Don’t Confuse Activity with Revolution

Pamela Geller says: Mousavi positioned himself as a reformer. It was shaping up to be a first-class piece of political theater: the "reformer" would win, and would con the UN and the President while finishing their extensive, comprehensive nuclear weapons program. Not one nuke, not two nukes. Many nukes. The world wants so desperately to be fooled. And so the "new" Iranian President would "engage" in a "new era," "new dialogue," and "diplomacy," to Obama's delight.

It was always a ruse. Mousavi is as establishment as they come. He was Prime Minister of Iran from 1981to 1989, and editor in chief of the official newspaper of the Islamic Republic party. Further, he's cut from the same Nazi cloth as Ahmadinejad: he was one of the founders of Hezb'allah, and also helped construct Iran's murderous intelligence services.

Computers Are Data Recorders

Zero Hedge says: Don't believe the hype. Twitter may be helpful short term, given the ability to create "flash crowds," but absent authentication and stronger organizational tools it is equally useful as a tool of secret police everywhere. The picture of Iranian Twitter operators running around the capital, looking for the next undiscovered internet connection, the secret police hunting for satellite dishes, and the folly of trying to collect news to distribute when your office moves every few hours is not pretty. Will someone please tell them to open an encrypted tunnel to an exile organization in London and Tweet from there?

The only reason the internet is serving the "revolution" at all presently is Iran's ineptitude in putting together the means to control it. Imagine how short lived would be an internet "revolution" if Iran had passed the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 and appointed a Cybersecurity Czar, for instance.

Tuesday – super – I’m thrilled

I suppose I should be looking for silver linings but my attention keeps drifting to the massive dark clouds on the horizon.

Iran dismisses concerns over space program: Iran said Tuesday that its space program should not cause fear in the US, a day after Tehran launched a research rocket and Washington called it a troubling technological development. Iran has long declared the goal of developing a space program, but the same technology used to fire rockets into space can also be used to deliver warheads.

"I don't see any reason for others' concern over the achievement," Iran's official news agency IRNA quoted government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham as saying Tuesday when asked about US comments on Monday's rocket launch. Elham said Iran's space program was exclusively focused on scientific research, not weapons delivery.

Iran testing advanced centrifuge: Iran is testing an advanced centrifuge at its Natanz nuclear facility, diplomats in Vienna said Wednesday. The new centrifuge would help Iran boost its speed of uranium enrichment. … Reuters reported that a senior diplomat familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency's file on Iran confirmed that it recently began testing centrifuges based on a "P-2" design, able to enrich uranium 2-3 times as fast as the P-1.

There is of also speculation that the first martyrdom homicide in over a year in Israel was a message from the Mullahs.

China Confidential: Analysts tell China Confidential that Dimona was probably deliberately chosen because of its close proximity to Israel's (far from) secret nuclear research center. The Iranian message could well be: suicide bombers today; missiles tomorrow; if pressed, Iran will find a way to hit Israel's nuclear program.

I’m quite sure the Iranian regime understands Western politics and knows full well the next American administration is going to rely almost exclusively on tossing words at them.

Hoping for a Dormant Middle East

Iowa, for the moment, is out of range of any missiles the Islamic Republic of Iran possesses and the caucus results tell the story of a bipartisan political desire to deal with other issues. Love him or hate him, George W. Bush has managed to subdue to Jihadist movement to the point where both parties believe they can backburner the problem of religious violence. Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post reminds everyone that dormancy implies a temporary lull in activity and the atomic bomb is still an object of lust.

The Day After: Here again, it is important to note that Israel's neck isn't the only one on the line -- although it is first in line. A defeat of Israel -- which can also take the form of simply rendering Israel vulnerable to annihilation -- will be the greatest victory the forces of global jihad have ever experienced. If this is added to an unspoken US acceptance of Iranian hegemony in Iraq, then the position of Western nations will be imperiled.

When the jihadist rejection of the sanctity of human life in favor of martyrdom is taken into consideration, the level of threat the jihadists manifest is arguably even more lethal than that manifested by the Soviet Union. As the frontline state in this war, the role of Israel's leaders is to point out these truths to the world and to their citizens.

What is clear is that there is virtually no support for anything but passive resistance to the desire of the Iranian regime to acquire nuclear weapons, and the favorite tactic of those seeking to avoid active confrontation is the implementation of bureaucratic guidelines.

Raising the Costs for Tehran: There are three separate, but often overlapping, sets of sanctions in place against Iran. The UN Security Council has passed two resolutions against Iran -- Resolutions 1737 and 1747 -- that blacklisted a number of Iranian officials and entities. … The European Union (EU) has followed the UN with two rounds of its own sanctions, in many areas going well beyond what was required by the UN. … The United States has its own list of designated Iranian officials and entities, some of whom have been named by the UN and EU as well. …

To date, most of the focus on the Iran sanctions regime has been on which entities were added to these various blacklists and which were left off. There has been far too little attention paid to how effectively the measures are being implemented. Far more could be done on this front.

Of course, guidelines are as effective as the enforcement supporting them, and there is growing evidence that the isolate, embargo and deprive strategy is being discarded by the neighbors required to make it effective.

Why U.S. strategy on Iran is crumbling: The Gulf has moved away from American arguments for isolating Iran. American policymakers need to do the same. The states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are accommodating themselves to Iran's growing weight in the region's politics. They remain key parts of America's security architecture in the region, hosting massive US military bases and underwriting the American economy in exchange for protection. But as Saudi analyst Khalid al-Dakheel argues, they are no longer content sitting passively beneath the US security umbrella and want to avoid being a pawn in the US-Iranian struggle for power. Flush with cash, they are not interested in a war that would mess up business.

The most optimistic way to look at these events is to hope the wealthy Arab world has agreed to assume primary responsibility for the Jihadist mentality of their own creation. I’m sure President Bush will be content leaving office with a stabilized Middle East. An Islamic region still filled with widespread discontent and overt hatred, but with limited outbreaks of raw destruction. This may be the best that can be achieved in the short term.

Benazir Bhutto Killed

Murder for political gain may be the third oldest motivation behind passion and revenge. There is something understandable, yet still condemnable, in individual retribution for an individual wrong. Killing for the purpose of achieving dominion over a population is a magnitude more serious and the assignation of the former Prime Minister and current candidate sends ripples of anxiety throughout the worldwide political community.

Round up of the news at: Michelle Malkin, Gateway Pundit and Jihad Watch.

Local reactions are captured at:
All Things Pakistan - Benazir Bhutto Assasinated,
Metroblogging Islamabad - Benazir, Pakistan & Now
The Pakistani Spectator - Benazir Bhutto's Profile.

So what should we make of this latest use of suicidal homicide for Earthly gain? First, it needs to be understood that Benazir Bhutto was from a long tradition of Third World autocratic families playing ruthless power politics. Second, her affluent life was decidedly predisposed to the luxuries of Western culture, and thus against the purist Islam of much of the Pakistani population.

Mark Steyn: She was beautiful and charming and sophisticated and smart and modern, and everything we in the west would like a Muslim leader to be - though in practice, as Pakistan's Prime Minister, she was just another grubby wardheeler from one of the world's most corrupt political classes.

Andrew McCarthy: The real Pakistan is a breeding ground of Islamic holy war where, for about half the population, the only thing more intolerable than Western democracy is the prospect of a faux democracy led by a woman — indeed, a product of feudal Pakistani privilege and secular Western breeding whose father, President Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, had been branded as an enemy of Islam by influential Muslim clerics in the early 1970s.

Leftists Who Love Her: Benazir Bhutto and Hillary Clinton have strong ties. Bhutto has hired Clinton campaign staffers. See this for some Bhutto background on corruption and political ties here in the US. It’s no wonder the Clinton campaign has been silent on the matter of Pakistan and Ms Bhutto.

As much as anything the events of today serve notice on all those who aspire to govern the United States that the 'War on Terrorism' is going to remain near the top of the agenda. The Jihadist movement in the Islamic world is finding shelter in Pakistan and they will defend their stronghold. Their belief in the absolute truth of Islam is not compatible with the Western world, and will remain a lethal danger no diplomacy will resolve.

Caroline Glick on Being Rational

The Main Stream Media have become undeniably less shrill about the physical bombs and bullets war against Islamic Jihadism, as the U.S. military increasingly finds ways to deter the perpetrators while respecting the non-violent populations. A cynic might suggest that items that don’t advance the agenda don’t make the agenda. Jerusalem Post writer Caroline Glick is keeping up the voice of warning that currents of hatred still flow through the Middle East and offers her theory on the difference between the ways the West understands the situation.

Who's being rational?: THE SEPTEMBER 11 attacks on the US intensified a dispute that had been brewing since the end of the Cold War about the definition of rationality. The two warring factions in the debate, which has raged throughout the free world, can be referred to as the rationalizers and the rationalists.

The rationalizers include politicians like Olmert and Livni and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and security and policy apparatuses like the CIA, the State Department, the Foreign Ministry and their counterparts in Europe. The rationalizers define rationality as susceptibility to foreign pressure and willingness to be appeased. According to this view, if your antagonist is willing to negotiate with you, then he is rational. And since he is rational, he is capable of being appeased. And since he is willing to be appeased, he isn't really your enemy.

For rationalists, it is rational for a state's policies and actions to reflect and advance its values, aspirations and beliefs. As a consequence, it is essential to understand and confront those beliefs, values and aspirations. Just as the rationalizers' views are attractive because they place all the power to determine issues of war and peace in the hands of Western nations, so the views of the rationalists are unattractive because they assume that the free world cannot alone determine the course of events. It cannot influence a society's adherence to jihadist beliefs and aspirations. The most it can do is take actions to prevent jihadist societies from acting on their beliefs.

None of us are in position to understand the way the confrontations of the last six years will shape the future. Like many others, I believe it was necessary to confront and defeat the activists of aggressive Islam and I’m hoping the acute flare up of violence is being suppressed as those willing to commit mass murder against innocents are eliminated. I also realize that the repression of action is a long way from the conversion of thought.

Coexisting Apartheid at Annapolis

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs asks a good question. “Can you imagine, if you will, the leaders of a "white" country refusing to shake hands or walk through the same doors (as) the leaders of a "black" country?” I suppose the last year of any US Presidency is dedicated to legacy building and traditionally that means adding yet one more treaty to the history books. Of course, words on paper don’t mean anything if they leave the real world problems in place, but it does make a new bullet point on a resume.

Caroline B. Glick: This week the Bush Administration legitimized Arab anti-Semitism. In an effort to please the Saudis and their Arab brothers, the Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.

Israel's humiliated Foreign Minister did not receive support from her American counterpart. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who spent her childhood years in the segregated American South, sided with the Arabs. Although polite enough to note that she doesn't support the slaughter of Israelis, she made no bones about the fact that her true sympathies lie with the racist Arabs.

As she put it, "I know what it is like to hear that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are a Palestinian. I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness." Rice's remarks make clear that for the Secretary of State there is no difference between Israelis trying to defend themselves from a jihadist Palestinian society which supports the destruction of the Jewish state and bigoted white Southerners who oppressed African Americans because of the color of their skin. It is true that Israel has security concerns, but as far as Rice is concerned, the Palestinians are the innocent victims.

It is amazing how far Condoleezza Rice has drifted out of the national spotlight. Three years ago she plays such a pivotal role in the Bush Administration the Aunt Jemima insults were flying from one side as calls for her candidacy arise from the base. Then about a year and a half ago, there is speculation Bush lost faith in his Secretary of State, and that breach has never fully healed.

August 2006: The U.S. response to the Israeli-Hezbollah war was said to have divided both the administration as well as the family of President George W. Bush. At the same time, it marked the first time since Ms. Rice became secretary of state that the president has overruled her ."For the last 18 months, Condi was given nearly carte blanche in setting foreign policy guidelines," a senior government source familiar with the issue said. "All of a sudden, the president has a different opinion and he wants the last word."

Maybe ‘APARTHEID is PEACE’ bumper stickers will start appearing on Madison motor vehicles next to the ‘COEXIST’ slogan. After all, this may be the best option for people wanting to avoid violence while leaving the ideological hatred intact.

The Boston Review on Iran

Abbas Milani writes an excellent concise history of Iran since WWII as the essential backdrop to understanding the present acendency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is the most restrained overview of the situation in Iran I have come across in an overtly liberal publication. Milani is clearly attempting to present an accurate description of a complex historical society reacting to the forces of a modernizing world. It is good reading for anyone wanting more than a simple headline understanding of the Islamic Republic.

Boston Review: With the Cold War raging and concern about oil supplies on the rise, the Eisenhower administration worried that the Shah’s repressive regime would incite a social revolution. The resulting pressure to liberalize, which mounted during the Kennedy years, compelled the Shah to introduce a series of socioeconomic reforms collectively known as the White Revolution (“white” for its supposed nonviolent nature).

Like millions drawn to the city during those years, the Ahmadinejad family settled in one of Tehran’s poorest neighborhoods and brought with them the cultural conservatism and traditional Islam of Iran’s peasantry. Struggling to make a living through odd jobs, the elder Ahmadinejad continued to cultivate in his son an unbending devotion to Islam. Even by the standards of other villagers, the family was unusually devout.

Ahmadinejad’s 2005 election, one of his chief lieutenants observed after the victory, was no “accident.” It was the result of “two years of complicated, multifaceted planning” by a coalition that included Revolutionary Guards commanders, a handful of clergy, some leaders of the Basiji (unhappy that the government had not yet given them jobs in the coveted civil service), and friends and allies of Ahmadinejad from his days as mayor of Tehran. This coalition was helped to victory by Ayatollah Khamenei.

After taking office Ahmadinejad began a massive purge of the Iranian bureaucracy, installing allies in key positions. Ahmadinejad’s administration has rightly been called a “barracks regime,” with a majority of his cabinet officials and top managers coming from the ranks of the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence agencies. The size of this network of allies and supporters surprised nearly all observers and apparently even Khamenei himself. More importantly, Ahmadinejad not only made new appointments but tried to change the criteria for them, recalling the early days of the revolution when publicly demonstrated piety was the sole basis for appointment to key positions in government and the economy.

The internal economy of Iran is in shambles and an extremely youthful population is absolutely aware of how their lives compare to the rest of the world. Milani ends with the iconic liberal call for “an offer of unconditional negotiations”. Given his convincing description of the oppressive state apparatus in place, it is hard to understand why he thinks trying to talk oppression away would help the Iranian people, much less the rest of the world. As much as the liberals hate the direct action in Iraq, those people are going to be living better lives long before their Persian neighbors.

Did Putin Feel The Fear?

Three weeks ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin drops by Tehran for a little face to face time with the Iranian leadership. At the time, the speculation was that Russia wanted to strengthen relationships with the Islamic Republic to insure Russia remains a world player as the world continues to try and figure out how to deal with the Mullahs. The usual photographs are taken, pledges of support are made in public then Vlad, the impish player, goes home.

Asia Times 10/26/07: The barely reported highlight of Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran for the Caspian Sea summit last week was a key face-to-face meeting with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. … In itself, the Putin-Khamenei meeting was extraordinary, because the Supreme Leader rarely receives foreign statesmen for closed talks, even one as crucial as Putin. The Russian president, according to the diplomatic source, told the Supreme Leader he may hold the ultimate solution regarding the endlessly controversial Iranian nuclear dossier. According to IRNA, the Supreme Leader, after stressing that the Iranian civilian nuclear program will continue unabated, said. "We will ponder your words and proposal."

Shortly after the “Supreme Leader” agrees to ponder the infidel words, long time Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani resigns unexpectedly. For western diplomats, the devil they know is suddenly out of the mix. The New York Post publishes an article insinuating the Russians now want the West to know that Putin’s inner circle has concerns about the Iranian leadership after all.

Mad Mullahs Puzzled Putin: In fact, the visit seems to have persuaded Putin and his closest advisers that the Tehran leadership is culturally and temperamentally incapable of playing the classical Cold War-style power games that the Russians are interested in.

"This was the first time that Putin was talking to senior Islamic Republic leaders in a substantive and focused way," says a senior Russian official familiar with what happened. "The president found his Iranian interlocutor weird, to say the least. The Iranians mouthed a lot of eschatological nonsense and came close to urging Putin to convert to Islam. It was clear they lived in a world of their own."

Russian sources say that both Ahmadinejad and "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei gave the impression that they settle matters "in the metaphysical space" and with "the help of the Hidden Imam."

"The Iranians think they have already won," reports one Russian source who witnessed the visit. "So intoxicated they appeared with hubris that they did not even ask Putin to help them ward off further United Nations sanctions."

The old Bolsheviks, secular pragmatists to the core, may have looked into eyes filled with messianic obsession for the very first time and emerged with a more adult understanding about the true dangers. It is precisely because the high priests of the hidden Imam aren’t playing world politics that makes them dangerous to the whole world.

Jihadism One Year After The Elections

The United States military has been efficiently winning the war against Al-Qaeda in Iraq ever since the mid-term elections sent the message to Washington to either achieve victory or accept defeat. I’ve read the various Republican apologists making the case the Democratic victories a year ago were a response to failed promises or perceptions of corruption, but I don’t believe it. The media chose sides and chose defeat. Their influence served to convince enough voters that the good we are achieving is bad.

The media's Iraq con job: The big con job the media has inflicted on the American people, by systematically distorting so many details about the conflict in Iraq, does more than skew politics back home; it makes Americans distrust the sources of their information and is an assault on democracy. Don't get me wrong. We need a critical press. Government, policy and soldiers should be scrutinized. The only question I ask the reader is: Who will hold the press responsible?

I distinctly remember being taught to distrust common knowledge. Over time I have learned it is even more important to distrust individuals who believe they have uncommon insights. For several weeks now the wave of aggressive Islamic fundamentalism has been rising not in Turkey or Iraq, but rather in Pakistan with its vast interior border region of tribal primitivism.

The danger inherent in Islamic terrorism has always been the fusion of a religious belief that God only values believers with technology capable of destroying unbelievers. I am in no position to evaluate whether the political maneuvers in Pakistan are good or bad, but I am sure the stakes of the game are very high.

Pakistan: the perils of cutting expedient deals with lunatics: To cut to the bone, Pakistan is a rogue state selling nuclear technology and equipment to any government willing to purchase. Much of the story has been suppressed. But with the October publication of Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons, it's harder to maintain the argument that if other governments (most notably China and the US) don't support Musharraf, Pakistan will be taken over by foaming Islamists who won't hesitate to deploy the Bomb.

The real world is infinitely complex and it is impossible to foresee all future consequences of action or inaction. It is always possible to point to the trough in the waves that follow events through time. The critics of America’s efforts to contain and diminish Jihadist violence are very adept at pointing out the low points and I’m quite sure they take pride in their skill of the passive observation.

Kurdistan Reaches a Decision Point

The Kurdish region of northern Iraq is the greatest success in the ongoing positive transformation of Iraq away from dictatorial tyranny. The region, however, harbors a Kurdish separatist group known as Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) whose presence is a barrier to the progress. Their use of terrorist tactics in neighboring Turkey has our NATO ally ready to send military troops across the border in retaliation.

Talabani to PKK: Era of Che Guevaras over: Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said in remarks published yesterday that the PKK should leave northern Iraq and join the political process in Turkey. "The PKK should now understand that the world has changed and that the era of Che Guevaras is over,"

Incursion may ravage Southeast’s economy: As the Turkish Parliament passed a motion this week granting permission to the government to send the military into northern Iraq to crush bases of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the business world has been considering the economic consequences of a possible military incursion into northern Iraq, where Turkish construction companies have realized $2.5 billion worth of business in the past two-and-a-half years.

EU says ‘terrorists,’ European press says ‘freedom fighters’: It has been a long time since the European Union officially designated the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) as a terrorist organization, but the European press is still hesitant to attach the “terrorist organization” label to the PKK.

US Foreign Policy Blogger Pundita reflects on the tensions in terms of their effects on the larger United States goal of creating a peaceful civilian controlled society in Iraq.

No to mission drift: Keep your eye on the ball. Whether in Burma or Iraq's Kurdish north, the US must walk a fine line when pushing the American model of democratization, else we stumble into the George Soros model for dealing with threats to globalization: balkanization, whereby the world is chopped into so many small antagonistic territories that transnational investors and companies don't have to deal with powerful national governments. The Soros model leads the world straight back to tribalism.

No matter how good an ally the Kurds, they must remember that it was the US, not they, who toppled Saddam's regime. … Iraq's Kurd government in Iraq needs to accept that they are Kurds second and Iraqis first. The US has no place pandering to tribalism anywhere in the world, but especially in Iraq.

The last thing we need at this moment is for a slowing of vital supplies due to a war breaking out between Iraq's Kurds and Turkey. Tehran would not hesitate to capitalize on the chaos by making a huge amount of trouble in Iraq's south, thereby catching the US military's supply lines in a pincer movement.

Progress crosses one bridge at a time and this bridge is next up on the journey.

A Very Dangerous Human Being

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous human being. He is dangerous because he is sane, shrewd, and rational in pursuit of his belief that the god of Islam exalts in the deaths of non-believers. The god of Islam does not love the entirety of creation, only those individuals willing to completely subvert themselves to the social demands declared by the human prophet. The mandate to be feared and followed sounds exactly like something a human psyche would desire.

Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? To understand Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mindset and behavior require close scrutiny of the elaborate and intricate theology of Hujetieh Shiism, perhaps the most fundamentalist of the numerous Shiite sects. … Ahmadinejad, a man driven by his religion, has a spiritual advisor in Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi (the defacto leader of the Hojatieh). The President's advisor is known for his extremist views on Islam and promotes suicide bombings and attacks on civilians in the West.

Let me be very clear. Hujetieh Shiism is a hate group. The fine line walked these last few years has been about how to destroy the hate groups within the practitioners of Islam, in a way that does not make their message attractive to majority of Muslims. The criticism from leftists and academics has been merciless, so it is fair to be merciless criticizing their attempt at dealing face to face with this dangerous man.

Iran's President Got What He Wanted at Columbia: In an apparent effort to mitigate the damage likely to result from providing a prestigious, internationally televised forum for the head of the world's leading state-sponsor of terrorism, Bollinger called Ahmadinejad "a petty and cruel tyrant" and described his denial of the Holocaust as "ridiculous."

But Bollinger's seemingly well-intentioned introduction of Iran's president could backfire, as shown by the rousing applause he received when he said that in Iran it is not customary to insult an invited guest with offensive comments aimed at "vaccinating" an audience against his views. This will play well in Iran and across the Middle East.

The criticism of Columbia University is well deserved. Giving Ahmadinejad a forum legitimizes him. Walking safely among the non-believers in New York and returning unscathed will be taken as yet another sign of divine blessing by those pursuing the ascension of the Caliphate. No amount of spin camouflages the fact that elitist sensibility fails at a rigorous analysis of good and bad. Tolerance, like freedom of speech, is a broad but not absolute policy to follow. The events of today should bring shame upon everyone involved.

Are Our Leaders Clueless?

The idea the United States will allow Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inside our borders is repulsive. The idea of allowing him to visit ground zero is beyond comprehension. All Islamic cults of martyrdom believe the unexpected total destruction of the World Trade Center Towers is a sign their pursuit of world domination is divinely blessed. The jihadists do not think like us. Thinking they think like us is the surest sign of an incorrect understanding of realty. Thinking the danger is a matter of political borders is proof an individual doesn't get it.

The Question for Anti-War Democrats

It is not worth “debate” with moonbats but I can’t help thinking there are still rank and file Democrats who revere Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and may benefit from a review of history. From the American Thinker.

Why Did FDR Invade North Africa? After the "day that will live in infamy" FDR's first land attack took place in Morocco and Algeria, then French colonies, in alliance with the British.

Why? Morocco is about as far from Pearl as you can get. Why punish the poor North Africans for what the Japanese did to us? Well, FDR understood the enemy, and so did the American people. It wasn't just Tojo who attacked the US on December 7, 1941. It was the Axis imperial alliance -- Germany, Japan and Italy. They were bent on world conquest, had already conquered most of Europe, and had to be stopped at a time and place of our choosing.

Back in the day, the Democrats were in their own way, for the interests of the American common man, with the understanding that American interests come first. This is before the Party of Roosevelt and Truman transforms into the party of global socialist unity. Perhaps I should not be surprised that individuals who aspire to one planet united under one rule, share similar sentiments and find common points of tactical agreement.

FDR understood that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not an isolated incident, just as President Bush understood that the attack on America on 9/11 was not an isolated event. The liberals still don't get that. They who woke up on the morning of September 11, 2001 -- and promptly went back to sleep the day after that. None so blind as will not see.

Al Quaida (and the Khomeini cult) are mujahedeen in the martyrdom tradition of Islamic conquest, willing to commit suicide to bring the world back to the "purity" of a 7th century desert patriarchy. It was violent jihad that spread Islam with amazing speed in the two centuries after Mohammed, racing from small towns in Arabia to conquer swaths of Byzantium, Persia, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, the Indian subcontinent, North Africa and even the Iberian Peninsula. The message to each new target was the same: submit or die. That is still the message of violent jihad today.

The anti-war absolutists are so obsessed with the idea of one nation attacking another nation being evil, they fail to accept that a transnational “cult of martyrdom” is a greater threat to their idealized peace. Deposing a violent lawless tyrant in order to establish the “place of our choosing” to confront this cult may be one of the most courageous political decisions ever made, if it works.

The Old Sick Lion Surfaces

Osama Bin Laden, like Fidel Castro, is somehow using the depth of his hatred for the United States to cling to life. There is some speculation the Al Qaeda mastermind’s grasp on mortality is being assisted with some help from Iranian medical facilities. It is difficult to maintain dependable electricity to a cave in Pakistan but Iran has some old transmission lines and plans to upgrade them once their peaceful nuclear generation capacity is completed.

The DANEgerus Roundup has a link to the Gateway Pundit Roundup which dissects the transcript of ‘the message’. I particularly like this observation.

Do you suppose that the line about "19 young men were able, by the grace of Allah the Most High, to change direction of its compass" will get the 9-11 Truthers to admit finally that they are wrong about 9-11?... That it was Al Qaeda behind the attacks and not Bush? ... Me neither.

Madison’s own Truther extraordinaire Kevin Barrett is part of the 42% of Democrats who tell pollsters that President Bush either planned or allowed the attacks six years ago. If you want to ask the Truthers why Bin Laden keeps lying about his role in the events of that day, there is a good opportunity to meet them at the next meeting of the Madison Area Peace Coalition: Sept. 11th, 2007, 6:30 pm, Wil-Mar Center 953 Jenifer St. Madison. I’m sure they picked the only date that worked for everybody’s schedule.

A Revolt of the Center

Merv, the Prairie Pundit says it pretty well – "We are on the edge of a historic strategic victory against al Qaeda. Only the Democrats can save the enemy at this point". Dave Kilcullen explains how the United States counter-insurgency is working in Iraq. Most people want to live safe peaceful lives and the details involve how to develop trust at the grassroots level so communities help rid themselves of the violent.

Anatomy of a Tribal Revolt: All this means that correctly handled, with appropriate safeguards, and in partnership with the Iraqi government, the current social “wave” of Sunni communities turning against AQI could provide one element in the self-sustaining security architecture we have been seeking. And if the recent spread of the uprising into the Shi’a community continues, we might end up with a revolt of the center against both extremes, which would be a truly major development.

The rate of change towards peace is enhanced by the presence of a catalyst, which is the role our military is playing. Kilcullen says, “Coalition forces have provided support to the community and to Iraqi forces operating in the area, and hence tend to play the role of honest broker”. I like the idea of a revolt of the center against both extremes. It could be one of the lessons from Iraq we can apply to ourselves.

The Third Option

You know what does not take courage? Sitting in comfortable homes in Madison Wisconsin and calling our government oppressive. I doubt many of our UW Madison intellectuals would be as vocal if America actually applies torture and inhuman punishments in public on domestic critics. Going on record as a domestic opponent of an truly oppressive regime - that takes courage.

Iranian Rights Activists, Intellectuals Decry Arrests: More than 650 Iran-based human rights activists and intellectuals have issued an open letter to condemn what they describe as increasing pressure on students, journalists, and workers, Radio Farda reported. The statement claims an increasing number of students and political activists are facing "false" accusations of disrupting public order, insulting sacred values, or involvement in what officials have called a "creeping coup."

The creeping coup is the term the Ministry of Culture expresses when justifying shutting down hundreds of media organizations reporting the increasing unrest and resistance of the Iranian people. Ayatollah Khomeini captured power with a very specific Shia Islam based view of how the world should live, but it is a narrow interpretation and one not shared even by other Shi’ite clerics in the country.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard: For a quarter of a century, the regime established by Khomeini has been labeled a “mullahrchy”, a theocracy dominated by the Shi’ite clergy. Now, however, those familiar with the Iranian situation know that a majority of Shi’ite clerics never converted to Khomeinism and did not endorse the Islamic Republic. Today, it is safe to say that the dominant force within the ruling establishment in Tehran is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The Bush Administration is attempting to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. This is a creative attempt to stigmatize the enforcement arm of the Iranian government simultaneously with the peaking of public sentiment against the increasingly heavy hand of Mullahs.

A Third Option (neither appeasement nor war): The potential for bringing about a change in government resides with the Iranian people, indeed. Commenting on prior anti-government protests, a Tehran-based European diplomat explained, "The pent-up anger is still there, beneath the surface. But for it to seriously take off you need a catalyst, you need a cause, you need organization and leadership. It's a big task," Support for Iran’s largest, most organized, secular, and democratic opposition, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran led by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi is instrumental in solving the Iran riddle.

Maybe the Bush Administration finally understands the importance of winning the propaganda war with radical Islam. The People’s Mojahedin of Iran was placed on the terrorist organization list by the Clinton Administration in an appeasement move tied to Hillary and Bill’s desire to open dialog with Tehran. By all accounts the people of Iran understand their situation relative to the rest of the world, and it is certainly in American interests that regime change movements in their country continue to receive information and support.

Unclassified

Interesting … civilian warning prior to Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

CIA: What follows is the story of the US Office of War Information (OWI) and the dramatic role it played in the surrender of the Japanese empire. …

At the same time, newspapers and leaflets in the Japanese language were printed on Saipan. From there, Air Force B-29s flying at 20,000 feet dropped 500-pound M-16 fire bomb containers converted into leaflet casings. These opened at 4,000 feet to deploy millions of leaflets, effectively covering a whole Japanese city with information. In just the last three months of formal psychological warfare, OWI produced and deployed over 63 million leaflets informing the Japanese people of the true status of the war and providing advance warning to 35 cities targeted for destruction.

Victor Davis Hanson asks Why Study War? If you don’t know the answer immediately, then it’s time for remedial study. The Bush Administration can well serve the cause of liberty by unclassifying as much history as possible. We know from history that a Clinton Administration will not be forthcoming with the truth of the past.

Islamists Gain In Turkey

The ruling AK Party in Turkey is Islamic based and thus worries many secular Turks as well as those in the west who view religious/political parties with concern. A large number of Turkish voters, however, have no concerns about mixing faith and politics as they turn out in large numbers to give the Party widespread re-election gains. One article from Today’s Zaman outlines the results in detail while a second attempts to explain the whys.

AK Party wins big despite all odds: The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) won a landslide victory in yesterday's general elections, leaving its nationalist rivals far behind as it secured an unparalleled 46,9 percent of the national vote, comfortably ensuring that it will again form a single-party government.

Yesterday's vote came in a highly polarized political atmosphere, marred by a memorandum from the military which warned of an intervention in politics amid parliamentary backbiting over the election of the next president. Tensions also increased when hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in several provinces across Turkey to oppose a president from the AK Party ranks, something they said would constitute a threat to their secular lifestyle under the AK Party government.

Despite the growing chorus of opposition, however, the AK Party was flattered by a sharp increase in support as compared to the last general elections in 2002, when it won 34.2 percent. "This is a memorandum from the people," commented Milliyet daily columnist Hasan Cemal in televised remarks. "People showed that they do not want polarization."

The reasons why AK Party won the elections: It was a contest foreign observers described variously as "a battle for Turkey's soul," "the most important election in post-war history" and "a key test of the country's secular tradition." Yet for many Turks, it will be business as usual the morning after Tayyip Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AK Party) cruised comfortably to electoral victory.

The government led by Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan becomes the first Turkish government since 1987 to renew its mandate in a general election and the first since 1954 to increase the percentage of its vote. The question is why they did so well.

For a large portion of Turkish voters, the opposition attempt to turn the election into a matter of life and death, an issue of the nation in peril, just simply did not ring true, according to Ergun Ozbudun, professor of constitutional law at Istanbul's Bilgi University. The electorate showed that it is not afraid that the country is drifting uncontrolled to a more Islamic form of government. "They preferred the stability of a government that has done a satisfactory job to the unknown of a coalition," he said.

Muslims are good businessmen. The AK Party has kept the economy in good shape and is being rewarded for their success. What remains to be seen is to what extent the religious aspect of the party comes to influence social policy in this most westernized of Muslim countries, and how far the secular Turkish military will allow Islam into the national government.

Jonah Goldberg On Order

I haven’t been commenting on the Iraq debate lately because the discussion has largely devolved into the fixed positions of siblings arguing about who is at fault. I do, however, like this article by Jonah Goldberg writing at National Review Online for pointing out what we should want for Iraq is what we clearly value ourselves.

Order Is in Order: The Arab world doesn’t have a great grasp of what democracy is, but it does have a keen sense of justice and order.

Americans are great at talking about how wonderful democracy is. The right to vote is taught as a sacrament from grade school up. Politicians can talk a mile a minute about how wonderful elections are for much the same reason salesmen at a Ford dealership can talk a blue streak about how great Fords are: It’s their livelihood. Spend your career trolling for votes and you’re apt to be able to explain why votes are the most important thing in the world.

But Americans don’t believe, not really, that voting is the most important thing in the world. For starters, if they believed such nonsense, they’d vote more.

No, Americans like exercising plenty of other rights more than their right to vote. The right to speak your mind, own property, associate with whomever you like, be compensated for the fruits of your labor: these and other rights are plainly more dear to Americans than the right to pull a lever every two or four years. Obviously, Americans would care if anyone proposed taking away their right to vote. But as a matter of common sense, voting is less important to us than those rights and liberties that make our God-given right to pursue happiness possible.

Lest we forget, democracy shorn of these other rights is no less tyrannical than dictatorial rule.

One of my pet peeves is when people equate voting and democracy. Voting is a operational process and government by consent of the governed within a just rule of law is democracy. Voting without a framework of individual rights is the eventual path to rule by power.

The opponents of the Iraq battlefront want to believe an ideological danger can be contained and controlled without transformation of the regional culture. Proponents of our efforts in Iraq believe a transformation can happen if a more just society is allowed to grow. Peace derived from secure free people is better than peace derived by subjugation and localization of dissent. The freedom peace first requires a foundation of order and in Iraq that means completing the task of removing the jihadists and their war materials from society.