War on Terror

Posted on February 23, 2006 George W. Bush, Random Musings

the UAE port controversy

We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The Presidents leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully. By all means, lets do due diligence, get briefings, seek answers to all relevant questions and assurances that defense officials and the intelligence community were involved in the examination and approval of this transaction. In other words, lets make a judgment when we possess all the pertinent facts. Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion.

–senator john mccain, quoted here.

mccain’s making a ton of sense. i agree with this. i think we need to look at this port sale deal carefully and make sure we have fully vetted any company who wishes to be involved with our ports on any level. i’ll be honest. i have my doubts about the wisdom of allowing this deal to take place. on the other hand, i’m not sure if we really want to alienate a country who has provided some level of operational support to the united states in the war on terror. opponents and supporters of this sale have both made convincing arguments.

i don’t think that democrats who have spoken out against this port sale are doing so for the sole purpose of looking tough on security, although that may be a fringe benefit. i’m also not cynical enough to suggest that some of those democrats are protecting union interests by opposing the deal, as some conservatives have done. maybe they are, but i would like to believe that they have actually thought about this before taking a position on it. the most inane argument against it is the accusation that those who have concerns about this deal believe that all arabs are terrorists…that we are racists, in other words. that’s not the right sales pitch.

of course we don’t believe that all arabs are terrorists. we realize that we can’t paint them all with the same brush. that said, based on dubai’s past history, it is rational and natural to have legitimate concerns about any involvement they might have with our ports. it’s not racism. it’s common sense. i think mccain has the right idea. we need to examine all the evidence before we rush to judgment based on limited information.

i’m ok with dubai ports world leasing space in our ports, with these conditions:

there is a thorough and complete vetting process, including questions about their effectiveness in providing service in other countries
port workers should be screened carefully, and be subject to extensive background checks (this goes for all of them, not just those from any UAE-affliated company)
the coast guard will continue to control security at the ports
the local port authorities will still be in charge of owning and operating the ports

there may be other needed conditions to make this transaction work for both sides, but i think that we need to consider the deal. once we get all the information on this, i think the president could win this argument, but i have absolutely no confidence in his ability to sell any of his policies to us (or even to his own party).

related posts/articles:

The UAE purchase of American port facilities (FAQ)–council on foreign relations (CFR)
The Ports Deal Makes a Comeback–real clear politics blog
Security fears about infiltration by terrorists–washington times (bill gertz)
Ports of Politics–opinionjournal.com (WSJ editorial)
Port Security: We Werent Wrong To Question, But Were Satisfied By The Answers–california conservative

Posted on February 7, 2006 Uncategorized

free speech vs. extremism

If the events of the past week dont put an exclamation point on to what we are dealing with the irrationality and hatred resulting from tools of fanatical Islamic propaganda and force everyone to realize that the enemy we face is dangerous and only getting more daring, what will it take? How long before we can no longer say anything about the Practitioners of Peace without having them threaten to engage in their ancient ritual of removal of head from body?

Most dangerous is the willingness of those who are right to give in to the demands of the fanatics. Israel constantly gives in to the commands of the Palestinians as a result of their desire for a peace that the fanatics do not want. Countries apologize for their own free speech codes in their own country after the Crazed Ones take to the streets with torches. Late last year, France responded to mass rioting by Muslim youth by promising more welfare programs for them. Giving in to the enemy is more dangerous than fighting it and telling them enough is enough. Giving in to their demands only encourages them.

dustin hawkins, “At Least They Are Not Crazy” (posted at california conservative)

read more in this post at california conservative, which is, as always, right on the money. negotiating with extremists usually doesn’t produce the desired result. the right to dissent is an important one, but it has been abused by these protestors. we cannot reward this kind of behavior with concessions, and as soon as the europeans realize this, they will become more serious about how they treat such behavior. michelle malkin’s got more interesting artwork here.

Posted on February 6, 2006 Democracy

bad PR for the “religion of peace”

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.

–Muslim dissident Ibn Warraq, from the article “Democracy in a Cartoon”
(ht: malkin)

this guy gets it right. more muslims need to speak out against the violence. this is why our support of the danish cartoonists is important. we cannot allow the debate to be controlled by extremists who use offensive cartoons as an excuse to riot and burn buildings. michelle malkin has more alarming pictures of the protests in this post.

burning buildings over offensive cartoons is not the best way to promote Islam. it’s not the best way to sell Islam as a religion of peace. in fact, i’m having a hard time believing that many muslims who believe the way that ibn warraq does actually exist. it’s possible that there are moderate muslims who are simply practicing their faith without any desire for any sort of jihad. but they need to speak up right now if they are tired of extremists controlling their party and controlling the debate.

Danish Embassy Set Ablaze: Can We Co-Exist–jay at stop the aclu
“Can Democracy Co-Exist with Extremism?–california conservative
On Freedom of Speech and Islam: News, Commentary and Blogs…–small wars journal

Posted on January 31, 2006 Democracy

promoting democracy: a failed experiment?

Nobody knows whether the election win for Hamas will help or hurt the cause of democracy in the Middle East. On the one hand, the victory of a terrorist party seems to vindicate the argument that democracy can only work where modern mores and social institutions are already in place. On the other hand, there is at least a scenario in which either Hamas is forced to transform itself, or the ultimate failure of Hamas teaches the Palestinians a culture-changing lesson in what real democracy requires.

Ideally, I would prefer to go the route of slow cultural transition before giving democracy a try. The danger of premature democracy is exactly what were seeing now. Yet I recognize that we cannot afford the luxury of slow-motion cultural transformation. The pressure of nuclear proliferation has forced us to try something drastic and risky. The stakes, arguably, justify the risk.

stanley kurtz– the corner on nro

here are a few questions we should ask ourselves in determining the success or failure of this experiment. let’s have the debate. is promoting democracy the best way to fight the war on terror? have we considered that a change to democratic government may not be the first step for a country unfamiliar with how that system of government works? kurtz makes an excellent point here when he says that there is more involved in establishing a working democracy than simply having elections. read the whole post. he is absolutely right. i’m not sure that the bush administration has completely thought through the implications of this approach to the war on terror.

i’m not opposed to democracy. i believe that it is the best form of government for the United States, even though it doesn’t work in an error-free fashion for us either. we need to remember that the current version of our democratic system wasn’t automatically created at our country’s first breath. it took 200 + years to get where we are today. we can’t expect iraq, afghanistan, and other mideast countries to understand how democracy works right away after having limited to no experience with that form of government.

that said, if we really want these countries to elect their own leaders, then we have to live with the results of those elections. it’s easier to be in opposition than to be the ruling party, as hamas will soon find out. when your party is out of power, you can make all sorts of irresponsible statements and advocate many impractical policy changes, without being held to account for the results of your actions. that changes when your party is in power.

part of this post from the therapy sessions says this better than i just did:

To take power is to take responsibility. When you run an organization on the fringe Hezballah in Lebanon, The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, al Qaeda throughout the region you can say and do what you like, even with the tacit approval of those in power.

When you are in charge, things change. The terrible economy is not an advantage something you can complain about to generate support; it is a liability. It is your job to make it better (and only economic freedom creates economic growth). If you sponsor attacks in other countries, these are not just suicide bombings, they are acts of war.

No more shadowy groups hiding in the fringes. If these groups take power democratically, so be it. If that leads to civil wars, thats sad but we might as well get them over with.

For a century, we tolerated dictators in the region as the price of stability, but there was another hidden price: behind the scenes, thousands of fringe groups were taking the hearts of the people or so they thought. This policy has been shattered by Bush, and those groups are being told: put up or shut up.

These are good things.

this argument makes sense to me. i do think that america is not obligated to financially support groups like hamas, whether they are democratically elected or not. (the whole concept of foreign aid is flawed as a general theory…but that’s a subject for another post.) the people will find out whether hamas is worthy to rule by what they do with the power they have been given. the same goes for the governments of iraq and afghanistan. these countries may have to learn a few painful lessons along the way, but eventually i think that they will figure it out. we did.

the results of promoting democracy are mixed so far. time will tell whether we will achieve the desired results of this experiment.

unholy alliances and george galloway

“You may very well ask, why so many people wanted to come in here and watch and listen to two British guys debating in the United States of America about a war far away. I think the reason is this: our two countries are the biggest rogue states in the world today. And it is therefore vitally important that those who oppose the crimes of our governments, on both sides of the Atlantic, link hands, link arms, stand shoulder to shoulder, until we’ve rid the world of George W. Bush and Anthony Blair, once and for all…”

british MP george galloway–during a debate with fellow brit chris hitchens

my favorite moonbat george galloway (british MP, iraq war opponent, etc,etc) was voted out of the celebrity big brother house (UK edition). he has had a rough go of it recently. labour MP steve pound is quoted here as saying:

“He’s gone from imitating a cat to wearing a catsuit. Next he’ll be advertising cat food. I actually feel sorry for him because that’s the only future he’s got.

“When he returns to the House of Commons there is going to be such a chorus of ‘Meow’. He’ll have a saucer of milk waiting for him and a litter tray.”

heh. indeed. that’s a great quote, and it would definitely be must-see video if that actually happened in the house of commons. if only humiliation in front of many british citizens were his only problem. if you thought that the pictures of bush and abramoff were incriminating, at least our president has never been photographed with one of saddam’s evil sons. unfortunately for “gorgeous george”, the same cannot be said for him. there’s another unholy alliance just begging for space on this blog. michelle malkin’s got all the info in this post.

i wonder what galloway and the other iraq war critics would have to say if there was confirmation those WMDs were moved somewhere else before the invasion. more on that in a future post.

for more on galloway and his opposition to the iraq war:

(from this blog)
britain’s hard left vs. tony blair
george galloway is a loon…and other obvious truths
galloway is a loon…part II

other blogs:
Coleman, The Cat Who Laughed Last–captain’s quarters
Galloway Booted From Big Brother— video at the political teen

Posted on January 14, 2006 Uncategorized

haven’t we seen this movie before?

a country who actually has admitted to having a nuclear program and that defiantly refuses to stop that program (iran) has been given the ultimate warning: a referral to the UN security council. threats like this worked so well against saddam’s iraq…why not try it again? for reasons not to trust the UN in serious international affairs, read this. if sanctions imposed by the UN are not strongly enforced, and if the UN’s resolutions are ignored by rogue dictators with evil intent, what then?

do you want a man (iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad) who makes statements such as these to have access to nuclear weapons? i think not.

victor david hanson has an excellent analysis here. he says:

When a supposedly unhinged Mr. Ahmadinejad threatens the destruction of Israel and then summarily proceeds to violate international protocols aimed at monitoring Irans nuclear industry, we all take note. Any country that burns off some of its natural gas at the wellhead while claiming that it needs nuclear power for domestic energy is simply lying. Terrorism, vast petroleum reserves, nuclear weapons, and boasts of wiping neighboring nations off the map are a bad combination.

there’s no simple solution for what exactly to do about iran, because each alternative comes with its own set of negative consequences, as hanson points out. for now, (even though i remain skeptical of the UN’s ability to successfully negotiate a satisfactory compromise for both sides) we should seek a diplomatic solution. the results of this effort should determine what steps to take next.

scott ott at scrappleface gives the rest of us his unique take on iran and the UN. it would be really funny if it weren’t so close to the truth. read. enjoy. bookmark.

Iran defiant over nuclear warning–BBC
Q & A Iran nuclear stand-off–BBC
Bush, Merkel united on Iran’s nuclear threat – Jan 13, 2006— CNN.com
Victor Davis Hanson on Iran— NRO
Iran Threatens to End Nuclear Cooperation –Los Angeles Times

Let’s make sure we do better with Iran than we did with Iraq –some suggestions from across the pond (The Guardian). some are worth considering. some are not. judge for yourself.

Posted on December 21, 2005 Democrats, George W. Bush

the dems’ 2006 plan will self-destruct in 3-2-1

now is not the time to be playing games with our national security and trying to score political points on the bush administration. the democrats are engaged in this effort to bring down the president of the united states any way they can. some are even floating the idea of impeachment, like barbara boxer and john lewis. any presidential abuse of power should be harshly punished and would be considered an impeachable offense in my book. however, that’s not what happened here with the wiretapping/NSA situation.

mark levin:

Moreover, where is the historical precedent for a commander-in-chief, especially during war, being required to ask permission from a court to spy on the enemy, including intercepting communications? Did Abraham Lincoln (Civil War), Woodrow Wilson (World War I), FDR/Harry Truman (World War II), Ike (Korean War), and/or JFK/LBJ/Richard Nixon (Vietnam War) use probable cause as the basis for intercepting enemy communications? Did they go to court each time and ask permission from a judge to intercept foreign intelligence? Of course not. And as pointed out by Byron York and others, recent presidents such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton have all issued presidential orders making clear that while they will attempt to follow FISA, they retain their inherent constitutional authority to gather foreign intelligence, protect our national security, and wage war. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to al-Qaeda terrorists as they conspire to blow up our cities.

what he said. the president has the constitutional authority to do what he did.

he goes on to say:

The president has not acted in a reckless or lawless way. He has sought and received extensive legal advice from scores of legal experts, many of whom are no doubt civil servants. He has numerous internal checks built into the process, requiring a constant review of procedures. And despite the pronouncements of some on the Hill, certain members of Congress were briefed, i.e., it’s not as if they weren’t aware of the program. Sometimes a president has to do what’s right in his eyes and be prepared to defend it, as Bush is now. We used to call that leadership.

other legal eagles agree, including john schmidt, who was associate attorney general from 1994-1997 under president clinton.

President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court’s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

it’s important to note that no actual cases of abuse of the patriot act and its provisions have been alleged, simply the hypothetical possibility of such abuses taking place. also, according to a CNN/gallup/usa today poll… only 34 percent of the public thinks that the patriot act goes too far. sixty-two percent approve of it (44 percent) or think it doesn’t go far enough (18 percent).
(hat tip: nro)

yet some democrats have the temerity to ignore their own personal disregard for privacy (including chuck schumer and his interest in michael steele’s credit records) and act shocked and outraged that the president might want to authorize surveillance on suspected terrorists. it is understandable to be concerned that a president or a government would have the legal right and the desire to listen to our personal phone calls and read our emails. i am concerned about that, but according to what we know right now, it doesn’t seem that any law has been abused in the execution of this program.

the weekly standard’s mackubin thomas owens has more on that point here. i’ll give him the (almost) last word.

Today, once again we face the perennial tension between vigilance and responsibility as the United States is the target of those who would destroy it. In all decisions involving tradeoffs between two things of value, the costs and benefits of one alternative must be measured against the costs and benefits of the other. At a time when the United States faces an adversary that wishes nothing less than America’s destruction, President Bush is correctly taking his bearing from Lincoln, who understood that in time of war, prudence dictates that responsibility must trump vigilance. In response to criticism of his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln asked, “. . . are all the laws but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” Lincoln’s point is as applicable today as it was during the Civil War. If those responsible for the preservation of the republic are not permitted the measures to save it, there will be nothing left to be vigilant about.

i agree with that. if there needs to be changes in the patriot act to better protect the civil liberties of US citizens, fine. the democrats should go ahead and propose those changes. just don’t completely throw away legislation that will help to keep us safe from terrorism simply because one part or another is not acceptable. do you really want to fix the patriot act or do you want to kill it completely? that’s the question to the democrats. make up your minds, gentlemen. choose one position on something.

Privacy hypocrisy–michelle malkin
Patriot Act Showdown–opinionjournal.com
September 10 America— the excellent editorial from national review online

Posted on December 19, 2005 Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

bush to dems: get used to disappointment

here’s some of the highlights of the president’s iraq speech sunday night. read the whole thing at nro.

This work has been especially difficult in Iraq more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.

our enemies don’t have any interest in following international law when dealing with their captives. their cruelty to those they have captured doesn’t show the restraint the geneva convention requires, and yet there’s no outrage. why? this doesn’t mean that the united states should abuse prisoners, and those who have have been disciplined for it. i just see a double standard here. if you’re going to criticize abuse, don’t leave out the terrorists and insurgents in that criticism.

Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don’t believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.

john murtha said that the war couldn’t be won militarily. the president disagrees. our military men and women also disagree. more importantly than that…the terrorists also have shown signs that they share the president’s view of our progress in iraq.

The terrorists will continue to have the coward’s power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.

and…

In all three aspects of our strategy security, democracy, and reconstruction we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

the president acknowledges that mistakes were made in iraq and that changes have been made to address what has gone wrong there. will his critics give him credit for this admission (that they never expected him to make)? i doubt it. he is right when he says that there is a difference between honest criticism and “defeatism”. mistakes were made. that doesn’t mean that iraq is a quagmire, or unwinnable on a military basis, as some are saying.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor … and I will not allow it.

there’s your case right there. i believe that it’s convincing. you may not.

the president addresses the anti-war crowd.

I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.

Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our Nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much but tell me he loved being a soldier … he believed in his mission … and Mr. President, finish the job.

I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America’s actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

this speech was not memorable for its rhetoric…it was memorable for its tone. this is the kind of speech we should have been hearing from the president frequently during this time of war. while it may be true that the authorization of military action originates in D.C., it is the american people whose support will determine the success or failure of any war effort. i am glad that the president is making the effort to get their support.

THE BUSH SPEECH: NO CUT AND RUN–michelle malkin
Reaction to President Bush’s Speech–sfgate.com
Sunnis say they want to work with US–pajamas media

Posted on November 28, 2005 Iraq

reality and fiction –closer than we would like to believe

i just finished reading the kite runner by khaled hosseini. it is raw, graphic, intense, and beautifully written. i highly recommend it. the story takes place in modern-day afghanistan. nothing is held back in this fictional narrative, including the extreme cruelty of the taliban and the harsh reality that it was to live under their rule. what i came away with from this book with was that fighting oppression is not a theory. it’s not simply a war game. this is sobering reality to so many people in the world. we must do what we can to stop this oppression. the taliban isn’t a creation of someone’s imagination. it’s a source of pure evil.

if you have any doubts about that, keep reading. the obvious disclaimer applies to anything linked here: some of the articles are very disturbing and somewhat graphic. there may be more information here than you want to know.

Telegraph | News | I was one of the Taliban’s torturers: I crucified people

“YOU must become so notorious for bad things that when you come into an area people will tremble in their sandals. Anyone can do beatings and starve people. I want your unit to find new ways of torture so terrible that the screams will frighten even crows from their nests and if the person survives he will never again have a night’s sleep.”

from afgha.com – Questions / Answers

“As a military and political force, the Taliban surfaced in Qandahar in 1994 when Afghanistan was plagued by a vicious civil war. The main military struggle at that time was taking place in Kabul between the forces of Burhanuddin Rabbani and his military commander Ahmad Shah Masood and their allies on one side and the forces of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his allies on the other side. As a result, about two thirds of Kabul was razed to the ground resembling “an archeological site” with a UN estimated deaths of 50,000 civilians. The rest of the country was taken by warlords and petty chieftains who ruled their areas with a free-for-all attitude. The Amnesty International 1995 annual report about Afghanistan begins with these terrifying accounts:

Thousands of civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded in artillery attacks deliberately aimed at residential areas by all factions in the civil war. Hundreds of men, women and children were deliberately and arbitrarily killed by members of the main armed groups during the raids on civilian homes. Torture, including rape of women and children, was reportedly widespread. People were unlawfully imprisoned in private detention centers because of their political opinions, religion, ethnic origin, or as hostages. Journalists covering the war were detained or imprisoned by the warring factions. Hundreds of people “disappeared.” Warlords appointed themselves as so called Islamic judges and ordered punishments including executions.”

civilians were intentionally targeted and killed without cause. women and children were tortured. people with opposing political views, religious beliefs, or an offensive ethnicity, were jailed. this is the mindset of the enemies we face today in the war on terror. this ideological belief system rarely leaves room for any significant negotiation.

The Taliban’s War on Women: A Health and Human Rights Crisis in Afghanistan.

” PHR’s researcher when visiting Kabul in 1998, saw a city of beggars — women who had once been teachers and nurses now moving in the streets like ghosts under their enveloping burqas , selling every possession and begging so as to feed their children. It is difficult to find another government or would-be government in the world that has deliberately created such poverty by arbitrarily depriving half the population under its control of jobs, schooling, mobility, and health care. Such restrictions are literally life threatening to women and to their children.

The Taliban’s abuses are by no means limited to women. Thousands of men have been taken prisoner, arbitrarily detained, tortured, and many killed and disappeared. Men are beaten and jailed for wearing beards of insufficient length (that of a clenched fist beneath the chin), are subjected to cruel and degrading conditions in jail, and suffer such punishments as amputation and stoning. Men are also vulnerable to extortion, arrest, gang rape, and abuse in detention because of their ethnicity or presumed political views. The Taliban’s Shari’a courts lack even a semblance of due process, with no provisions for legal counsel and frequent use of torture to extract confessions. “

Fact Sheet: Al Qaeda and Taliban Atrocities–more than you need to know to be convinced of their motives.

Salon.com Life | The Taliban’s bravest opponents— this salon piece graphically describes a public execution, just like in kite runner. sadly, reality and fiction are too close together when it comes to the taliban. the first page should be enough to understand what’s going on here.

the idea that groups like this deserve mercy and compassion is beyond my comprehension. it doesn’t make sense to me that there are still excuses made for people like this, because there isn’t any valid excuse for their behavior AT ALL. the support of terrorism and terrorists like bin laden make the taliban a legitimate target. everyone benefits from the defeat of groups like this. that is why the question of whether iraq would be ruled by sharia law or not was such an important one, because of its strict interpretation by sunni muslims that would suggest similar punishments in iraq to those in afghanistan under the taliban. i believe that iraq’s new constitution strikes the right balance in this respect, but i’m not any kind of expert on the subject.

are afghanis better off now than than they were under the taliban? the signs seem to point to an affirmative answer to this question.

from the U.S. Embassy-China website, some hopeful words for Afghanistan:

“While the terrorists hide in caves, the Afghan people are emerging into the light of day to face the challenges of their future. The contrast between their life under the Taliban and their life without the Taliban is crystal clear. Where the Taliban have fled, they can no longer terrorize the population. Afghans–men, women and children–are rejecting what the Taliban stood for. Afghans are once again taking control of their own lives. As the Taliban fled Kandahar on December 7, witnesses reported that joyous residents poured into the streets and tore down the Taliban flag.

Soccer stadiums, once used for public executions, floggings, and amputations are once again used for sports. Children fly kites. Women go to the market without fear of being beaten. Men are no longer required to wear regulation-length beards; women may choose whether or not to wear the burqa. Girls are flocking back to schools after five long years of being barred from public education.”

these are hopeful signs. of course there is still work to be done in afghanistan, but it is headed in the right direction. i hope that we would have the patience to continue the progress being made in iraq as well, but i have a feeling that public opinion may short-circuit that process at some point. i would very much like to be wrong about that.

Posted on October 13, 2005 Democracy, Iraq

all about iraq

Zawahiri’s Advice –power line has a great analysis of zawahiri’s letter here.
Zarqawi’s Losing Strategy–austin bay puts a positive spin on the post-war strategy
IRAQ: Status of Iraq?s insurgency–very balanced look at this subject from the CFR

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?— this article from foreignaffairs. org suggests that there’s no evidence that it can. he argues that we should encourage all political factions to engage in the process, and that this would result in more stable governments. i agree with this last point, and i hope that’s what we are doing now in iraq.

two slightly different views on the iraqi constitution:
Iraq Parliament OKs Constitution Compromise –from FNC
Iraqi MPs approve charter changes — from the BBC

here are some excerpts from the proposed iraqi constitution. interpret for yourself.

Article 7:

First: No entity or program, under any name, may adopt racism, terrorism, the calling of others infidels, ethnic cleansing, or incite, facilitate, glorify, promote, or justify thereto, especially the Saddamist Baath in Iraq and its symbols, regardless of the name that it adopts. This may not be part of the political pluralism in Iraq. This will be organized by law.

Second: The State shall undertake combating terrorism in all its forms, and shall work to protect its territories from being a base or pathway or field for terrorist activities.

Article 14:
Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, origin, color, religion, creed, belief or opinion, or economic and social status.

Article 20:
The citizens, men and women, have the right to participate in public affairs and to enjoy political rights including the right to vote, to elect and to nominate.

Article 36:
The state guarantees in a way that does not violate public order and morality:
A. Freedom of expression, through all means.
B. Freedom of press, printing, advertisement, media and publication.
C. Freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration. This shall be regulated by law.

my favorite part of article 65:
A nominee to the Presidency must meet the following conditions:
C. Must be of good reputation and political experience, and known for his integrity, righteousness, fairness and loyalty to the homeland.

i stuck article 65 in because i think these are good qualities we should have for america’s leaders too. we could do worse (and we have) than following these standards for OUR leaders. do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.

Technorati : iraq, iraqi constitution, terrorism

unfiltered