passive supporters hide. We can know who our enemies are, and who our allies are.

Who are our enemies?

Our enemies are people who claim to be Muslims, whether they are or not, I am not qualified to say. Our enemies profess the desire to defeat the West and guarantee the spread of Islam. The West is not guilty of supporting Israel. The West is not guilty of launching the crusades 900 years ago. The West is guilty of success. This success is threatening to our enemies. Our enemies see Western success as decadent, and our enemies fear that their co-religionists may be tempted to emulate our success. This must be stopped at any cost.

How is this potentiality to be stopped? This potentiality is stopped by demonstrating that the West’s apparent success is really weakness and decadence. Our enemies seek to demonstrate to their co-religionists that the way of the West is not the way to success. Only by returning to their version of Islam can success be achieved.

What is the war we are fighting then?

We are fighting a war against a violent Islamist ideology. To refer to our enemies as jihadists may not be theologically accurate, but it is simple, and expresses the idea in a way that is easy to grasp. We are fighting a War on Islamo-facism.

How is this war to be fought?

The war cannot be entirely fought on the battlefield. Then again, no war is. Wars are fought in the trenches, and at tables of diplomats; in dark alleys and souks, and computer-filled rooms. We must be willing to fight wars against supporters of terrorism and the violent Islamist ideology that motivates our enemies. We must be able to use a valid threat of force when we go to the bargaining table. We cannot negotiate merely to negotiate.

[1] The tripartite test proposed by Crenshaw is: guerillas use legitimate military tactics; guerillas attack legitimate military targets; and guerillas have a legitimate chance of success. Terrorists do not meet all of these standards. Guerillas may use, on occasion, terrorist tactics, but these are deviations from their strategy. Terrorists may use guerilla tactics, but they either lack a legitimate chance of success, or terrorism is their overarching strategy, and guerrilla tactics are deviations from that strategy.

[2] Both Fanon and Herman connect terrorism to action of state imperialism.

[3] The new terrorism (1999). Pp 5-6. Oxford University Press.

[4] The ultimate terrorists (1999). Pg. 11. Harvard University Press.

[5] Page nine has a chart covering several different definitions.

[6] Al Qaeda: Casting a shadow of terror (2003). I.B. Tauris and Company, Ltd. Burke argues that Al Qaeda functions as a venture capitalist firm of terrorism: individuals or groups bring terrorism plans to Al Qaeda, which then decides whether or not to fund and support (and to what extent) an act of terror. Affiliated groups are merely successful “start-ups”.

The original UN resolutions, which left Sadaam in power, required Sadaam to affirmatively demonstrate the destruction and dismantling of his WMD programs. He did not do so. Therefore, he was in violation of the resolutions granting him a ceasefire and an actual resumption of hostilities (as opposed to the cat and mouse game played by American and British pilots with Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries) was a foregone conclusion, if the US is to be respected. Countries may disagree with our policies; they may disagree with actions, our idea of diplomacy, or our use of the military. Other countries may even hate us and what they think we represent. If we bent to the whims of polls, in contradiction to our considered view of our national interest, we could not be respected and we would invite attack.

Consider, for example, the characterization of the US by bin Ladin. He considered us to be a paper tiger, who would run if we suffered any casualties. He saw the evidence of Viet Nam, Iran, Lebanon, and Somalia. He was high on the victory over the Soviets. He knew we could be pushed without suffering any repercussions. He hit us in Khobar. He hit us in the port of Aden. He hit sovereign US territory when he blew up embassies in East Africa. We did nothing and he knew we would do nothing; he had the evidence of Tehran.

In 2001 we were hit again. Bin Ladin had told us on multiple occasions why we would be hit (perceived or real offenses): infidel occupation of the Land of the Two Mosques; Israeli oppression of the Palestinians; and continued American and British oppression of Iraq. These reasons were given in 1996 and again in 1998 in “declarations of war” against the “crusader and Zionist alliance.” Bin Ladin would continue to hit us with impunity if we did nothing. The pattern was very clear.

Two months after the attack on New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, after Taliban refusals to turn over bin Ladin, we invaded Afghanistan. We used limited ground forces, with a reliance on the indigenous Northern Alliance, and airpower to overthrow the Taliban regime in six weeks. It has been claimed the Bush had a secret plan to invade Afghanistan before the attacks of 9/11, but he was just looking for a reason. Even if he did, how does that matter? He was prepared to engage a nation that was on the State Department list of terrorist sponsoring nations, was not recognized as legitimate, and was a consistent and flagrant violator of human rights—Is there supposed to be something wrong with that?

After deposing the Taliban regime, focus shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. Was this a natural progression?

Was the shift from Afghanistan to Iraq a natural progression, or was Operation Iraqi Freedom a “war of choice?” Perhaps Bush did not sell the necessity of the war as well as he ought, but that in no way detracts from the necessity of the War in Iraq. That's right, necessity, not choice. This was to be a War on Terror, not a war on Al Qaeda.

Taliban Afghanistan was a supporter of terrorism. Taliban Afghanistan merely hid Al Qaeda (see Jason Burke Al Qaeda: Casting a shadow of terror, 2003), provided money laundering assistance, and training areas (basically, hands off, carte blanche, etc). The Taliban did not request targets. The Taliban did not order targets. The Taliban did not actively sponsor specific act of terrorism.

This is in contrast to Sadaam's Iraq (hereafter referred to as Iraq), which provided training (Salman Pak), subsidized homicide bombers in Palestine, directly sponsored and requested specific acts (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague), committed terrorist acts itself (genocide against its own people), provided comfort and aid to the murderer behind Achille Lauro (Abu Abbas), provided aid and comfort to one of the original Trade Center bombers (Abdul Rahman Yasin), provided a base of operations (twice) to the Abu Nidal Organization, and sponsored the attempted murder of a Former American President (this should have been sufficient in 1994, especially when combined with Iraq's blatant disregard for the terms of the ceasefire that left Sadaam in power). Iraq had twice invaded surrounding nations (Iran and Kuwait, and a third and fourth, Israel and Saudi Arabia, if one counts the Scuds rained down on these nations), and was a destabilizing force in a region that is vital to our energy security. This does not even begin to address humanitarian concerns about the Oil for Food program, and the brutal oppression of minority groups. The US’s Global War on Terrorism would mean nothing if we did not invade such a nation.

There are those who claim that because Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, any attack on Iraq is, on its face, not justified and immoral. This is faulty reasoning. The war declared was not a war merely on Al Qaeda, but rather on those who use terrorist tactics to advance their causes. The preceding paragraph briefly lists Sadaam’s connections to terrorism and terrorist tactics. (See, also, Patterns of Global Terrorism, published by the State Department for the history of Iraq’s sponsorship of terrorism).

UN resolution: Hezb'Allah and Israel

"Hopes for a settlement received a significant boost when Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, said his militia would grudgingly abide by the cease-fire framework. But he warned that fighting would continue until all Israeli forces leave Lebanon — which depends on how fast peacekeepers can arrive and could takes weeks or longer".
--Israel tried a ceasefire in 2000.  They pulled out of southern Lebanon.  What did Hezb'Allah do?  They regrouped, rearmed, and prepared for the current offensive. 
All that Nasrallah's grudging agreement means is that Hezb'Allah's military capabilities are degraded.  Hezb'Allah's supply of arms is interrupted by Israel's embargo.  Hezb'Allah needs a breather in which to regroup, rearm, and prepare.  After all, they will win eventually; it is preordained.  Hezb'Allah has the counsel of Mohammed, who used treaties to build up military capabilities before using divine sanction to break the treaties, as a treaty with an infidel has no value.

"But the resolution, approved 15-0, did nothing to immediately halt the fighting that has killed at least 764 people on the Lebanese side and 130 Israelis".
--May I say, "no kidding"?  Any resolution, if not enforceable, is worthless.  When Stalin scoffed at the Pope's armies, "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?", he underestimated the moral authority of the Church.  There is no such problem with asking the same question of the UN: "The Secretary General?  How many divisions has he got?"  The UN lacks a military and moral authority.  The UN relies solely upon voluntary compliance and accomplishes nothing but the condemnation of Israel.

Continuing in the vein of the previous, a comment on "compassionate conservativism".

Compassionate conservativism is the desire to use gov't as a public charity to help those in need, less fortunate, or otherwise disadvantaged.  A very moral goal, you might say.

And if you did say, you'd be wrong.  To be a moral act, there needs to be an element of choice.  If one is forced to behave in a moral manner, one is no longer behaving in a moral manner; one is merely behaving.  When politicians use gov't as a vehicle to perform their own moral obligations, they are committing theft.  Can the proceeds of crime be used to a good end?  Yes, but that doesn't make it any easier for the victim to accept the theft.

By removing choice from what may traditionally be considered moral acts, one degrades the effectiveness of that morality.  It is often said that one cannot legislate morality.  This is untrue.  The criminal code is the legislation of morality, i.e. statutory rape, prohibitions on honor killings, laws against corruption of minors, laws against corruption and bribery, and et cetera are not universal laws, they are local or cultural.  What one is unable to do through legislation is to force people to behave in moral manners.  But, whatever laws one has on the books, people will still break the laws, using any number of rationalizations (ex post facto justifications, or prior).  Thus morality is not forced, but transgressing it comes with repercussions.  People are still permitted, after a fashion, to choose whether or not they will behave in moral manners. 

In the end, "compassionate conservativism" serves the same function as contemporary liberalism: it serves to destroy individual moral responsibility and replace it with a public morality.  All well and good, but when one detaches moral responsibility from the individual, one makes the individual less invested in the morality.  When one is less invested in morality, one is less bound by it and more likely to transgress it. 

Public morality serves to destroy morality, or rather, make morality more pliable and less grounded in tradition.  Is this inherantly bad?  No, but progress merely for the sake of progess is dangerous.  Change must be reasonable and the result of freely chosen actions by individuals.  Moral awakenings, such as the abolition movement, or the women's suffrage movement, are examples of individuals, of like understanding of what is moral, banding together to attempt to convince their fellow constituents that the common understanding of morality is in need of change, not because morality has changed, but because, this new understanding is the way it ought to have been, under the traditional morality.

Women's suffrage was imposed by a plebiscite, abolition by force, but both changes have been accepted as proper understandings of traditional morality.

The difference between these examples and the current public morality is that changes to the traditional morality are not justified by appeal to tradition, but rather to a changing understanding of what is proper.  Morality is divorced from tradition and enters into a civil partnership with moral relativism.  Moral relativism determines that whatever the majority (either by number, or by power) says is right, is right.  The limitations of this understanding of morality are manifest.

 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp

And this is why the gov't is incompetent to perform the functions of a charity.

 Lamont’s strategic vision? “Our nation is stronger when we work with our friends and negotiate with our enemies.”
--Surely you jest.  When don't we work with our friends?, i.e. Great Britain, Australia, Japan, Poland, Romania, Israel, and on and on. 

To negotiate with no expectation of results is, I believe, the definition of insanity.  Or rather to do the same thing repeatedly, expecting different results, is the definition of insanity.  That is where we are at. 

We tried negotiating in NKorea.  We gave them everything they wanted and they shafted us.  How is going back to the table going to solve anything?  Now that NKorea has more leverage, in terms of nuclear weapons and ballistic weapons, why would they be more willing to comport to US demands?

We've been negotiating with Iran for years.  Iran makes no concessions, but the West continues to offer more and more concessions.  Since when does the strong party cower in front of the weak party?  Iran has no intention of giving up its dreams of empire, its dreams of the destruction of Israel, and its dreams of bringing the West to heel.  Why should we pretend they do?  Even if it were reasonable to believe that Iran was willing to make concessions, shouldn't we obtain something in the form of consideration, to believe that Iran is negotiating in good faith?

Israel offered Arafat 99% of what he claimed he wanted, and left the remaining 1% up for later negotiations.  Arafat walked away from the table.  And Arafat was the "reasonable" Palestinian leader, why would anyone expect HAMAS to behave any differently?  Both the PLO and HAMAS deny Israel's right to exist.  Where is the basis for negotiation? 

Israel gave Hezb'Allah what they wanted in 2000, when Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon.  What was Hezb'Allah's response?  They stockpiled weapons and prepared to engage Israel.  Hezb'Allah denies Israel's right to exist.  Where is the basis for negotiation?

In 1948 the UN created the State of Israel.  Since that time, the UN has been trying to un-create Israel.

Just a thought.

 UN nearing resolution
Does anyone think this resolution will have any more effect than the last one?  Does anyone think a peacekeeping force formed under Chapter 6 will be any more than UNIFIL is, that is to say, useless?

"Lebanon opposed the draft, saying it favored Israel too strongly, a view that Hezbollah backed on Wednesday" (emphasis added).
--This is probably the strongest argument in favor of the resolution.  Whatever Hezb'Allah wants, diplomatically, do the opposite.  Hezb'Allah has no valid negotiating position.  Hezb'Allah is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.  It is possible that Hezb'Allah will adopt a variation of the PLO's phased plan: a Palestinian state in the "occupied" territories, which will be used to eventually destroy Israel totally.

Hezb'Allah will do, if allowed to, what they did the last time Israel withdrew: consolidate and prepare for the next offensive.  The peacekeeping force must be permitted to eradicate/disband Hezb'Allah, as Lebanon was required under UN resolution 1559.