Victor Davis Hanson writes that there is some hope amid the current gloom in the Middle East:
…all is not lost, since lunacy cuts both ways. Iran and Syria unleashed Hezbollah because they were both facing global scrutiny, one over nuclear acquisition and the other over the assassination of Lebanese reformer Rafik Hariri. Those problems won
This seems like a good idea to me. It would make it hard on spammers and netkooks, though. Then again, that’s not a bug, it’s another feature.
[Via Geek Press]
The New York Times thinks that the administration is “rewriting the Geneva Convention,” when in fact it’s the New York Times that is engaging in revisionism.
Mark Danziger explains the historical foolishness of the argument that it’s important for us to abide by Geneva so that our enemies will. In fact, when we grant Geneva rights to people who have no rules at all, we weaken the Conventions, and strip them of meaning. There are good reasons to treat Jihadi prisoners humanely, in general, but Geneva is a very misguided and in fact counterproductive one. And as a commenter points out, it’s only possible to make the argument that the Times does if one has never actually read the Conventions.
The New York Times thinks that the administration is “rewriting the Geneva Convention,” when in fact it’s the New York Times that is engaging in revisionism.
Mark Danziger explains the historical foolishness of the argument that it’s important for us to abide by Geneva so that our enemies will. In fact, when we grant Geneva rights to people who have no rules at all, we weaken the Conventions, and strip them of meaning. There are good reasons to treat Jihadi prisoners humanely, in general, but Geneva is a very misguided and in fact counterproductive one. And as a commenter points out, it’s only possible to make the argument that the Times does if one has never actually read the Conventions.
The New York Times thinks that the administration is “rewriting the Geneva Convention,” when in fact it’s the New York Times that is engaging in revisionism.
Mark Danziger explains the historical foolishness of the argument that it’s important for us to abide by Geneva so that our enemies will. In fact, when we grant Geneva rights to people who have no rules at all, we weaken the Conventions, and strip them of meaning. There are good reasons to treat Jihadi prisoners humanely, in general, but Geneva is a very misguided and in fact counterproductive one. And as a commenter points out, it’s only possible to make the argument that the Times does if one has never actually read the Conventions.
How is Bush doing?
Not very well, according to Gerard Baker.
…the US could take the risk of alienating the world and discarding international law only if its leadership was going to be effective. Instead its leadership has been desultory and uncertain and tragically ineffective.
It tried unilateral pre-emption in Iraq, but never really had the will to see it through. So with Iran, it went all mushy and multilateralist. In Lebanon, it thought it would cover all the bases
It was supposed to be a higher-than-normal hurricane season this year, but it’s actually below normal, so far. And of course, some ignorant prognosticators even claimed that it was going to be higher than normal (and that way in the future) due to global warming. Roy Spencer explains both why this is nonsense, and why atmosphere and ocean modelers should be a little more humble.
In the midst of all the news in the Middle East, North Korea may be getting ready for an underground nuclear test. Here’s hoping for a dud (though it would be hard for us to know if they failed).
Lileks, on the absurd theatre that is the United Nations:
…the West struck a deal with Hezbollah and its paymasters, and it was regarded as a positive development. Peace in our time, and all that.
It’s a wonder they didn’t pass out tiny collectible umbrellas from the Franklin Mint “Neville Chamberlain Collection” to solemnize the event.
The cease-fire resolution wasn’t surprising; the United Nations may have created Israel, but it’s been apologizing ever since. Nevertheless, let no one assert the document lacks teeth. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it: “This resolution has an arms embargo within it, and a responsibility of the Lebanese government to make sure that illegal arms are not coming into their country.”
Yes, that’ll work. You can well imagine the frosty reception that awaits an Iranian general who tells the mullahs he’s found a way to slip new rockets into Lebanon:
“We will smuggle in the parts under the guise of providing reconstruction machinery; if satellites detect the tell-tale profile of the rockets, we will simply point to the damage suffered by the Lebanese Space Agency. Then we tattoo assembly instructions on small children and send them via diplomatic pouch. When the parts are in place — why are you looking at me that way?”
The mullahs look at one another, and one finally speaks.
“General, perhaps you were unaware of this fact, but all parties have agreed to disarm Hezbollah. Assurances were made to Ms. Rice. Do you understand? Assurances. Now rip up your mad schemes, return to base, and think no more of perfidious things.”
I think he’s being sarcastic again.
Some scary reading over at Technology Review, on the democratization of high-tech weaponry. As technology continues to advance, and things like this get cheaper, asymmetric warfare is going to become ever harder to wage. At some point, when fighting an enemy that worships and revels in death, we may have no choice except to give him what he wants, wholesale.