France and US step up Mideast negotiating

Now you stop that.  Isn't that where we are right now?  Ineffectually scolding murderers, and thugs? 

These are terrorists who deny Israel's right to exist.  Where is the basis for negotiation?  Does Israel agree to exist less?  Does Israel agree to push itself into the sea?  This is crazy talk.  Israel is defending itself.  If Lebanon wants Israel to stop, then Lebanon can reign in Hezb'Allah, starting with removing Hezb'Allah from government for..., I don't know, ...how about, bringing war on Lebanon without Lebanon's consent?

It is time call a spade a spade and a trowel a trowel.  Hezb'Allah is a terrorist organization that is intentionally bringing death and destruction on those it claims to protect.  If Hezb'Allah did not aggress Israel, Israel would be more than content to stay within its borders.  It is only when Israel is attacked, that Israel pursues those who attacked Israel wherever they may be.

The US ought to be encouraging Israel in Israel's war on terror, just as the US ought to encourage India in India's war on terror.  The US must recognize its allies and friends, or it will soon have none left.  The US must also recognize its enemies, or the US may not be left.

Iran still considering offers
And they'll continue to consider as long as the West is absolutely toothless.  People need to realize that negotiation, merely for the sake of negotiation, is worse than worthless.  It allows regimes that have no intention of following through to continue to consolidate power and build up while good intentions provide the paving stones to h***.

This is absurd.  Have we learned nothing from the NKorea debacle of the 1990s?  Have we learned nothing from the back of Arafat's hand? 

Some people do not view the world as the West does.  One can no more impose an alien and unwanted form of government on a people than one can impose one's values on a people.  In fact, the latter is much more difficult. 

We cannot assume that Iran bargains in good faith.  We must assume, in light of Iran's actions to this point, that Iran is a bad faith negotiator.  It is pointless to engage someone who is acting in bad faith. 

It is time to make a decision: allow the Iranian regime to acquire nuclear weapons; or stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons.  And toothless diplomacy has already failed.  

UN PeaceKeepers Meeting
"The U.N. announced Wednesday that it was again postponing a meeting of nations that could send peacekeepers to south Lebanon, saying talks about sending troops were pointless before there was progress on peace between Israel and Hezbollah."
--Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't there been UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon for two decades?  Aren't they the guys standing next to the guys with the green flags?  Yet more evidence the UN is absolutely ineffectual concerning the task it was formed for: to promote peace.  Notice the UN doesn't want to move more troops in until their job has been done.  How about the UN stays in Turtle Bay and does and says nothing for a year or so; we'll see if the UN actually makes any positive difference.

"The diplomats are debating a French draft resolution that would impose that framework for peace and lay the conditions for a peacekeeping force (italics added)."
--The French are so good at peace.  What's it called: unconditional surrender and collaboration?

And more from France:
"But France, considered a possible leader of a peacekeeping force, wants fighting to stop immediately, to create the political framework, and then to send the troops. France has refused to take part in a meeting of nations willing to contribute troops. That refusal has now led the U.N. to postpone the meeting twice.
Israel, with U.S. backing, has vowed to push ahead with its military campaign until the peacekeepers are deployed. The U.N. backs France's view.
"It's clear that it remains premature for such a meeting to be held because of the absence of an agreed political framework for ending the conflict," U.N. spokesman Ahmad Fawzi said. "If you don't have a mandate, how can you decide what kind of force you need?""
--I thought French troops were bogged down in Sierra Leone--all two dozen of them.  Again, with the need for peace to be established before the UN will even begin meeting on peace.  Do they no realize how stupid that sounds?

The original UN resolutions, which left Sadaam in power, required Sadaam to affirmatively demonstrate the destruction and dismantling of his WMD programs. He did not do so. Therefore, he was in violation of the resolutions granting him a ceasefire and an actual resumption of hostilities (as opposed to the cat and mouse game played by American and British pilots with Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries) was a foregone conclusion, if the US is to be respected. Countries may disagree with our policies; they may disagree with actions, our idea of diplomacy, or our use of the military. Other countries may even hate us and what they think we represent. If we bent to the whims of polls, in contradiction to our considered view of our national interest, we could not be respected and we would invite attack.

Consider, for example, the characterization of the US by bin Ladin. He considered us to be a paper tiger, who would run if we suffered any casualties. He saw the evidence of Viet Nam, Iran, Lebanon, and Somalia. He was high on the victory over the Soviets. He knew we could be pushed without suffering any repercussions. He hit us in Khobar. He hit us in the port of Aden. He hit sovereign US territory when he blew up embassies in East Africa. We did nothing and he knew we would do nothing; he had the evidence of Tehran.

In 2001 we were hit again. Bin Ladin had told us on multiple occasions why we would be hit (perceived or real offenses): infidel occupation of the Land of the Two Mosques; Israeli oppression of the Palestinians; and continued American and British oppression of Iraq. These reasons were given in 1996 and again in 1998 in “declarations of war” against the “crusader and Zionist alliance.” Bin Ladin would continue to hit us with impunity if we did nothing. The pattern was very clear.

Two months after the attack on New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, after Taliban refusals to turn over bin Ladin, we invaded Afghanistan. We used limited ground forces, with a reliance on the indigenous Northern Alliance, and airpower to overthrow the Taliban regime in six weeks. It has been claimed the Bush had a secret plan to invade Afghanistan before the attacks of 9/11, but he was just looking for a reason. Even if he did, how does that matter? He was prepared to engage a nation that was on the State Department list of terrorist sponsoring nations, was not recognized as legitimate, and was a consistent and flagrant violator of human rights—Is there supposed to be something wrong with that?

After deposing the Taliban regime, focus shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. Was this a natural progression?

Was the shift from Afghanistan to Iraq a natural progression, or was Operation Iraqi Freedom a “war of choice?” Perhaps Bush did not sell the necessity of the war as well as he ought, but that in no way detracts from the necessity of the War in Iraq. That's right, necessity, not choice. This was to be a War on Terror, not a war on Al Qaeda.

Taliban Afghanistan was a supporter of terrorism. Taliban Afghanistan merely hid Al Qaeda (see Jason Burke Al Qaeda: Casting a shadow of terror, 2003), provided money laundering assistance, and training areas (basically, hands off, carte blanche, etc). The Taliban did not request targets. The Taliban did not order targets. The Taliban did not actively sponsor specific act of terrorism.

This is in contrast to Sadaam's Iraq (hereafter referred to as Iraq), which provided training (Salman Pak), subsidized homicide bombers in Palestine, directly sponsored and requested specific acts (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague), committed terrorist acts itself (genocide against its own people), provided comfort and aid to the murderer behind Achille Lauro (Abu Abbas), provided aid and comfort to one of the original Trade Center bombers (Abdul Rahman Yasin), provided a base of operations (twice) to the Abu Nidal Organization, and sponsored the attempted murder of a Former American President (this should have been sufficient in 1994, especially when combined with Iraq's blatant disregard for the terms of the ceasefire that left Sadaam in power). Iraq had twice invaded surrounding nations (Iran and Kuwait, and a third and fourth, Israel and Saudi Arabia, if one counts the Scuds rained down on these nations), and was a destabilizing force in a region that is vital to our energy security. This does not even begin to address humanitarian concerns about the Oil for Food program, and the brutal oppression of minority groups. The US’s Global War on Terrorism would mean nothing if we did not invade such a nation.

There are those who claim that because Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, any attack on Iraq is, on its face, not justified and immoral. This is faulty reasoning. The war declared was not a war merely on Al Qaeda, but rather on those who use terrorist tactics to advance their causes. The preceding paragraph briefly lists Sadaam’s connections to terrorism and terrorist tactics. (See, also, Patterns of Global Terrorism, published by the State Department for the history of Iraq’s sponsorship of terrorism).

Terrorism is the tactic chosen by our adversaries. What is terrorism? Crenshaw defines terrorism by what it is not, guerilla warfare[1]. Fanon and Herman held that only states can be guilty of terrorism[2]. Laquer reports the DOD definition of terrorism[3] as: “the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce and intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives”. Hoffman spends the first 30 pages of Inside Terrorism (1998) discussing the changing definition of terrorism. Stern defines terrorism[4] as an “act or threat of violence against non-combatants with the objective of exacting revenge, intimidating, or otherwise influencing an audience”. White, in Terrorism: An introduction (1998) gives many different definitions of terrorism[5].

The common themes of these definitions are:

1) illegitimate force;

2) directed against non-combatants;

3) in the furtherance of control, or a political or ideological goal.

We now have a basic definition with which to work. Each element may be subject to further definition. An example of this is the definition of “non-combatant”. Palestinian terrorist groups hold that all Israeli citizens are legitimate targets because all Israelis serve, or have served, in the military, and Israeli children will grow up to serve in the military. This is not an accurate depiction of Israel’s military service requirements, but that does not matter to those who seek the merest shred of legitimacy to cover themselves with. The US Department of State holds that military members are non-combatants unless there is a declared, recognized state of hostilities. The State Department definition seems to be more just and logical, but this is merely one example of the definitional problems within the definition.

Pyramid structure of terrorist organizations

To return to a point briefly alluded to previously concerning the “danger” of giving offense by identifying our enemy, I will briefly discuss the structure of a terrorist organization.

Terrorist groups have a pyramid structure: very few people at the top, and many people at the bottom. Located at the top are the planners and ideological leaders. Osama bin Ladin and Ramzi bin al-Shihb were both examples, now only OBL is. Burke argues that Al Qaeda consists of roughly two dozen “venture capitalists” in the Tora Bora[6]. These do not typically get their hands dirty. They tend to remain above the fray. They may have graduated to leadership, by clawing their way up the ranks, or by getting their hands dirty and surviving; or, like the Blind Sheikh, they may have provided “moral” guidance and rationalization for acts of terrorism.

Beneath the planners is the cadre, the lieutenants. These are the people who carry out the acts of terrorism. Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Yousef were examples of cadre.

Beneath the cadre are the active supporters. They provide logistical support. They run safe houses and provide money or special skills, such as document forgery.

Lastly, are the passive supporters. These are those who identify with the cause, but who may be uneasy about the tactics. These provide the milieu in which the cadre may move without fear of being turned in to the authorities. The passive supporters may be unwilling to actively support a group that may lose. In other words, they are still invested in the status quo.

Passive supporters

The fear of the politically correct is that by identifying our enemy we will drive the passive supporters into the active camp. Passive supporters are not our allies. At best, they are unwilling to commit. At worst, they are a fifth column that will undermine us.

If we cast off fears of political correctness we can shine light into the corners in which passive supporters hide. We can know who our enemies are, and who our allies are.

Who are our enemies?

Our enemies are people who claim to be Muslims, whether they are or not, I am not qualified to say. Our enemies profess the desire to defeat the West and guarantee the spread of Islam. The West is not guilty of supporting Israel. The West is not guilty of launching the crusades 900 years ago. The West is guilty of success. This success is threatening to our enemies. Our enemies see Western success as decadent, and our enemies fear that their co-religionists may be tempted to emulate our success. This must be stopped at any cost.

How is this potentiality to be stopped? This potentiality is stopped by demonstrating that the West’s apparent success is really weakness and decadence. Our enemies seek to demonstrate to their co-religionists that the way of the West is not the way to success. Only by returning to their version of Islam can success be achieved.

What is the war we are fighting then?

We are fighting a war against a violent Islamist ideology. To refer to our enemies as jihadists may not be theologically accurate, but it is simple, and expresses the idea in a way that is easy to grasp. We are fighting a War on Islamo-facism.

How is this war to be fought?

The war cannot be entirely fought on the battlefield. Then again, no war is. Wars are fought in the trenches, and at tables of diplomats; in dark alleys and souks, and computer-filled rooms. We must be willing to fight wars against supporters of terrorism and the violent Islamist ideology that motivates our enemies. We must be able to use a valid threat of force when we go to the bargaining table. We cannot negotiate merely to negotiate.

[1] The tripartite test proposed by Crenshaw is: guerillas use legitimate military tactics; guerillas attack legitimate military targets; and guerillas have a legitimate chance of success. Terrorists do not meet all of these standards. Guerillas may use, on occasion, terrorist tactics, but these are deviations from their strategy. Terrorists may use guerilla tactics, but they either lack a legitimate chance of success, or terrorism is their overarching strategy, and guerrilla tactics are deviations from that strategy.

[2] Both Fanon and Herman connect terrorism to action of state imperialism.

[3] The new terrorism (1999). Pp 5-6. Oxford University Press.

[4] The ultimate terrorists (1999). Pg. 11. Harvard University Press.

[5] Page nine has a chart covering several different definitions.

[6] Al Qaeda: Casting a shadow of terror (2003). I.B. Tauris and Company, Ltd. Burke argues that Al Qaeda functions as a venture capitalist firm of terrorism: individuals or groups bring terrorism plans to Al Qaeda, which then decides whether or not to fund and support (and to what extent) an act of terror. Affiliated groups are merely successful “start-ups”.

http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?contentGUID=6fdca112-5f90-468d-bbf3-187e5f4f8bf9&page=full&comments=true

"Heavy fighting raged Tuesday in the Lebanese border village of Aita al-Shaab, and Hezbollah television said 35 Israeli soldiers had been killed or wounded in the fighting. Israeli warplanes pounded Shiite Lebanese villages in many areas along the border and struck Hezbollah strongholds deep inside the country".
--Why does Hezb'Allah still have a television network?  Doesn't Lebanon have some sort of a RICO statute?  Just kidding.  They've given Hezb'Allah seats in the cabinet.  No one has the right to dictate to them what their government ought to be, but then again if their government steps out of line or fails to behave in a responsible manner, they should not be surprised when another nation uses force against them.

"Security and stability can only be achieved by an Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territories, not by expanding the occupation," he said.
--They tried that in 2000 and it led to this.  Does this unnamed government official suffer from cranial-rectal inversion?  Criminetly, this guy belongs in a farce, not a government.

 http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?contentGUID=45b86744-8a41-43ee-bdf8-5ffe6471009d

It is unkind to wish ill on another, but the death of Castro, like the death of Arafat, may provide the Cuban people the opportunity to breathe free, to throw off the shackles of communism and oppression, and to throw open the jails of those unjustly jailed and tortured.  Hopefully, the Cuban people will prove more willing than did the Palestinian people.

Of course, this means the Elian Gonzalez's father took him back to a Communist h***-hole where he (Elian) is no longer a hero.

The US is presently facing a series of choices that will determine how we are viewed by rogue regimes, and terrorists. The US faces calls to withdraw from Iraq. Afghanistan still faces large hurdles.

And now we have NKorea test firing its missiles, threatening US allies, Japan, Taiwan, and SKorea, and possibly the US itself.

Iran advances, unhindered, to becoming a nuclear power, while promoting the Hezb'Allah war against Israel, seemingly to focus world attention elsewhere (it is having that effect, at any rate).

Syria continues to undermine Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel. Syria is allowed to assert disproportionate power by virtue of the West's impotence.

The US can run, as it did for decades, starting with Viet Nam, proceeding to Iran, Lebanon, Iraq (after the First Gulf War), and Somalia, and be viewed as a paper tiger. Of course, this has the unpleasant side effect of placing all Americans, everywhere, in danger. The US did nothing in response to an act of war by Iran, at the Islamic Republic's founding. The US did nothing in the aftermath of the Achille Lauro, the barracks bombings in Beruit and Saudi Arabia, or in response to the hostage takings in Beruit. The US did nothing after the first time the World Trade Center was attacked, and responded feebly to the potential horror of Oplan Bojinka and the very real horror of the East Africa bombings. The US Cole limped away, with nary a response from the US.

No wonder the Bin Laden and others were under the impression that the US could be attacked with impunity. Men who have no regard for life or law were chased after with subpoenas and indictments. Men with no regard for rules of engagement were allowed to face American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and law enforcement personnel on their own terms. The US meekly surrendered its superior force multipliers for fear of offending the world community--a community that cares not a whit for the survival of the US or her citizens.

The US must be willing to stand up for its citizens, and her allies, because no one else will. This will mean using the military, a competent intelligence community, and an aggressive diplomacy. (Diplomacy without the real threat of force is not diplomacy, it is surrender).

Permitting rogue nations to continue to be protected by an immobile UN bureaucracy is not acceptable. And I don't mean "not acceptable" in the same sense that the President does; I mean that it cannot be permitted, rather than, it is not desirable.

It almost seems as though people were suprised when the Palestinian people elected HAMAS as their governing party. There was much dismay--a terrorist organization had been elected.

How could this have happened?

The same way it did a decade previously when Arafat, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and Al-fatah were elected.

The PLO constitution calls for the destruction of Israel, just as the constitution of HAMAS does. All means available are permitted.

The question is not so much, "how could a terrorist group be elected?", but rather, "why does the world support a so-called 'peace process' that inexorably leads to such governments?"

http://www.gocomics.com/pricklycity/

It sounds about right--accurate at any rate.

Sadaam is now requesting how he would like to die—like a soldier. How about, like a butcher? Maybe he should go into the old wood chipper feet first.

How does a murderous fiend deserve to die?

I am against the death penalty, believing Dostoyevsky’s dictum that “true punishment lies in recognition of sin by the conscience”; and death before such recognition robs the criminal of the ability to be punished, and death after such recognition shortens the punishment. At times, however, I am forced to wonder if such a man is even on speaking terms with his conscience. Or, if he is so warped, he sees nothing wrong with his actions.

Excellent. Juan Williams was using Hezb’Allah’s military ineptitude to criticize Israel. Lebanese civilians die, in spite of Israel’s attempts to minimize civilian casualties. Israeli citizens don’t die, in spite of Hezb’Allah’s attempts to maximize civilian casualties.

How is Israel the guilty party here?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206259,00.html 7/30/06

Interesting, (or not) Hezb’Allah hides behind women and children as they attack Israeli women and children. When Israel responds by attempting to kill those who are killing Israeli women and children, Hezb’Allah jumps to seize the moral high ground, as though they hadn’t put their own women and children at risk by using them as a shield, while they fire rockets at Israeli women and children.

Double standard anyone? How about this, Hezb’Allah: Don’t hide behind your women and children while you attempt to murder Israelis and they won’t be anywhere near harm's way. In other words, stop being candy-a** cowards.