…radical? Good question.
I’m sure that designating an equivalent Christian group (if one existed) by that word wouldn’t raise any media eyebrows.
Category Archives: War Commentary
A Political Deadline For Afghan Troop Withdrawal?
You don’t say?
The 58-year-old Petraeus couched his committee answers in the standard Washington etiquette acknowledging civilian control of an obedient military.
However, his forthright replies rapidly reverberated across the Capitol, where so many in the political business are so ready to believe that the accelerated troop withdrawals were ordered by the Democrat more to enhance his troubled reelection plans, than because they would enhance the cause of crushing terrorist forces in Afghanistan.Afghan war US Sgt William Bee ducks just in time, file
Under questioning, Gen. Petraeus admitted today, “The ultimate [drawdown] decision was a more aggressive formulation, if you will, in terms of the timeline than what we had recommended.”
As previously noted, this not only has the potential to backfire, but a high probability of it. And it couldn’t happen to a more deserving politician.
The President Is No Churchill
In 1940, Churchill appeared before the House of Commons and described Britain’s goal in World War II: “I can answer in one word: victory; victory at all costs, victory despite all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
This hyperbolic rube was too unsophisticated to appreciate that the goal doesn’t apply to overseas contingency operations or kinetic military actions.
As I wrote last night, the president and the Democrats are like the French in The Simpsons, for whom “victory” isn’t in their vocabulary, unless it applies to their domestic enemies.
Michael Walsh wasn’t impressed, either.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Nor was John Tabin:
President Obama isn’t terribly concerned with winning wars.
In his speech last night, Obama talked about “our effort to wind down this war,” “responsibly end[ing] these wars,” and “tak[ing] comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding.” He did not use the words “win” or “winning”; the word “victory” appeared only in a reference to the killing of Osama bin Laden.
To these people, wars are for “ending,” not “winning.” It was something that I and others noticed in the debates in 2008, but not enough others noticed. The funny thing is, I suspect that they even realize that we notice, but they just can’t bring themselves to use the word.
[Update a few minutes later]
Could the president’s political decision backfire on him?
It bears repeating that the deadline imposed by the president has nothing to do with military or strategic calculation. It has everything to do with an electoral calculation. President Obama wants those troops out two months before Americans go to the voting booth.
This may prove a disastrous political calculation, too, however. If the war is going badly in the summer and fall of 2012, it will be because of the decision the president made this week. Everyone will know he did it against the advice of his commanders. Everyone will know he did it for political reasons. So if the war is going badly a year from now, whom do you think the American people will blame? There will still be 70,000 American troops in Afghanistan, but as part of a losing effort. Will Americans reward Obama at the polls under those circumstances?
It’s not like he’s been politically brilliant so far. The tragic thing is that he’s doing something militarily stupid to serve his political needs.
[Early afternoon update]
You don’t say. Afghan women fear Obama’s peace talks with the Taliban. I’m sure NOW is fine with it, though, because he supports abortion.
Elena Bonner
Jay Nordlinger remembers:
Last summer, Bonner reflected, “I can say that many of Chazov’s Western colleagues [in the anti-nuclear organization] were wonderful people and high professionals. But they, I think, understand nothing of the essence of socialism-totalitarianism, and were very easily deceived by the organization’s name.”
She continued, “Millions of people today are deceived just as easily, believing in the slogan of the Middle East ‘Quartet,’ ‘Two states for two peoples.’ And I’m afraid that they will realize their mistake only after it becomes impossible to save the State of Israel without a third world war. It will be like Munich. You remember what Chamberlain said: ‘I have brought you peace.’ And the Second World War began!”
In Bonner’s view, the Nobel peace prize had “been devalued.”
No kidding. And sadly for freedom, the world remains full of useful idiots.
A Victory For Free Speech
In the Netherlands:
The presiding judge said Wilders’ remarks were sometimes “hurtful,” “shocking” or “offensive,” but that they were made in the context of a public debate about Muslim integration and multi-culturalism, and therefore not a criminal act.
“I am extremely pleased and happy,” Wilders told reporters after the ruling. “This is not so much a win for myself, but a victory for freedom of speech. Fortunately you can criticize Islam and not be gagged in public debate.”
Meanwhile, back in the supposed land of the free and home of the brave, Yale has decided that criticism of some anti-semitism is off limits:
An antisemitism program needs scholars who deal with Qassam rockets, Grad rockets, and other rocket systems, not snowballs. Scholars who deal with satellite systems, and firebombs targeting Israeli civilians and tanks. Who study soldiers of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other antisemitic terror groups. It needs scholars who deal with Islamist thinkers, from Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb to Mohammad Chatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s anti-Israel and pro-suicide-bombing fatwas.
It needs scholars who deal with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism — not only in Egypt, but in the entire Middle East, Europe, North America, and elsewhere. It needs scholars on Iran and the analysis of incitement to genocide.
It needs scholars on Turkey, lawful Islamism, and its relationship to anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
It needs scholars on Islamic jihad, terror, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and homegrown terrorism in the West.
It needs scholars on left-wing, progressive, Muslim, and Neo-Nazi anti-Zionist antisemitism, and the ideologies and concepts of postorientalism, postcolonialism, and their possible relationship to antisemitism (e.g., in the work of Edward Said). And it needs scholars on antisemitism and anti-Israel propaganda in Western mass media in the 21st century.
There is nothing wrong with scholarship on France and Jewish history; it is important. But it shouldn’t be seen as a replacement for serious scholarship on contemporary antisemitism. The study of dead antisemites and past campaigns of vilification is already part of every single Jewish Studies department in the world. And dealing with Jewish literature (the topic of Samuels’ new book in 2010) has nothing to do with research on (contemporary) antisemitism.
Unfortunately, any serious anti-Semitism program at Yale would probably end up indicting much of the faculty there, which is probably why it was shut down to be replaced with the more anodyne one.
[Update a few minutes later]
More thoughts from Mark Steyn:
Nevertheless, as in all these cases, the process is the punishment. The intent is to make it more and more difficult for apostates of the multiculti state to broaden the terms of political discourse. Very few Europeans would have had the stomach to go through what Wilders did — and the British Government’s refusal to permit a Dutch Member of Parliament to land at Heathrow testifies to how easily the craven squishes of the broader political culture fall into line.
And at the end the awkward fact remains: Geert Wilders lives under 24-hour armed guard because of explicit death threats made against him by the killer of Theo van Gogh and by other Muslims. Yet he’s the one who gets puts on trial.
As he says, it’s shameful.
Operation Barbarossa
Some thoughts on the seventieth anniversary.
All Hitler had to do was not be as bad as Stalin. The Ukrainians initially welcomed the Nazis as liberators.
But being a fellow leftist, he couldn’t manage it.
The President’s Speech
I managed to actually listen to the whole thing because, praise Gaia, it was short.
I remain bemused at his idiosyncratic pronunciations. The Taliban remains the Tollybahn (Hey Mr. Tollybahn, tolly me banahna, daylight comes, and me wanna go home), yet Afghanistan is pronounced like Stan Laurel. It is clear that he doesn’t want to end the war so that he can reduce the nation-destroying deficit, but so that he can “reinvest” (i.e., continue to spend us into oblivion) at home.
And he remains, like most modern Democrats, congenitally incapable of using the words “win” and “war” in the same sentence, at least when it’s an American war — at best, it can be “ended.” He would choke on such a conjunction — our national sins remain too great to allow such an outcome. He only wants to “end” it. He reserves actual victory for his goal with respect to his much more fearsome and evil domestic enemies.
The Palestinian Path
What if the European Jews had followed it?
The Palestinians Of 1967
The latest dispatch from the Middle East, from Michael Totten.
[Update a few minutes later]
Wrong link, fixed now.
Is Islam Intrinsically Radical?
Some useful thoughts from Barry Rubin:
4.There are no moderate Muslims — is it a myth created by liberals?
Funny, I know a lot of them and they don’t seem a myth to me. But they are about 1 percent, have little power, and Western governments show no sympathy for them. Again, the problem is NOT that no moderate Muslims exist. The problem is: A.) Radicals are portrayed as moderates repeatedly in the West or pretend to be such; and B.) the number of moderates is very limited, they have little influence, and they are constantly intimidated.
But there are millions of anti-Islamist Muslims all over the world. They may be traditionalists, they may be nationalists, and they may be moderates. Yet their interpretation of Islam is different from that of the Islamists. We should remember that it wasn’t long ago when revolutionary Islamists were viewed as virtual heretics. The fact that Islamists draw on normative Islam doesn’t prove that they have the only or the correct interpretation of Islam.
It is ridiculous to claim that radical Islamists aren’t “real” or “proper” Muslims. But it is equally ridiculous to claim that all Muslims must be Islamists or they aren’t following their religion.
There are three camps in the West in understanding this issue:
* Islamists represent the “right” interpretation of Islam and thus there cannot be moderate Muslims. This is the view taken by many on the “anti-jihad” side. It isn’t wrong because such a view is “bigoted” or isn’t helpful tactically. It is wrong because it doesn’t correspond to the facts and realities.
* Islamists have hijacked the real Islam which is a religion of peace. That is the position of “politically correct” people, the idea that dominates Western governments, the mass media, and academia. This view is equally ridiculous. Islamists can cite the Koran, the hadith, and many other sacred writings to justify their positions. They didn’t make this stuff up. Violent jihad, treating non-Muslims as dhimmis, and antisemitism are not new ideas which emerged from the minds of a tiny minority.
* There is in Islam, as in other religions, a struggle over interpretations. Different sides can cite texts and precedents. Were the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the worst excesses of the past the “real” Christianity? Of course not. And Christianity changed over time. Many debates and battles took place. The problem with Islam is not its “essence” but its place on the timeline. In Western terms, the debate in Islam is in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, with powerful forces wanting to return to the seventh century.
My view, the third one, can be summed up as seeing two people fighting over control of the steering wheel in an automobile speeding down the road. Both can claim ownership of the car. As an anti-Islamist Iranian intellectual once put it, the minute someone says that Islam must be interpreted in any one way they are wrong.
There’s a lot more to read there, and no just on Islam.