Category Archives: War Commentary

Shifting Alliances?

This seems like good news:

…some Iraqis are warming to a stronger relationship with Israel, in part because they are frightened of Iran’s influence.

“They are afraid of Iran’s extremist political system. If Iran were a democracy, they wouldn’t be afraid,” Alusi said. “We don’t have border problems with Israel. We don’t have historical problems with Israel,” just Iran.

At last a glimmer of common sense on the issue. Of course, it’s important to not let this grow into a civil war, with Israel and the Sunni Iraqis on one side, and the Shia and Iranians on the other.

Getting Real

I haven’t said much about the NSA spying “scandal,” or the whining about monitoring mosques for radiation, but Jay Manifold has useful posts on both. As he points out, much of the discussion in the press on both these subjects (related mostly by the fact that they’re both largely symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome) has been appallingly illiterate and innumerate, from a technical standpoint.

On the mosque thing, I’m having trouble working up much sympathy here. I suppose that the complaint is the usual one–that we’re “discriminating” and “profiling” by not looking for evidence of nuclear materials in churches, synagogues and covens. This is a charge to which I heartily plead guilty.

The word “discrimination” has gotten a bad rap, but in fact, people who don’t or won’t discriminate, won’t last long in this world. Of course, irrational discrimination is a bad thing, but when we have limited investigatory resources, and there’s a long history (and recent and current one, in Iraq and Israel and the territories) of mosques being used as weapons depots, it makes all the sense in the world to keep a close eye on them. When it comes to nuclear materials, it’s pretty hard to justify a “right to privacy.”

[Update at noon eastern]

Michael Barone has some common sense (something that seems to be in short supply in the MSM and, as he points out, the New York Times) on the wiretap issue:

Let’s put the issue very simply. The president has the power as commander in chief under the Constitution to intercept and monitor the communications of America’s enemies. Indeed, it would be a very weird interpretation of the Constitution to say that the commander in chief could order U.S. forces to kill America’s enemies but not to wiretap — or, more likely these days, electronically intercept — their communications. Presidents have asserted and exercised this power repeatedly and consistently over the last quarter-century.

The Gangs Rule

Miranda Devine says that many of the problems in Sydney are a result of years of lax law enforcement against the Lebanese Muslim gangs. I disagree with this, though:

Rather than a problem of race, religion or multiculturalism, Sydney is suffering from a longstanding crime problem. It is a textbook case of how soft policing and lenient magistrates embolden successive waves of criminals, infecting other people who might otherwise have been law-abiding.

But that begs the question of why the policing was soft, and the magistrates lenient. Ultimately, I think it still comes back to a misplaced multiculturalism, and an unwillingness to crack down on religious minorities, even when they were breeding a culture of intolerance and criminality.

When Does The War End?

There’s quite a bit of discussion in Sam’s post, some of which expresses appropriate concern about how long we have to put up with a modest (and sorry, that’s all it is, despite all the nonsense about living in a police state under Bushitler) suspension of some of the civil liberties that many of us had taken for granted, given that we don’t have a declared war, and that it’s not clear when it will be over. Tigerhawk has an excellent essay on that subject.

“The Unholiest Of Marriages”

People (unconvincingly, to me, and probably to anyone who’s not suffering selective amnesia about the runup to the war) accuse George W. Bush of shifting justifications after 911, but how about shifting justification for 911?

…bin Laden’s justifications for 9/11 are continually moulded and shaped by Western media coverage. At first – on 28 September 2001 – he disavows responsibility for the attacks, instead trying to pin the blame on some dastardly conspiracy within America itself: ‘The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself