In comments on this post, Marcus Lindroos wrote, apparently from some other planet:

Simberg: I suspect that what the EU is really worried about is that, with Arafat's death, as with Saddam's downfall, a lot of dirty laundry may come out in terms of the depths of the corruption of their dealings with him. Old Yasser reputedly has a some pretty sizable European bank accounts. How much of his thievery has he been kicking back to the Eurocrats?

So you "suspect" this is the case... Where is the evidence? Why always suspect the darkest of motives when discussing something that (quite frankly) isn't perceived as a very important issue over here?

Really, Rand, it's sad to see how a previously level-headed intelligent guy like you keep firing one dumb anti-European tirade after another. Why do you keep undermining your credibility like this? Why not simply stick to (commercial-) space policy? You make so much more sense talking about that.

While it doesn't talk about kickbacks, there's obviously abundant evidence that EU money has been funding terrorism, and that EU bureaucrats have been studiously looking the other way.

The tragedy, of course, as I replied to Marcus then, is that corruption and under-the-table support of terrorism in the EU "isn't perceived as a very important issue" over there. It explains much about the continuing decline of Europe. Why do I suspect the darkest of motives, Marcus? Because I've been observing them for too long, and I know their character.

As for my credibility, I'll let others judge that, but you might want to consider that it's not my level-headedness that's being inconsistent.

Just a thought.

Rand, which foreign nations are you NOT angry with? Is it really the US -vs- the world?

Haven't read the original post. No need to. I have gotten this comment sooo many tmes before. When people can't find another way to make a point about what a somewhat popular online personality writes they inevitably say something like "Why do you keep undermining your credibility like this?"

I'm not angry with most foreign nations. I don't have the time to list them all. Why in the world would you conclude that I'm "angry" with all, or even most, foreign nations? It's not the US against the world, but it is the US against much of the Islamic world, and against its enablers in some European countries.

Rand, have you been to Europe?

Not that it's relevant, but yes, I have been to Europe. I have a sister who lives in the Netherlands.

Do you think that if I'd spend more time in Europe, that I too would realize that institutional corruption and tacit official support of terrorism aren't such a big deal?

Do many Europeans have dirty hands on terrorism?

Probably. And their anti-Israel politics offends me greatly.

But I doubt those European hands are dirtier than Saudi hands.

Of course they're not. Did I miss the post in which I defended the Saudis, Bill? I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is that the US backs the Saudis, and Pakistan, and any number of other states that have much more direct ties to terrorism than any European state (possibly excluding France). I've got no problem with you publicizing your personal opinions, but you oversimplify the situation when you portray it as US v. any other group of states. The more complex reality is that the US attempts to support many Islamic States while at the same time attempting to oppose factions within those same States (I am optimistically ascribing the best of motives to US leaders here). The problem is that there is at least indirect assistance to terrorists coming from US sources (on at least the same level as those coming from European sources). I'm all for pointing out the problems with the EU system, as there are many, but lets not let this obscure our problems at home.

As for the basic issue of your credibility Rand, I have to agree that you demonstrate significanly more objectivity when it comes to space issues. This is of course your right on a personal blog, but I presume you know you will attract some heat for many of your statements and are even using it to make the blog more interesting (whether this trades off with informational value is another issue). I appreciate the categorization as it does make it easier to skip over the propaganda when I'm not in the mood to be critical. ;)

Of course my credibility might be "significantly" improved if I learned to spell check comments prior to posting.

Whether or not the US backs the Saudis or Pakistan (what do you propose that we do in those two cases) is completely orthogonal to my post. If your best defense against France, and the EU in general, is that other countries are worse, that's not much of a defense. I could discuss what we should be doing about those other countries, but that's a subject for a different post. The fact remains that I expect better from people who pretend to be our "allies."

Does Europe have dirty hands? Of course.

However, as the terror threat changes from "state sponsored" to mafia-style funding (drug smuggling, embezzlement, petty forgery and the like plus donations from rich private Egyptians, Saudis etc. . ) the need for a "law enforcement" approach to the War on Terror increases.

Euro-bashing is simply not useful when we NEED to work with the EU in the law enforcement mode of fighting terrorism.

The Bush administration believed that regime change of those states that supported terror would win the war on terror. Wrong!

Strong internationalist institutions will be needed and political attacks on the EU ("freedom fries" and other forms of frog baiting) actually undermine our common War on Terror.

When Condi Rice goes on television and says the US government hopes Zapatero loses the election, of course he will be hostile to the US after he wins. Such public comments (on Meet the Press) are simply foolish, whether true or not.

Hey, I got no defense for France. I respect that they have seen a niche in the geo-political market that allows them to sell to all sides while being the target of none (yet), but I find it personally distasteful.

My point is that if the problem is assistance to States being funneled off for terrorist use, then that is the problem, not whether assistance comes from European or US sources. I dont claim to a specific solution for this one, but it does seem like it would help for the US to own up to its ties and make the flow of funds transparent. It would also help if we would actively promote fuel cell tech and make a push for hydrogen storage so we dont have to continue "assisting" the Saudis with our oil purchases. This doesnt directly answer your request, but as I'm not sure there is a direct answer, this will have to suffice for now.

On a more fundamental level (and I am walking way out on a limb here but I figure it will be fun to get the "feedback") the US has backed itself into a corner politically given the prominant use of military force to advance international political and cultural change. It is very difficult to reduce military force without appearing to back down but there is little evidence that the current military force distribution is decreasing the threat of terrorism It is killing terrorists to be sure, but it appears that more are appearing than are killed. The only long term solution that I can see involves shifting to rapid response military action rather than prominant forward occupation, accompanied by a shift in basic policy to opening up nations to trade. Our most effective cultural shaping tool is our popular culture and economy, not our military. Capitalism inspired political change is slow in many cases, as is shown by China, but it does happen, as is evidenced by the recent amendment of the Chinese constitution to allow for private property rights. I'm all for a smooth transition in policy rather than an abrupt about face that might send the wrong signal, but we've got to start sometime.

Oh, and props on the use of the word "orthogonal" in a sentence outside of a math treatise.

Euro-bashing is simply not useful when we NEED to work with the EU in the law enforcement mode of fighting terrorism.

So we should just look the other way when they aid and abet the enemy (and yes, Arafat is an enemy)? How does that help?

The Bush administration believed that regime change of those states that supported terror would win the war on terror. Wrong!

Wrong? No one said it would work overnight, or that the war was over. There are many regimes that yet must be changed (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and even Iraq and Afghanistan don't yet fully have an anti-terrorism regime in place.

This is only the end of the beginning it. Now I understand why you're so confused by our policy. For some strange reason, you expected instant gratification.

Strong internationalist institutions will be needed and political attacks on the EU ("freedom fries" and other forms of frog baiting) actually undermine our common War on Terror.

I agree that strong internationalist institutions are needed. However, none exist right now. The UN is a corrupt joke, a club that coddles terrorism even more so than the EU. We need to set about building them (the current coalition would be a good basis for one), but France is probably not a useful partner in such an endeavor at this time.

I have heard reported that a great deal of the income of the Palestinian Authority has been embezzeled to pay for Sua Arafat's rather extravigent lifestyle in Paris. It would stain credulity to suggest that this is taking place without the tacit approval of certain French authorities.

Aaaah, just shoot 'em all, and let a higher-order intelligence (isn't that what the secularists say instead of God?) sort 'em out.

Rand, I hate to sound like I might be agreeing with Marcus, even a little …
but it is hard for me to understand how killing Arafat will substantially improve conditions for Israel. I think one could make an argument that it might well make things worse. At best, I doubt the blood feud will end with his death. Some of us aren’t as close to this as you are. Perhaps if you provided some of the reasons you think it would help …?

As long as Arafat lives and remains in power, there will not be peace in the Middle East. Killing him doesn't guarantee a resolution, but allowing him to continue to brutalize those under his control, and piously preach peace in English while preaching death to Jews in Arabic and funding terror will guarantee that there will not be one.

He has been the obstacle for years, and the Nobel Committee should be perpetually ashamed that it awarded him a prize. That was the crowning moment that rendered the Nobel "Peace" Prize an eternal joke. Arafat is as much a terror leader as bin Laden--he's just more duplicitous about it, and the EU should be ashamed that it continues to prop him up, but by its own nature, it will not.

Rand, I cannot disagree with you about Arafat, yet 20 years ago a good Jewish friend of mine spoke angrily about Arafat but then said, if Israeli intelligence believed Israel would benefit from Arafat's death, he would be dead already.

This was 20 years ago.

Arafat is a symptom, not a cause, IMHO. A symptom of other Islamic governments who desire to keep the Palestinian issue on the burner to distract from their own failures. Places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Arafat dies and the rich folk living in the suburbs of Cairo annoint a new puppet. Same reason we cannot whack the President of Pakistan, same reason why Saddam thought he would be safe, Saddam or Sadr? It is why Bush-41 did not remove Saddam 12 years ago.

Bob Zubrin's book captures much of the universal hypocrisy of the so-called Palestinian plight. That said, demographics are not on Israel's side.

Time is not on the Israeli side. Build that big wall as soon as possible and create a de facto two state solution.

Thanks for the response, Rand. The question had to be asked because I've found that it helps a great deal to understand both sides before making judgments.

It's all too easy to judge everyone in terms of your own values, and for them to understand your actions in terms of their own. Or put differently, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

For example, I once unknowingly walked past a live IRA bomb in London, which was discovered and blown up in a controlled explosion only a few minutes thereafter.

I might view the people who planted the bomb as terrorists. However, the people who funded the IRA at that time - people with Irish roots or sympathies on the US East Coast - probably felt that Northern Ireland was wrongly taken by the British and that they were giving money (and weapons) to freedom fighters, not terrorists.

Such differences in values make disbursing foreign aid a nightmare for everybody. It is very difficult for most countries to disburse aid in such a way that it reaches the intended people or is used in the intended way. The IMF has this problem all the time. That money is split so many ways by so many people with so many agendas, how can you control it all?

Even if we were to try to alleviate the poverty of the Palestinians by sending money directly to each family, some of them would probably give it to the local freedom fighters (terrorists) in a charitable act of giving, or otherwise when 'persuaded' by the local militia. This kind of thing can happen to the US, the EU, the UN and almost everybody else, so I think it’s a little simplistic to just point the finger at the EU and say they fund terrorists, as though any rational EU entity would knowingly do so.

I think I understand why you're angry though. In a world with a unipolar power structure, as we've now had since the early 1990s, the most dominant country (the US) inevitably becomes blamed for all ills. I am fed up with the US being blamed for everything too. Unfortunately, it's not clear to me that there's an easy way to fix it. A Machiavellian might conclude that the only way to stay on top is to make sure that people's distrust and dislike does not turn to hate. I would ponder this thought carefully, and then ponder our foreign policy.