David Warren has a depressing column on Fallujah, and how our own media undermines our efforts.

…we come to the next stage of an unpleasant proposition. In its selective use of explosive imagery, the media have a power equivalent to that which the terrorists have in the selective use of explosive devices. There is an overlapping agenda, too: for the great majority of both terrorists and journalists consider the Bush administration to be their principal adversary. (On the other hand, they differ on the need for the imposition of Sharia law.)

But the bottom line remains:

In its recent experience in Iraq and elsewhere, the U.S. is finding what the Israelis have long since not wanted to know. Michael Oren is an Israeli veteran, and the brilliant author of the definitive history of the Six Day War. When I had coffee with him, recently, he said: “If you strike back, you will encourage terrorism. And if you don’t strike back, you will encourage terrorism.”

You let them walk over you, or you fight. It’s true that fighting makes them even angrier, but it helps to wipe them out.

In the face of such graphic images, it’s easy to forget that much of Iraq is now at peace, with prospects for future prosperity and freedom increasing daily.

Fallujah is the last stand of the Ba’athist regime, with a significant population of those who benefited from it at the expense of most, and who remain unwilling to yield their power. It is, in fact, a microcosm of what all of Iraq was a year ago, before the liberation. It is a gang of brutal thugs, holding hostage a majority of the populace within it, living in an unreality like Saddam’s–the notion that bluster, brutality, deceit and murder will somehow fend off the Americans. As they will find out shortly, it is they, not we, who are fighting the last war, having learned too well the false lesson of Mogadishu.

We are paying the price now for not conquering it when we went in last March.

As many (including me, and more eloquently, David Warren) pointed out at the time, last year’s military activities were less a war than the ending and resolution of a massive hostage situation, the removal of a gang of criminals that had gained sway over the territory of Iraq, maintaining their power by terrorizing its inhabitants.

Their territory, the so-called Sunni Triangle, has now been reduced to a very small portion of that original area, and what we did to the tyranny of Iraq at large then we must do to the thankfully much smaller one in Fallujah now. Like then, it will have to be done as precisely as possible, with as little damage to innocents and infrastructure as possible, but it must be done, and I think it will.

[Update]

They think they’ve identified at least some of the perps. And note this:

…they included former members of Iraq’s paramilitary forces and “non-Iraqi Arabs.”

Flypaper’s still working. More that we can kill there instead of having to defend against them here.

Speaking of spoiled children in Europe, now the EU is whining that Israel had better not kill the terrorist Arafat, because he’s an elected leader.”

What a crock. Even leaving aside the illegitimacy of his “election,” would they have said in 1943 that we shouldn’t have assassinated Hitler, because he was “an elected leader”?

Sadly, many of them probably would. And for those who say that assassinations are a bad idea because they may result in retaliatory assassinations, phooey. You have to consider the asymmetry of the situation.

Hitler’s brutal Germany (and Saddam’s Iraq–he was “elected” too, with almost a hundred percent of the vote) were those people personified. Kill Hitler or Saddam, and you kill the regime. On the other hand, in a true constitutional republic, a state consisting of laws rather than men, killing the head of state would simply result in a smooth transition to his replacement, and the war would continue with renewed ferocity.

Now arguably, unlike the Nazi Party, the PA might survive Arafat’s demise, but that’s no reason not to remove him. He is the murderous enemy of the state of Israel just as surely as bin Laden is ours, and he makes himself a legitimate target by his continued actions.

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?

[Update at 1 PM PST]

With whitewashes like this, we probably won’t find out as long as Arafat, or someone like him, continues to run the Palestinian Authority. Iraq was hardly the only swamp that needs to be drained over there.

She said: “This form of assistance has been subject to more scrutiny than any other area…No one has proven a direct link, it is as simple as that”.

Pointing to the lack of convictions of the people who money is suspected of being transferred to, she added that no link has been found between them and terrorist organisations.

However, Parliamentarians remain divided over whether this legalistic definition of evidence accurately reflects the situation.

Speaking of spoiled children in Europe, now the EU is whining that Israel had better not kill the terrorist Arafat, because he’s an elected leader.”

What a crock. Even leaving aside the illegitimacy of his “election,” would they have said in 1943 that we shouldn’t have assassinated Hitler, because he was “an elected leader”?

Sadly, many of them probably would. And for those who say that assassinations are a bad idea because they may result in retaliatory assassinations, phooey. You have to consider the asymmetry of the situation.

Hitler’s brutal Germany (and Saddam’s Iraq–he was “elected” too, with almost a hundred percent of the vote) were those people personified. Kill Hitler or Saddam, and you kill the regime. On the other hand, in a true constitutional republic, a state consisting of laws rather than men, killing the head of state would simply result in a smooth transition to his replacement, and the war would continue with renewed ferocity.

Now arguably, unlike the Nazi Party, the PA might survive Arafat’s demise, but that’s no reason not to remove him. He is the murderous enemy of the state of Israel just as surely as bin Laden is ours, and he makes himself a legitimate target by his continued actions.

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?

[Update at 1 PM PST]

With whitewashes like this, we probably won’t find out as long as Arafat, or someone like him, continues to run the Palestinian Authority. Iraq was hardly the only swamp that needs to be drained over there.

She said: “This form of assistance has been subject to more scrutiny than any other area…No one has proven a direct link, it is as simple as that”.

Pointing to the lack of convictions of the people who money is suspected of being transferred to, she added that no link has been found between them and terrorist organisations.

However, Parliamentarians remain divided over whether this legalistic definition of evidence accurately reflects the situation.

Speaking of spoiled children in Europe, now the EU is whining that Israel had better not kill the terrorist Arafat, because he’s an elected leader.”

What a crock. Even leaving aside the illegitimacy of his “election,” would they have said in 1943 that we shouldn’t have assassinated Hitler, because he was “an elected leader”?

Sadly, many of them probably would. And for those who say that assassinations are a bad idea because they may result in retaliatory assassinations, phooey. You have to consider the asymmetry of the situation.

Hitler’s brutal Germany (and Saddam’s Iraq–he was “elected” too, with almost a hundred percent of the vote) were those people personified. Kill Hitler or Saddam, and you kill the regime. On the other hand, in a true constitutional republic, a state consisting of laws rather than men, killing the head of state would simply result in a smooth transition to his replacement, and the war would continue with renewed ferocity.

Now arguably, unlike the Nazi Party, the PA might survive Arafat’s demise, but that’s no reason not to remove him. He is the murderous enemy of the state of Israel just as surely as bin Laden is ours, and he makes himself a legitimate target by his continued actions.

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?

[Update at 1 PM PST]

With whitewashes like this, we probably won’t find out as long as Arafat, or someone like him, continues to run the Palestinian Authority. Iraq was hardly the only swamp that needs to be drained over there.

She said: “This form of assistance has been subject to more scrutiny than any other area…No one has proven a direct link, it is as simple as that”.

Pointing to the lack of convictions of the people who money is suspected of being transferred to, she added that no link has been found between them and terrorist organisations.

However, Parliamentarians remain divided over whether this legalistic definition of evidence accurately reflects the situation.

The TSA continues to drag its feet on arming pilots. Fortunately, some Senators (including, surprisingly, Barbara Boxer), are getting tired of it.

“They’ll get the message or they’ll lose their money for the program,” Bunning said. “We’ll put it somewhere where it will get the job done.”

I hope they do. I’d be happy to see this agency defunded completely. And how long is Bush going to keep Norm Mineta?

Christopher Hitchens has some questions for opponents of removing Saddam last year.

I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered “succor” (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the “no fly zones” over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original “Gulf War”? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

I wasn’t sure about the category on this one–it could have been both space science and war commentary. But here’s the real scoop from the Religion of Peace (TM).

The fact that this is a news story is depressing. On the other hand, the story itself offers a glimmer of hope. One would like to think that the basic humanity of the people called “Palestinians” hasn’t been totally quenched by the oppressive conditions and brainwashing that they’ve endured for decades (and no, I’m not referring to the Israeli “occupation”).

Golda Meir once said that the war would end when the Palestinians decided that they loved their children more than they hated the Jews. This may be a sign that this is starting to happen.

The Vatican has actually condemned Palestinian terror tactics.

The Vatican, often critical of Israel, harshly condemned Palestinian terrorists for trying to use a teenager as a suicide bomber.

I guess it would have been all right if it was an adult murdering those Jews (and other “Palestinians”).

In Monty Python’s The Life of Brian (a movie that’s about to be rereleased to theatres to capitalize on the success of Mel Gibson’s “Passion”), there’s a hilarious scene in which a man is about to be stoned to death for blasphemy.

Really.

MATTHIAS: Look. I don’t think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying ‘Jehovah’.

CROWD: Oooh! He said it again! Oooh!…

OFFICIAL: You’re only making it worse for yourself!

MATTHIAS: Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!

Allison Kaplan Sommer says that, after years of intifada, this is the point that the Israeli public has reached, and why there’s little domestic opposition to Sharon’s plan to build the wall and kill the terrorist leadership.

With nothing left to lose, let’s try to do what we can to protect ourselves. That’s the sentiment of the man on the street.

Clearly, the Israeli public seems to have all but given up on figuring out how to make the right moves in order to nudge the Palestinians towards wanting a peaceful two-state solution. They’ve given up. That’s why there’s generally support for Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan — otherwise known as the “We’re So Disgusted with the Palestinians, We’re Getting the Hell Away From Them and Building a Big Wall” plan. And if they try to wage war from the other side of the wall, they’ll get the same treatment as Yassin.

We’re not running scared. We’re just sick and tired of this.

Stephen den Beste (from whom I got the link to Allison’s post) has further thoughts.