Guns and Butter Blog

Guns and Butter Blog on Hiatus

2006-12-20T11:40:00.000-08:00

By now, it should be obvious to most readers that the blog has not been updated for sometime. Unfortunatley, my new day job keeps me extremely busy. For the near future, I will not be able to blog much (my partners are welcome to continue to post, however).

Thank you, readers, for visiting Guns and Butter Blog.

Lines and Inanity*

2006-12-19T13:30:00.000-08:00

Among the many odd bits of education I’ve picked up here and there, I’ve had the pleasure of receiving some very useful training in General Semantics – a rather obscure discipline that is very difficult to define, but which can be described as a system for promoting accuracy of thought and feeling. (One of my principle teachers was Robert Pula, who I just found out – thanks to Wikipedia’s wonderfully rich cross-referencing system – died two years ago. Rest in peace, Bob.) A good bit of my rather annoying analytical style can probably be attributed to my exposure to General Semantics almost thirty years ago.

One of the fundamental concepts of General Semantics is that the map is not the territory; the word is not the thing – meaning that our verbal and non-verbal representations of reality are, at best, just representations, and not reality itself.

If we want to think accurately, we need to be aware that it’s all too easy to use these representations in ways that radically distort our understanding of the world. For example, I frequently see some of my fellow Zionists saying and writing things like, “The Palestinians don’t want peace; they just want to destroy Israel.” The problem here is that there is no such “thing” as “the Palestinians”; several million people can be classified (more or less accurately) as Palestinians, and they lack even a means of expressing a majority opinion on this or any other subject. To talk about “the Palestinians” as if they were a unitary object with a single opinion on Israel – or, for that matter, on anything else – is non-sense. (I’ve written in this vein before; see the second paragraph of my response to A____ in “Strategic assets and white elephants”.)

Since – with our limited and imperfect senses – we can never perceive reality entire, all we have is representations: words, maps, and other abstractions from the reality that is “out there” but which remains forever inaccessible to us. If we want to get along well with the universe, we should seek the most accurate representations we can get: Someone trying to understand the Middle East can no more afford to think in terms of what “the Palestinians” think than an American long-distance bus driver can afford to use a map that shows New Jersey next to Idaho. Successful navigation requires maps that fit the territory.

* * *

All of this brings me to one of this month’s existential crises in Israel: Yuli Tamir, our Minister of Education, has come under a barrage of criticism from the Right for her decision to order the inclusion of the “Green Line” (Israel’s pre-1967 de facto border, which was in fact an armistice line recognized by neither Israel nor its Arab neighbors as a legal border) in maps to be included in new elementary-school geography textbooks. According to some (but by no means all) Israeli Rightists and their supporters overseas, including the Green Line in our children’s maps will somehow turn them all into raging members of Peace Now and otherwise sap and impurify all of their precious bodily fluids.

This controversy highlights one of the more surreal absurdities in a region that possesses over 60% of the world’s proven absurdity reserves: Although the Green Line is a significant factor in our lives, it is entirely absent from most of our maps. Since a November 1967 government decision decreed that Israeli maps should show only the post-Six-Day-War cease-fire lines and not the previous borders, the Green Line has achieved a kind of massive, intrusive invisibility.

This might make some kind of sense if the Green Line were in fact irrelevant; but it isn’t. Not only is it still a major part of Israel’s history and a constant point of reference in the debate about an eventual settlement of the Israeli/Arab conflict; it’s also a significant influence on the day-to-day lives of many Israelis:

Until about six years ago, Israelis living across the Green Line received reductions in their income taxes. Many Israelis think we still do, and resent us for it.

People living across the Green Line (myself included) have an easier time obtaining gun licenses than otherwise-similar people living inside “Israel proper”.

Many banks will not give mortgage loans on houses across the Green Line, or else will finance a lower percentage of a home’s purchase price than they would inside pre-1967 Israel.

People living across the Green Line know that they can be evicted from their homes by their government, as a result of an eventual agreement with our Arab neighbors or else as part of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal. (When we bought our house, Vaguely Sinister Wife and I had to sign papers acknowledging this; in fact, according to what we signed the government can, at least in theory, evict us without compensation for the loss of our home.)

As soon as you cross the Green Line from pre-1967 Israel, you come under military rather than civilian legal jurisdiction. This is easily forgotten, since Israelis living in the West Bank are normally dealt with by the Israeli legal system just as other Israelis are; but this is a privilege extended as a courtesy, and can be revoked at the government’s will. This means that if the government should decide to evict us from our homes, and should we decide to protest this decision, we could quickly find ourselves without the civil rights we normally take for granted; martial law is already in place, merely held in abeyance for us as long as it’s not needed.

Stuff grown or manufactured by Jews across the Green Line is apt to be boycotted by members of the Enlightened Public overseas, and even by some Israelis.

The Green Line features prominently in our social lives. Many people won’t visit me at home since I live on the “wrong” side of the Line by a couple of kilometers. (Others, of course, avoid me because they’re allergic to cat fluff, or simply because they don’t like me.)

In short, the Green Line is important – historically, politically, legally, economically, and socially. So where the hell is it? An awful lot of Israelis have no idea.

By eliminating the Green Line from Israeli maps, our government did not eliminate the Green Line; all it accomplished was to create a lot of inaccurate maps and ignorant Israelis. If we intend to navigate our future successfully, we need to know where the Green Line is and what the Green Line is. So let the maps be reprinted; let the Green Line show forth in all its wriggly and impractical glory! And when, eventually, it really does become merely a fact of history, let it enjoy an honorable, dignified – and visible – retirement.

* This is a rather wretched play on the title of the seminal – and rather impenetrable – textbook of General Semantics, Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski. I apologize abjectly – although I suspect that Korzybski would have approved of it.

(This post can also be found at You’ll Come for the Terrorism....)

Categories: Israel.

Watching a watchdog: HonestReporting veers off course

2006-12-10T11:30:00.000-08:00

On 8 December, media watchdog HonestReporting came out with a special report on the new – and already discredited – United Nations Human Rights Council. The report is worth a read, although there’s not much there to surprise anyone who follows the United Nations and its relationship with Israel.

As I dutifully read through the report, slightly bored and mildly depressed, if not astonished, by the hypocrisy of the U.N.’s supposed human-rights establishment, I came across the following sentence:

On November 15, 19 Palestinian civilians were killed when an Israeli artillery shell veered off course, missing its intended military target.

Alarm bells began to ring. My boredom vanished. I suddenly felt that old familiar tingle in my typing fingers (all ten of them). Wasn’t HonestReporting going a bit beyond the facts here?

I very recently wrote about the Beit Hanoun tragedy, although in writing that essay I didn’t investigate the details of how Israeli artillery managed to be off-target by several hundred meters. (I was more interested in the applicability of “international law” to the incident, rather than the technical aspect of what went wrong.) Still, I remembered enough about the incident to be suspicious: HonestReporting’s description didn’t ring quite true.

The first problem here was the word “veered”. (The immediate picture that came to my mind when reading that “an Israeli artillery shell veered off course” was an ancient cartoon sequence of some guy firing off a rocket, which then, predictably, did a loop-the-loop and hit him in the butt.) If the tragedy happened because a shell “veered off course”, we are meant to assume that it had been aimed correctly and somehow took a wrong turn in mid-flight. Now this might indeed happen with a primitive rocket, and it nearly always happens when I hit a golf ball; but it doesn’t generally happen with artillery shells.

And indeed, some very quick research revealed that it didn’t happen. According to the IDF itself as well as to other reports, the shells flew straight enough, but were aimed inaccurately because of a malfunction in one circuit card of the artillery battery’s “Shilem” targeting system. The “Shilem” apparatus for this battery had been replaced five days before the Beit Hanoun tragedy; and according to at least one report, it had not been given a live-fire test before being used in the Beit Hanoun bombardment. The final report of the IDF investigation into the incident has not been released, so we don’t yet know why this particular device malfunctioned; the “Shilem” system has been in use for about 30 years and has an excellent record for reliability, which may have (perversely) contributed to the tragedy by allowing the system to be deployed with minimal post-installation testing before real-world use.

According to both the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, seven shells were fired off-target, not just one. So even though a hardware failure was responsible for the death of nineteen innocent civilians, the operational procedures in use that day failed to correct the problem in an appropriately timely manner. (Apparently, part of the problem was that the same system that had made the mistake in the first place was also in charge of tracking where the shells hit – and it thought it was doing just fine.)

So: It was seven shells, not one. The shells didn’t change their minds in midair; they were aimed wrong by a defective system, under circumstances that remain unclear. And what about the “intended military target” of the shelling?

Here I was on firmer ground, since I had already written about the targeting of the Beit Hanoun bombardment. The actual target of the shelling was an open area that had been used on the previous day for launching Kassam rockets at Israel. Without repeating a long discussion of the targeting issue, I will only say that blithely referring to an open field as a “military target” is, at best, something of an exaggeration. The impression conveyed by the phrase “military target” is of something substantial – a weapons factory, a troop formation, or the like – rather than an open field that had been used for a military purpose on the previous day but might well be hosting a soccer game today. Even if the IDF had a more or less valid military intention in firing these shells at Beit Hanoun, the target was hardly an impressively military one.

* * *

All of this may seem like a lot of bother about one sentence in an otherwise unobjectionable report written by an organization of whose goals I approve. But I think that this sentence highlights an important problem with many of the individuals and organizations that support Israel in the public sphere: the tendency to be just a little bit too convinced of Israeli righteousness, to be too fast to gloss over our own side’s transgressions, and thus to lose the trust of a skeptical world.

Organizations like HonestReporting bill themselves as guardians of the truth – in HonestReporting’s own words, “Promoting fairness. Ensuring accuracy. Effecting change.” If these organizations want to achieve anything, they need to be seen as more than just pro-Israel propaganda mouthpieces. It’s fine to be pro-Israel – many people, myself included, are immediately suspicious of anyone who claims complete neutrality – but if you’re billing yourself as a guardian of accuracy and an opponent of media bias, you need to be scrupulously accurate yourself and try hard not to be swayed by your own biases.

On this occasion – and, I’m afraid, on many others – HonestReporting has let its sympathy for Israel overrule its professed dedication to accuracy, and thus has damaged its own effectiveness.

(This post can also be found at You’ll come for the terrorism....)

Categories: Israel, Palestine, Middle East, War Crimes.

Beit Hanoun: war crimes and misdemeanors

2006-11-28T10:46:00.000-08:00

Of all the English-language columnists in the Israeli press, there is only one who consistently writes stuff that I wish I’d written myself: Haaretz’s Bradley Burston. I don’t always fully agree with him – he’s generally a bit to my left politically – but he’s always thoughtful, and, unlike many Haaretz writers, he’s never so doctrinaire as to render himself irrelevant.

Of course, there’s no point in writing a blog post simply to tell the world (OK, a very very small portion of the world) that you agree with something; to blog is to quibble, after all. So my lead paragraph is there simply to soften you up for what follows: a detailed disagreement with Bradley Burston.

In his recent column “We can’t be war criminals, we’re Palestinian”, Burston quite correctly argues that Palestinian use of Kassam rockets against Israeli towns constitutes a war crime; and he brings in Human Rights Watch to back up his claim. So far, so good; but Burston also invokes HRW to support his contention that Israel committed a war crime in its shelling of Beit Hanoun, which resulted in the tragic killing of nineteen noncombatant Palestinian civilians. I believe that it is unfair to “convict” Israel of war crimes in this manner, despite the fact that I do not have a great deal of confidence in our military and political leaders’ wisdom or motives; and I wrote Bradley Burston to explain why (correspondence is reproduced with Mr. Burston’s permission):

Dear Mr. Burston:

As happens annoyingly often, you’ve written a column that I wish I’d written myself. Thanks for the good writing and the astute analysis.

I have one quibble with your argument regarding recent events in Beit Hanoun: You seem overly ready to convict the IDF of a war crime in the killing of 19 Palestinian noncombatants, considering that the law on the subject is highly ambiguous.

International law indeed requires that military attacks be directed only at military targets. Human Rights Watch contends that the standards used by the IDF in aiming and timing its artillery attacks are such as to constitute a war crime; but I don’t think they successfully make that case. The problem is that while international law does require certain intentions in targeting, the relevant treaties do not establish any particular standard for “quality control” in executing attacks; that is, there is no well-defined boundary between “legitimate” unintentional killing of civilians and illegitimate attacks carried out with reckless disregard for civilian deaths.

Lacking such a standard, there is no reliable way to judge the IDF’s shelling of Gaza on purely objective grounds.

According to HRW, “the IDF confirmed that it had fired 12 artillery shells at the site, having missed its intended target 500 meters away.” It would seem to me that if the shells that killed the Athamna family fell 500 meters from their designated target, the prima facie interpretation of the incident is that it was a tragic but non-criminal error. Since the legality of an attack is based on its intention (that is, its target) the attack does not become a war crime simply because of an error in aiming weapons – as long as a good-faith effort was made to procure accurate weapons and aim them properly.

HRW further claims that “the evidence suggests that Israel’s day-old information that homemade rockets had been launched from the area, with no specific information that rockets continued to be launched from the area, was an insufficient basis for considering the area attacked to be a legitimate military target.” This claim is problematic for two reasons: first, requiring “specific information” about Kassam firing in “real time” would make most forms of military interdiction of such firing virtually impossible, as Kassam crews arrive, set up their launcher, fire their rocket, and leave again within a very short span of time. The best that can possibly be done is to identify areas that are routinely used for firing Kassams and are not overly close to civilian dwellings or facilities, and then to try to time interdiction fire to achieve best results with minimum risk to the innocent. The second problem with HRW’s claim is that it is completely irrelevant: If the IDF artillery was off-target by 500 meters, the timing of the shelling was not the primary cause of the tragedy. Presumably, had the shells been aimed accurately, tragedy would have been averted even if nobody was firing Kassams from the target zone at the time.

Ultimately, the determination of whether the IDF shelling of Beit Hanoun constituted a war crime can be made only on somewhat subjective grounds:

Did the IDF procure and use weapons that are normally considered accurate and reliable?

Did the IDF select targets taking proper account of the accuracy and precision of its weapons?

Did the IDF properly train its artillery crews to avoid targeting errors?

Did the IDF select targets based upon the best intelligence that could practicably be obtained?

Did the IDF select what it believed to be the best available tactics for combating Kassam fire while minimizing danger to innocent Palestinians?

And lastly - and perhaps most importantly:

Did the IDF express and promote an attitude of proper care to avoid killing noncombatant civilians whenever possible?

(This last question is really the key: If the IDF acted with the proper attitude and intentions, it is innocent of war crimes even if some soldiers botched an operation or equipment malfunctioned; but if the IDF exhibited reckless disregard for the lives of innocent civilians – or, indeed, intended that innocent civilians be killed – then Beit Hanoun was a war crime.)

I cannot confidently assert that the IDF is entirely innocent regarding the Beit Hanoun tragedy; I simply do not know the answers to the questions I’ve asked above. (I’m fairly sure that the IDF’s artillery is normally accurate and reliable; but as I have yet to see an explanation of why the shells were fired inaccurately, I’ll assume that even this question remains open for now.) But until and unless answers to these questions do become available, it is unfair to “convict” the IDF of a war crime in Beit Hanoun. There is, I believe, a reasonably high probability that the shells were fired off-target due to legitimate (i.e. non-reckless) human error; and if this is the case, no war crime took place even given the sad results of the shelling.

Best regards,

-Don Radlauer

Bradley Burston responded thus:

Thanks very much, Don, for your thoughtful letter. I believe that the crime here was not that of the gun crew, nor of the spotters, but of [Israeli Defense Minister Amir] Peretz and senior officers in the Southern Command and the General Staff, who lobbied for and gave the green light to artillery shelling even though more accurate means were available, and even though they had been warned – both by precedent in Gaza and Lebanon, and by predecessors in senior posts – that something very much like Beit Hanun was a very likely possibility.

Best regards,

Bradley

To which I responded:

Dear Bradley -

Thanks for your kind response.

Indeed, if Peretz and the relevant IDF commanders believed that more precise means were available to combat Kassam launches, the decision to use artillery was problematic – and perhaps even criminal. That leaves us with two key questions:

What information did Peretz and the generals have regarding the likelihood of a Beit-Hanoun-style disaster based on extensive use of artillery, particularly in comparison to the risks involved in using alternative means? What information did they have regarding the effectiveness of the various means of attack, as well as the risk to our own forces (e.g. from in-person operations)? (It may also be relevant to consider that if the Beit Hanoun disaster occurred because of human error, other methods of attack might be equally prone to human error.)

Assuming that the answer to (1) would lead a reasonable person (generally defined as someone closely resembling me) to choose something other than artillery, why did our military leaders choose artillery?

I’m not sure that there really are measures available to the IDF that would effectively combat Kassams without endangering Palestinian civilians – particularly given that (as I see it) a large part of the motivation behind the Kassams is to provoke Israeli responses that would lead, sooner or later, to a Beit-Hanoun-style “massacre”. What method do you think would be both effective and safe?

At the same time, I must admit that I don’t have a great deal of confidence in the decision-making abilities of our political or military leaders; too often they seem to be playing to the local audience (which, judged by Haaretz or JPost forum participants, is rather bloodthirsty) rather than understanding the implications of their decisions in a broader context. But lacking a detailed answer to the questions above, I’m still not convinced that Beit Hanoun was a war crime, as opposed to a sad and stupid – but non-criminal - fuck-up.

Best,

-Don

That is as far as our discussion progressed. I’ve done a little further research, just to clarify where the lines are drawn regarding what is a war crime and what is not. It seems that the subject is a rather complex one: the Hague and Geneva Conventions do not draw precise boundaries between legitimate warfare (which is never a clean business, rules or no) and war crime; and there is a substantial gulf between the strict interpretation of the various Conventions advocated by Human Rights Watch and other NGO’s active in the field, and the much looser interpretation reflected in the actual history of war-crime prosecutions.

As both Burston and I have pointed out, it’s quite common – and wrong – for parties perceived as the “underdog” to be given a pass regarding the rules of war. “Enlightened Public Opinion” is quick to condemn Western governments for any perceived violation of the rules (shooting at mosques, for example), but is strangely silent when Third World irregular forces commit flagrant violations of the same rules (like hiding combatants and arms in the aforementioned mosques, drawing the Western forces’ fire). This inconsistency undermines the principles on which international law is based; if the rules of war are to have any meaning at all, they must apply to all combatants equally.

There is no real question, then, that Palestinian Kassam attacks and Hezbollah’s Katyushas fired at northern Israel are war crimes, regardless of the legitimacy of Israel’s military tactics. Weapons that cannot be aimed precisely enough to hit military targets are of use only to terrorize and kill civilians; and the use of such a weapon is thus a clear sign of the intent to attack civilian targets – precisely what the Conventions forbid.

But just as Israel’s military tactics, legitimate or not, do not justify our opponents’ violations of the rules of warfare, our opponents’ illegitimate tactics do not justify violations on our part.

If we are to use the strict “NGO interpretation” of the rules of war (which is the interpretation Bradley Burston and I were using in our exchange of letters), it’s possible that some Israeli actions against Palestinian or Lebanese targets might have been criminal; as mentioned above, it all hinges on what information and alternatives were available to commanders, and how they made the decisions they made. However, it is also important to note that in the real world, nobody has ever been prosecuted for war crimes based on this interpretation of the law. An extensive Wikipedia list of prominent prosecuted and un-prosecuted war crimes does not include a single case in which civilians were killed as a consequence of a botched – or even reckless – attack on a military target. Every one of the war crimes listed was a deliberate attack on civilians, with no military justification.

I try (albeit not hard enough) to be a person of principle, and I aspire to live in a nation governed by principle. I would be much happier with my government if I felt that its every decision took into account the rights of noncombatant civilians as well as Israel’s military and political needs – although I do feel that our record could be a lot worse than it is, considering the dangers we face. Like Bradley Burston, I feel very uncomfortable with incidents like the Beit Hanoun tragedy: even if the killing of innocent civilians was not intentional, it was predictable given the number of shells we were firing in close proximity to densely populated areas. But I still think Burston is wrong to classify Beit Hanoun as a war crime.

Words are powerful things. If Israel is accused of committing war crimes – by Israelis, no less! – we are being compared to the Nazis, Cambodia’s Pol Pot, and the rest of the monsters. To be classified as part of this group is to lose all legitimacy among right-thinking people worldwide; and Israel is desperately in need of all the legitimacy it can get. But while the Katyushas and Kassams fit comfortably into the list of acknowledged war crimes, Israel’s actions in Lebanon and Gaza do not.

The kind of even-handedness practiced by Human Rights Watch and Bradley Burston is certainly better than accusations made against Israel alone; but even this “fairness” seems terribly unfair considering that our adversaries have committed war crimes according to all legitimate definitions of the term, while Israel has committed war crimes – if at all – only according to an interpretation of the rules of war that exists only in the minds of human-rights NGO’s, and has never seen the inside of a court of law.

(This post can also be found at You’ll Come for the Terrorism….)

Categories: Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Middle East, War Crimes.

Assimilation and Politics

2006-10-31T22:11:00.000-08:00

My last Seattle Times column (original link here; as before, please note that I do not get to pick the title):

An Asian American in D.C.: adjustment and assimilation

James J. Na

It has been about a year since I left Seattle for a Northern Virginia exurb in a fit of political angst, and the time allows for a bit of measured reflection about the change.

When I lived in Seattle, one of the city's facets to which I quickly grew accustomed was the integration of Asian Americans into the city's mainstream life. This was not surprising, of course. While Seattle does not boast a large number of Asians in absolute terms, they form the largest nonwhite population at over 13 percent of the total — a rarity outside Hawaii.

This was, after all, the city of Bruce Lee. Not only has Seattle had a long history of Asian immigration, the tech boom also attracted a large number of Asian professionals to the area, reinforcing the existing trend.

I have lived in many different parts of the country since I came to the United States 20 years ago, from mega-urban New York to rural Iowa, and the metro Seattle area was the only place where I saw real-estate ads featuring AM/WF couples (that's Asian male/white female, in classifieds lingo) — something indicative, if anecdotally, of assimilation at a visceral level.

Some of the same dynamics are at work in the fast-growing exurbs of Northern Virginia where I now live. The area has had explosive growth in the past several years, fueled by a strong economy, especially in the tech sector and the defense industry, as well as a business-friendly regulatory environment. What was once a sleepy rural area (perhaps akin to the outer Eastside of the Seattle area) now boasts affluent, ethnically diverse communities.

Closer-in suburbs of the District of Columbia and D.C. itself, however, are a different story. There is a large Asian population in the immediate suburbs of D.C., but it tends to congregate (or self-segregate) by national origin, following the classic early immigration pattern. In D.C. itself, the Asian population is less than 3 percent, and plays a seemingly small role in the cultural and political life of the city.

Indeed, when I attend functions and meetings in D.C., I am often struck by the almost total absence of Asian faces. Certainly there are notable exceptions — Elaine Chao, the Labor Department secretary, Norman Mineta, the former transportation secretary, and the enduring Sen. Daniel Inouye from Hawaii, as well as up-and-coming Congressman Bobby Jindal from Louisiana, are recognizable faces around the city, as is the ex-"neocon" Francis Fukuyama — but the general trend at the working level is in stark contrast to that of Seattle.

One acquaintance attributed this to institutional racism against nonwhites in the city. That explanation might be tempting, given the persistent feel of a small Southern city beneath the surface of the political hub that is D.C. But the real answer, I suspect, is more complex.

The city's life is overwhelmingly dominated by the industry of politics, which, unlike information technology, is an old business. It requires, by nature, discretion and even secrecy. Where trust and loyalty are at such a high premium, nepotism and clannishness are often rational responses, given that family and friends are generally more trustworthy than outsiders, however capable or intelligent.

Thus, it is not that there is significant racism against Asians. It is, rather, that the system erects a high barrier against late entrants, and Asian Americans tend to be late arrivals, particularly in political terms (a friend familiar with the entertainment industry observed something similar, and perhaps not coincidentally, politics is said to be show business for ugly people).

Two factors, however, increasingly mitigate this situation. One is, simply, time. As younger Asian Americans make their way into politics, slowly but surely, they are accompanied by their own social networks while integrating into the overall system.

The other is technology. Politics may be an ancient business, but it is not immune to technological changes. The advent of the Internet, the blog-osphere and indeed the fabled "net-roots" are diffusing political power. Running a leading blog about Korea, as I did, for example, can sometimes open doors that might otherwise require years of work at think tanks or on the Hill.

Washington, D.C., might not ever look like Seattle, and the basic human drive for political power will not change, but the forces of assimilation are ever present for Asian Americans — even at the epicenter of national political power.

Savage Suckering Listeners? I knew it!

2006-10-26T23:52:00.000-07:00

Maybe Michael Savage isn't a phony, but David Klinghoffer has given us a good reason to suspect that extremely-over-the-top talk radio host Savage is not the bent-out-of-shape right-winger that he claims to be. I've never taken to Savage's program, and it's long been my hunch that his whole thing is a contrived act. I have long had a difficult time taking him seriously. Anyway, as Klinghoffer reveals, Savage recently gave a generous campaign contribution to Jerry Browne for California Attorney General. That Savage would give money to Governor Moonbeam strenghten's my long-held hunch.

Ditching Israel: a false panacea

2006-10-25T09:56:00.000-07:00

American support for Israel has long been a loaded political issue. Whatever difficulty the United States faces, opponents of Israel find some way to claim that it’s all because of U.S. involvement with Israel. America’s bogged down in Iraq? Well, Bush and his guiding neocons sent the troops in just to protect Israel, right? America’s economy isn’t in great shape? Well, what can you expect when Israel soaks up untold billions in American aid? Oil shortages? Let’s not even get started. And since 9/11, everyone’s thinking about terrorism – and, as usual, it’s all Israel’s fault.

I wasn’t entirely surprised, then, to receive the following question:

If we (America) ditched Israel, wouldn’t that solve all our terrorism problems?

Here’s my response:

The short answer: No.

The medium-length answer: No, it wouldn’t, for various reasons.

First, not all terrorism emanates from the Moslem world (although Islamist terrorism is definitely the flavor of the month nowadays). Anything that would be perceived as a major victory for Islamist terrorists would encourage not only further Islamist terrorism, but also non-Islamist terrorism. It’s a very bad idea to hand any terrorist, anywhere, a major victory, unless the compensating benefits are enormous. Appeasing terrorists does not reduce terrorism – it encourages terrorism.

Second, not all Islamist terrorism has anything to do with Israel. In fact, most of the Islamist terror directed at targets outside Israel is organized, inspired, and sponsored by al-Qaeda (including its many offshoots) and Iran – and neither of these is primarily concerned with Israel. (Both, of course, dislike us, and Iran in particular does sponsor a great deal of anti-Israel terrorism; but both have agendas far beyond opposition to Israel. Al-Qaeda, in particular, is widely viewed in the Arab world as having publicly adopted opposition to Israel as an opportunistic attempt to cash in on the general anti-Israel sentiment in the region.)

Radical Islamic groups perceive themselves as being immersed in a global struggle against “infidels” – a “clash of civilizations”, to borrow a phrase. In this view, Israel is certainly one of the insults inflicted on the Islamic world by the West, but it is hardly the only one, or even the most important one. Were Israel magically to disappear tomorrow, the Islamic world would still be mostly poor, backward, ignorant, envious, and led by incompetent despots; and the West, with the United States as its largest, richest, most powerful, and most “decadent” member, would still be the enemy.

Terrorism, in my view, results from a combination of real – and, more importantly, perceived – grievances, and an ideology that focuses attention on these grievances, promotes violence as a “solution” to them, discourages societal introspection, and dehumanizes “the other”. Once a society has embraced terrorism as a strategy to cope with its self-perceived problems, I believe that a dynamic is established that is very difficult to eliminate; and in particular, I don’t believe that removing the ostensible external causes of grievance is likely to have a significant effect in reducing terrorism emanating from such societies. It’s simply too easy to find new grievances.

Third, eliminating U.S. support for Israel would not eliminate Israel itself – and would cause a great deal of damage to the United States. Israel, while small, is relatively prosperous and technologically advanced, with a per-capita GDP (according to the CIA estimate for 2005) of almost $25,000 and a total GDP of well over $100 billion. This means that U.S. aid to Israel, at about $2 billion per year, represents less than 2 percent of our annual GDP; and in fact, this overstates the importance of this aid, since much of it consists of credits that we must use to purchase U.S.-manufactured military hardware that we would otherwise make – and export – ourselves. In effect, then, the bottom-line value to Israel of the aid it receives from the United States is far less than the official amount of that aid; and for the same reason, the real financial cost to the U.S. of this aid is much lower than it appears. So while losing this U.S. aid would be costly to Israel, it would hardly be fatal to us. (Further, U.S. weapons that are known to be used by Israel are considered to be especially attractive to other international buyers; thus, having Israel as a major export customer brings substantial financial rewards to the U.S. defense industry.)

Were the U.S. to “ditch” Israel, the political and military cost to America would be substantial. While losing U.S. diplomatic support would be painful and difficult for Israel, being perceived as having abandoned one of its closest allies would be terribly damaging to America’s reputation for loyalty and trustworthiness. It would also leave the U.S. without a single strong, stable, genuinely friendly, and reliable ally in the Middle East.

In short, I don’t believe that abandoning support for Israel would in any way help to reduce terror attacks on the United States; in fact, I believe that such a move would only encourage terror organizations and their supporters to continue targeting the U.S. If America’s antagonists believe that America is weak and inconstant, they will redouble their efforts. Nothing is as encouraging as success.

(This post can also be found at the newly-retitled You'll Come for the Terrorism....)

Categories: Israel, Middle East, Terrorism.

Another Federal Judge Fails Us in Fight Against Terrorists

2006-10-25T09:46:00.000-07:00

This month saw another thwarting of American efforts to fight radical Islamicist terrorists by a federal judge. "The Terrorist Lawyer," Lynne Stewart was given a mere twenty-eight MONTH sentence for her conviction for breaking federal law and prison regulations. She illegally passed on a message from her convicted client, the Blind Sheikh, urging his Islamic Group jihad-mates to end their ceasefire. U.S. District Court Judge John Koeltl, a Clinton appointee, praised Stewart at the sentencing for her "public service" and gave her a disgustingly light sentence.

Federal prosecutors asked for thirty YEARS, a sentence much closer to what Stewart deserved. But she hasn't yet served a day, nor will she while her case is on appeal to the Second Circuit. I've blogged about Stewart many times before. Sadly, this case now comes in a long line of letdowns at the hands of federal trial court judges.

Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who squared off against Stewart in the first World Trade Center Bombing case, gives us his take on this injustice at NRO. Here's one insightful paragraph:

Lynne Stewart’s sentencing is our crystal ball for the return of September 10th America. Indeed, as noted here yesterday, it even featured a plea for mercy from former top Clinton Justice Department official Jo Ann Harris, who championed an anti-American activist lawyer (unanimously convicted of terrorism offenses by a jury of twelve New Yorkers) while deriding the government’s efforts as “unwarranted overkill.”

As it turns out, the folks who take the law enforcement approach to Islamicist terrorists doesn't believe in being tough on crime. Call it the soft-on-crime approach to terrorism.

In the President's corner we have people who take 9/11 and the threat from Islamicist terrorists seriously, believing we need to vigorously take the war to the terrorists. But on the left we have a wretched alliance between people who see 9/11 and the fight against Islamicist terrorists terrorists as a mere law enforcement matter and other people who believe that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by the U.S. government, that no Islamicist terrorist threat exists beyond what we have created, and that the President is the real terrorist. The groups in that alliance might not share the same ultimate purposes and outlook on things, but they share the dislike of our efforts to take Islamicist terrorists seriously and share the same tactics to undermine the war effort.

Breaking News: Law Professor Doesn't Like U.S. Constitution!

2006-10-24T23:34:00.000-07:00

At least I admire the candor. Law Professor Sandford Levison doesn't like the U.S. Constitution. Rather than change it Cass Sunstein-style (i.e., through planned judicial imperialism leading to a court-created New New Deal on steroids society), the good professor appears bent on dismantling the entire constitutional system and giving us an ingenious system that happens to look like something out of...old Europe! Somehow, I don't know that's what my ancestors got on the boats to America for.

The anti-constitutional views of law professor Sanford Levison are the focus of Phillip Klein's recent AmSpec article "Constitutional Mulligan." I haven't read Prof. Levison's new book disparaging our constitution, but the self-descrived "strong Democrat" has a recent LA Times op-ed that is also available for public viewing. Suffice to say, if the Democratic Party were to take the learned legal academic's views to heart, they would find themselves living in political oblivion for a long, long time.

It's not earth-shattering news to realize that our constitution has anti-democratic elements as well as democratic elements. (I'm using small "d"s on purpose here.) But we've always known that about the U.S. Constitution. We long struggle to understand how separation-of-powers, bicameralism, the electoral college, federalism, and independent courts are to play themselves out in our system based upon consent of the governed and rule by the majority through frequent democratic elections. At times--if not most of the time--many Americans strongly disagree with one another about how our constitution is to work. But most of us like the one we have.

In their good sense the American people like our constitution far more than they might happen to presently dislike those we have put in power. In any event, I will take the stability that our democratically-elected republican system provides over raw majoritarianism any day of the week. Let other countries have unstable parliamentary systems; I prefer a presidential, federal system.

An American law professor with old Europe envy? That isn't exactly the stuff to make the big papers stop the presses. But Prof. Levison's misguided views are plenty good for giving us all a good chuckle. Maybe there is something more sinister at work in the minds of such professors. Yet, for now I'll simply have a few laughs.

Strategic assets and white elephants

2006-10-19T17:24:00.000-07:00

I just answered an AllExperts.com question relating to to supposed inadvisability of Israeli territorial “concessions” to our Arab neighbors. The question is one that comes up rather often in discussions of Israeli policy and politics; so I think my answer may be worth sharing.

A____ quoted another AllExperts expert, who had written a fairly thorough description of the Arab world’s hostility to Israel, then asked:

If the Arabs do not want a binational solution or any form of peace, then they will not stop until Israel is fully destroyed; so doesn’t giving them land just speed up the “wiping israel off the face of the earth” process?

Dear A____ -

I don’t know who your other expert is - I didn’t see him on the list of experts in “my” category. I also don’t know exactly what question you asked him, so it’s hard to comment on his answer. It seems factual enough, as far as it goes; but I can’t say whether it’s actually a useful answer to any particular question.

In response to your question, I’d like first to point out that there is a big difference between talking about “the Arab states”, as your other expert did, and talking about “the Arabs”, as you did. “The Arab states” refers to a relatively small group of countries (or, more accurately, governments) with known histories and policies, such that it’s possible to say definite and verifiable things about them. For example, I can say that among the Arab countries near Israel, only Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel and recognize its existence, and know that I’m saying something true. On the other hand, to say that “the Arabs do not want any form of peace with Israel” is to assume that all Arabs think exactly the same way - a gross over-generalization. There are many millions of Arabs, and among those millions of people there is a great deal of diversity of opinion. We should all get out of the habit of talking about “the Arabs” as if they were all alike, just as we should expect others to avoid making sweeping generalizations about “the Jews”.

Second, I believe you’re making one of the classic mistakes about Israeli policy regarding territorial withdrawal. You’re assuming that all land Israel holds is an asset, such that any time we “give” land to the Palestinians (or the Syrians, or the Lebanese, or whoever) we are strengthening them and weakening ourselves. If this were true, obviously it would be important to retain as much land as possible, and to make territorial concessions (if we made them at all) only in return for very substantial benefits.

Indeed, this assumption is true in certain cases. The Golan Heights, for example, has genuine strategic importance for Israel - both in regard to our water supply and in direct military terms. Giving up the Golan Heights and returning to the international border - or worse, the 4 June 1967 de facto border, which had some Israeli land under Syrian control - would genuinely weaken us, and thus it would make sense to make this concession only in return for full, reliable, and permanent peace with Syria and other local Arab states.

On the other hand, I see no reason to view Israel’s former settlements in the Gaza Strip as an asset to Israel: they were hugely costly to defend, and the only people who benefited from them were a few farmers who made substantial profits by using cheap Palestinian and Thai labor, and irrigated their crops with heavily-subsidized water. As far as I’m concerned, getting out of the Gaza Strip made Israel stronger and more viable, not less; and while the Palestinians certainly “spin” our withdrawal as a victory for them, I believe that in the long run the Disengagement was a victory for Israel. (All this has nothing to do with the issue of how much compensation should have been paid to our former Gaza Strip settlers and how well or badly their resettlement has been handled; the fact that I believe the Disengagement was a good idea doesn’t mean I think the Disengagement was carried out perfectly.)

Similarly, I support retaining some parts of the West Bank, in order to strengthen Israel’s strategic position compared to the pre-1967 situation; but I see no reason that Israel should retain all the small settlements scattered through the entire West Bank, where a few thousand settlers live among two million Palestinians. Many of these small settlements are very costly to defend, and do not provide any compensating benefit to Israel. How is such a settlement an asset to Israel? Why does closing down such a settlement aid the process of “wiping Israel off the map”?

In short, I believe that certain pieces of land are genuine assets, while other pieces of land are “white elephants” in the technical sense: that is, supposed “assets” that in fact cost far more to maintain than they yield in benefits. (Remember that white elephants were given by the King of Thailand to his enemies: they were holy so they couldn't be used for work, they were a gift from the King so they couldn’t be discarded, and they cost a great deal to feed!)

It seems to me that the best way for Israel to survive is to focus less on how horrible “the Arabs” are, and instead focus on how we can strengthen ourselves. What can we do to improve our economy (which in turn supports our military and our educational system)? What can we do to increase our internal cohesiveness? How can we manage our affairs so that we can exist within some vaguely rational border as a democratic state with a solid Jewish majority? If Israel does a good job of strengthening itself - which mostly means strengthening its own population and institutions - nobody is going to be able to “wipe us off the face of the earth”, at least not without using nuclear weapons and presumably facing a massive retaliation in kind. But if we fixate on control of land as the sole criterion for security, we are going to neglect other factors which are in reality much more critical to our long-term survival.

Best regards,

-Don Radlauer

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Israel, Middle East, Arabs, Disengagement, Occupation.

Pipes and “provocation”

2006-09-28T10:46:00.000-07:00

Daniel Pipes is one of the West’s most prominent experts on radical Islam and the various organizations promoting an Islamist agenda in the West. In addition to his columns in FrontPageMag.com, The New York Sun, and The Jerusalem Post, he produces his own blog; he offers a weekly email version of the blog for those of us too lazy to take the initiative and go read it ourselves. (He also offers email distribution of his columns; sadly, he doesn’t deliver pizza, so I can’t survive on Pipes alone.)

Mr. Pipes has a lot of interesting things to say, a lot of good information to convey, and some strongly-held opinions and values – some of which I even agree with. However, one of his recent blog pieces raises some serious questions about his adherence to his own professed principles. His initial remarks, along with his reaction when I questioned them, lead me to conclude that Daniel Pipes, while a genuine expert on his own subject matter, is too much a partisan to be taken seriously as a commentator on terrorism.

Mr. Pipes’ blog post refers to reports that a small group of British rightists have threatened to attack Moslems – even going so far as to brandish large knives and threaten to behead British Moslems who don’t “go home”. After a short introduction and a long quote from the original report (from an Australian newspaper rather than a British one, oddly enough), Pipes adds his own brief commentary:

“It is nearly inevitable that Islamist barbarism provoke anti-Muslim barbarism... One can only hope the Islamists will call off their hordes before things get out of hand.”

Pipes’ comment set off alarm bells in my mind (which, as you’ll know if you’ve experienced it, is a very annoying phenomenon – those things are loud!); so I sent the following comment to his blog:

I was rather taken aback by the comment you made at the end of your “Behead Islamists?” post.

Aren’t you making the same mistake you accuse Islamic organizations of making? In “Islamists Threaten Civil War in Great Britain – A Good Idea?” and in many other places as well, you specifically (and correctly) castigate Moslem groups for threatening that Islamist terrorism will increase if Britain’s or America’s foreign policy isn’t changed, Moslems don’t get special privileges, or whatever. The point you make regarding Moslems – that terrorism is wrong and reprehensible regardless of its “root causes” – applies equally to anti-Moslem attacks, doesn't it?

By calling for Islamists to “call off their hordes before things get out of hand,” you appear to be blaming the victims (potential or actual) of anti-Moslem terrorism in a way you don’t do when the terrorism is perpetrated by Moslems against the West.

I’m sure that you didn’t mean to make this distinction; but the fact that even someone as careful and conscientious as you are can make this kind of mistake is an indication of how careful we all have to be to avoid hypocrisy and inconsistent standards. If terrorism is wrong, it’s wrong – period. That means that terrorism is just as wrong when it’s directed at people we don’t like as when it’s directed at our friends; and it means that our enemies are no more required to change their political beliefs and strategies as a response to threatened or actual terrorism than our friends are.

To his credit, Mr. Pipes (who vets all user comments before they’re published on his blog) allowed my comment to appear. But he published it with the following reply:

“It is wrong and I called it ‘anti-Muslim barbarism.’ Further, I am an analyst of this subject, not a spokesman for the British far-rightists, so I think your comparison between my analysis and the Islamist threats is a bit far-fetched.”

Perhaps I didn’t make my point clearly enough when I commented on Mr. Pipes’ blog; but I hadn’t thought that someone as sophisticated as Daniel Pipes would need to be spoon-fed what is, after all, a fairly basic and standard bit of counter-terrorist reasoning. The point I was making was not that Mr. Pipes approves of anti-Moslem terrorism; his use of the term “barbarism” is clear enough even to a reader as obtuse as I. What is objectionable, though, is his call for British Moslems to soften their political rhetoric (assuming that this is what he means by “calling off their hordes before things get out of hand”) in response to terrorist threats against them, despite the fact that he consistently advises Western governments not to modify their policies and rhetoric in response to Moslem terrorist threats against the West. This kind of ideology-based inconsistency is terribly damaging to the fight against terrorism, and if Mr. Pipes has any aspirations to speak with authority on the subject, he needs to understand why.

Terrorism is politically-motivated violence against civilian targets. What is most important about this definition is that it does not distinguish between worthy and unworthy political goals: targeting civilians to further a political cause is terrorism (and is wrong) no matter how just the cause in which it is carried out. As soon as we begin to justify terrorism “in a good cause” (or relabel terror attacks as something more palatable like “resistance to occupation”) we’ve lost the battle against terror – since every cause is a good one in someone’s eyes. Instead of working to prevent civilians from being targeted by political violence, we’re stuck debating which political causes are worth killing for – and dying for.

If we intend to fight terrorism effectively, we need to banish from our thinking the notion of “provocation”. By writing that Islamist barbarism inevitably provokes anti-Moslem barbarism, Daniel Pipes in effect blames British Moslems (or at least their leaders) for any attacks carried out by British rightist “barbarians” against innocent British Moslems – and thus gives the rightists a license to kill. They aren’t committing acts of racist terrorism, after all – they’re simply responding to provocation.

The problem, of course, is that every terrorist on the planet justifies his actions this way. Nobody goes around killing noncombatant civilians just to relieve the boredom of modern life; terrorist movements are founded upon a sense of grievance, and responding to provocation sounds much more sympathetic than murdering the innocent or attacking people you don’t like just for the hell of it.

I don’t sympathize with the goals or tactics of Islamists, British or otherwise. But even if British Moslems are themselves sympathetic to Islamist terrorism, attacks against them are terror attacks, and should be condemned unreservedly. No discussion of “provocation” or “root causes” should be allowed to absolve terrorists of full responsibility for their deeds; terrorism is never “inevitable”, because there are always other ways of achieving political goals. No matter what the provocation, no matter what his grievance, the would-be terrorist must at some point decide that his political agenda is more important than the lives of his victims. It is precisely this dehumanization of the victim that enables terrorism to exist, and it is precisely this dehumanization of the victim that makes terrorism evil.

It’s very easy to condemn terrorism when the perpetrators are our enemies and the victims are our friends. But the true fight against terrorism requires us to oppose political violence against civilians even when the attacks are carried out by our dear friends against our sworn enemies; it requires us to defend our opponents’ right safely to hold and express opinions we find indefensible. This fight requires not only expertise, but also moral clarity and backbone. By falling into the trap of “provocation”, Daniel Pipes has shown that he’s not quite ready to be a true counter-terrorist.

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, Daniel Pipes.

Un-Able Danger

2006-09-21T23:06:00.000-07:00

A report by the Pentagon's Inspector General maintains that the Able Danger Program did not unconver 9/11 hijackers a year before the attack or that team members of that military intelligence program were prevented from sharing that information. (Story here.) Able Danger made a big splash a year ago. Congressman Curt Weldon briefly mentioned Able Danger in his book, Countdown to Terror, and he was outspoken on the whole thing last fall.

I read Rep. Weldon's book and found it interesting. His primary concern in the book, however, is Iran and the general matter of how our nation's intelligence community is operating (or not operating). I don't know what kind of reception Rep. Weldon has received from the folks who closely follow national defense and intelligence issues. (It did receive the endorsement of a former CIA Director.) And I don't know what to make of this new report, except that it sounds like this will be the end of the buzz.

Of course, one can expect that the crowd who claims the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks in a massive, super-secret conspiracy plot will use this as ammo. Oh well. Some guys just have too much time on their hands. (By the way, I recommend a delightful book by the editors of Popular Mechanics called Debunking 9/11 Myths.)

Bolton in the Balance

2006-09-20T23:09:00.000-07:00

I don't place much confidence in the deliberations and decisions of international bodies comprised largely of delegates from despotic regimes. Adding to the mix a layer of bureaucrats immune from any sort of accountability doesn't help things. But I do sleep just a little bit better each night knowing we have John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Robert Novak's latest column concerns Bolton's upcoming confirmation vote. Novak offers an important insight:

Bolton's confirmation for another two years at the UN would be bad news for the secretariat. According to UN sources, Malloch Brown has been stirring up anti-Bolton sentiment with his fellow ambassadors, who in turn have contacted senators. Bolton has demanded reform at the UN, and that has not made him popular with the world organization's bureaucrats. They would like nothing better than to give this conservative diplomat his comeuppance.

Clearly, Bolton is the closest thing we have to a check and balance at the UN. It's not a lot, but it's something. After all, the world government careerists wouldn't be trying to pull strings with American Senators on this for nothing.

Confirm Bolton.

Flying United on 9/11

2006-09-11T12:10:00.000-07:00

I am about to board a cross-country United flight... on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, obviously.

A bit eerie...

Israel and the West Bank: Is it an occupation, or just a hobby?

2006-09-10T06:49:00.000-07:00

Yet again, AllExperts.com has come to my rescue. Just when I was coming to grips with having to finish the first post in my upcoming and long-awaited “Lessons from Lebanon” series, someone asked me a good question that allowed me to write something bloggable while continuing to procrastinate.

Question:

Dear Don,

I hope you don’t interpret my questions as hostile, I’m just wondering what the Israeli point of view is.

Firstly, do you consider Israel’s presence in the West Bank to be an “occupation”?

If so, why does Israel continue to occupy the West Bank? The fact that it is building more settlements in the West Bank (I read that 9,000 settlers were removed from Gaza in the summer of 2005, but a larger number have since moved into the West Bank) suggests that it wants to annex the territory and make it part of Israel. Do you agree?

I think I may have some more questions after your response,

With respect,

E____

Dear E____ –

Whether Israel’s presence in the West Bank constitutes an occupation is a surprisingly complex question. The normal definition of that term – or at least the standard definition under the Geneva Conventions – designates land as “occupied” when it legally belongs to one “High Contracting Party” (meaning a sovereign country that is signatory to the Conventions) and is currently under the military control of another “High Contracting Party”. In the case of the West Bank, however, there is no generally-recognized previous owner (that is, a country with sovereignty) of the West Bank:

The Ottoman Empire no longer exists, and modern Turkey makes no claim on land in our region;

Jordan's post-1948 annexation of the area was recognized only by the United Kingdom and Pakistan (and Jordan has renounced all claim to the West Bank in any case);

“Palestine” has never existed as a sovereign country;

All the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean was allocated by the League of Nations to the “Jewish Homeland” – but the League of Nations Mandate (which is still part of “international law” to this day) did not specifically mention Jewish statehood and sovereignty, even if eventual Jewish statehood was implied by the terms of the Mandate;

The pre-1967 “Green Line” was never a legally-recognized border; it was just an armistice line. The 1949 Armistice Agreements explicitly state that the Green Line is not an official border, and that neither side renounces territorial claims on the other side of the Green Line. (This, by the way, is the principal reason why Israel never put up a fence along the Green Line: to do so would have been to grant it de facto recognition, and considering how vulnerable the pre-1967 shape of our country made us – with hardly anything between our effective eastern border and the sea – we never wanted to make the unmodified Green Line permanent);

Outside of Jerusalem, Israel has never formally annexed any of the land taken from Jordan in 1967; so while we have never abandoned our claim to sovereignty over the West Bank, we have never formally asserted this claim either – except regarding the small portion of the territory that is now part of Jerusalem;

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which is generally accepted as the political and legal basis for Mideast peacemaking, affirms that Israeli withdrawal from territory occupied in the 1967 war should be one of the principles on which a Mideast peace agreement should be based; but the resolution does not specify a full withdrawal, designate Israel’s legal border, or call for an Israeli withdrawal outside the context of a Mideast peace agreement. (Note, also, that U.N. 242 refers to the territories as “occupied” rather than “disputed”; but in this context, it’s not clear that the phrase “territories occupied in the recent conflict” implies any specific opinion regarding the West Bank’s legal status. The United Nations certainly never recognized the West Bank as sovereign Jordanian territory, which at that time was the only obvious alternative to Israeli sovereignty over the area. Resolution 242 makes no mention of “Palestine” as an actual or potential state, or of the creation of a new country to accommodate Palestinian Arabs.)

All this means that for political and legal purposes, the West Bank is more accurately described as “disputed” rather than “occupied” territory. On the other hand, the practical realities on the ground are essentially the same whether the land is “occupied” or “disputed” – and thus Israel has chosen to adopt a sort of hybrid approach: we adhere (in theory, and for the most part in practice) to the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Conventions regarding our treatment of the Palestinians living in the West Bank, while we do not necessarily adhere to the more strictly political provisions of the Conventions.

The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (which, by the way, uses the term “Palestine” in a strictly geographic sense – the term was never used to refer to a potential state until much later) specifically gives Jews the right to settle in all areas of Palestine west of the Jordan River; this right has never been revoked, and the United Nations Charter recognizes the legal validity of League of Nations mandates. Thus one can make a very solid legal argument that Jews have every right to settle in the West Bank – subject, of course, to humanitarian considerations, land-ownership issues, and so on.

In practical terms, most Israelis have no desire to annex all of the West Bank – not that we wouldn’t like to have a larger country without that vulnerable 14-kilometer-wide “wasp waist”, but simply because we know that there are far too many Palestinian Arabs living in Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, and the other West Bank towns and cities; to incorporate this territory into Israel, we would have to choose between giving up our status as a Jewish state, abandoning democracy, or committing a mass expulsion (or worse) of West Bank Arabs – a measure which only a tiny minority of Israelis are ready to tolerate.

At the same time, most Israelis are very reluctant to withdraw all the way to the pre-1967 “border”: to do so would be a strategic nightmare, especially in this age of rocket attacks. Given all of the West Bank to play with, the Palestinians would easily be able to fire rockets at the vast majority of Israeli population centers.

Accordingly, the vast majority of Israelis are ready to make some sort of territorial compromise on the West Bank: Most of the land would be used to set up a Palestinian state (or, alternatively, given to Jordan – except that nowadays Jordan probably wouldn’t take the West Bank even if we asked nicely), while Israel would retain “settlement blocs” near the Green Line, and perhaps give up some sovereign Israeli territory adjacent to the Gaza Strip as well. Of course, the devil (as always) is in the details; but the fact remains that Israel has repeatedly expressed willingness to negotiate along these lines, while the Palestinians have never responded affirmatively or even offered a realistic counter-proposal.

I hope this clarified the issues a bit. If your head is spinning, that’s a good sign: the status of the West Bank, the legality of Israeli settlements there, and eventual prospects for a resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict are tremendously complex issues, with far more questions than answers. Of course, I’ll be more than happy to try to answer follow-up questions.

Best regards,

-Don Radlauer

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Israel, Palestine, Occupation,Middle East, Settlements.

My NRA Interview

2006-09-06T04:52:00.000-07:00

I did an interview with NRA News last Friday evening. Since that was the Friday before the Labor Day weekend, I bet not many people heard it (I think NRA News is on Sirius satellite radio).

I was originally asked to do a Thursday interview, but I had to headline a fundraiser for State Senator Ken Cuccinelli of Faifax County, VA, so I had to do the interview the following day.

The interview was prompted by my last Seattle Times column, which was about gun control.

Any gun nut should be excited about being interviewed by NRA News, and I *am* a certified gun nut, all right. What's more, the day before (Thursday) at the fundraiser, I met Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America.

All in all, I had a couple of interesting days last week.

Kids Expect Too Much, But Achieve Too Little

2006-09-05T03:52:00.000-07:00

In other words, students today are much more ambitious than they were 30 years ago, but barely more accomplished.

Or, in other words, they don't work hard, but expect the rewards to just magically happen. Read the whole thing, if you got the time.

Listen, kids, if you are as lazy as I am, there are only two surefire ways of doing well in life. One, you inherit money (which I clearly did not). Or, two, you marry well (which I did).

Unfortunately, under-achieving types may find that marrying well is difficult, since, increasingly, the highly educated tend to seek other highly educated types as spouses.

Fortunately for me, I was once ambitious and hard-working, so I got my Ivy League degree and graduate education; then I married well, and only then, did I get lazy.

"Dominant Leaders, Not Lovable Leaders"

2006-09-05T03:17:00.000-07:00

Cesar Millan, of the Dog Whisperer fame, often says "dogs follow dominant leaders, not lovable leaders or spiritual leaders" (Millan is careful in separating "dominant" from "aggressive" or "violent" -- real dominance can be transmitted with a posture, a grunt or a quiet, but firm tone, not hysterical shrieking or unrestrained violence).

We, Americans, revered such leaders too... once. WaPo has a clever article about the death of the classic American action hero that "dominated":

Fifty years ago, the reigning American action hero was a onetime college football player with hands the size of ham hocks and the sweetness of a drill sergeant with a hernia. In his greatest role, he shot the eyes out of a dead Indian, scalped another, called his young mentee "Blankethead" and not only didn't get the gal, he didn't get a damned thing. He ended up exiled, alone, to wander between the winds. Our last shot of him shows the door of civilization slamming shut, and he's still on the outside.

That was, of course, John Wayne in John Ford's great "The Searchers" of 1956...

I must admit, I grew up (in Asia) watching a lot of John Wayne (and Kung Fu movies), and the two combined formed a lot about what I think of "manhood."

And, of course, that kind of "dominance" came with a price:

He had something else as well, and it's the missing ingredient from today's movies: He knew it was all right to be hated. Hollywood historian David Thomson once called Wayne "the crown prince of difficult men." The stars of his generation knew that the price of heroism, of domination, of certitude, of command, was loneliness -- or possibly, since they were so disconnected from their emotions they'd never acknowledge such a thing -- aloneness. [Snip]

they were men who made decisions that cost other men their lives; they were hated, even loathed; they lived and drank alone. Their courage wasn't physical, it was almost metaphysical. They had the strength within themselves to ignore (though not really; underneath it cut bad) the will of the consensus and pleadings for such shady attributes as "compassion" and "humanity." They knew the job came first.

Yes, these men were difficult to live with, and even downright loathsome at times, but they were necessary to the society's survival when that very survival was at stake:

In one sense, he was abusive. Look at "The Searchers" through a lens of modern revisionism and you see quite a bit of ugliness in Wayne's great Ethan Edwards. He was racist, he was a bully, a tyrant, the father a son could never impress. Quick to anger, slow to forgive, given to spasms of violence. Perhaps Ford's last best message to us was the ferocity by which, through Ethan Edwards, he de-idealized the hero. It was as if, like Wayne, he sailed into a mellower old age parodying and sweetening the rage that had made him so great, yet so distant, but not before he told us: These guys were great. And they were necessary. And they were heroic. But they were also mean sons o'guns, cruel and masterful and dominating, and if you got on their wrong side, they made you pay.

And what kind of male action hero do we have now? Apparently, the lovable kind:

Today's stars need love. They don't want to be feared, they want to be hugged. They want to be told, "It's okay, big fella." They don't want to shoot anyone, if possible; they certainly won't beat a confession out of a suspect or verbally rip the head off a kid who's new to the unit and trying hard. Their anger is well managed. They never get even, they don't punish, they see the folly of vengeance, they inflict pain only on special occasions.

This isn't just an American phenomenon, of course. Look at James Bond. I grew up with Sean Connery, a real man's James Bond. Today it's Pierce Brosnan (yes, he looks very elegant in all the clothes, but he is a bit, er, "slender," even wimpish). The new actor (whatshisname) who plays the next Bond purportedly even hates guns! What kind of a man is that?

Occasionally, when I get into that kind of a move (helped by a generous portion of beer), I talk about the feminization of politics, and indeed of America, where the biggest sin is no longer, say, cowardice for men and immorality for women, but rather giving offense (usually by saying something politically incorrect).

One caveat; just as male actors are becoming, er, more feminine, there is a corresponding rise of the female action hero, who slashes, kicks and shoots, and often displays the same 50's male action hero persona (hard-swilling and difficult to live with), only with very slender waists and large (artifically enlarged) breasts.

Does this mean feminism has run amok and seriously flipped sexual roles?

Maybe. But I, for one, rather like the unrealistically gorgeous, but butt-kicking tough women who pay their own way, so I can't complain too much if that's what the society breeds in greater quantity (I certainly enjoy the fact that my own wife watches mixed-martial arts events like the Ultimate Fighting Championship with me).

HAR1F: A hot new gene hits the scene

2006-08-31T09:53:00.000-07:00

According to recent reports, scientists have identified a gene which has undergone an unusually rapid series of changes in the last few million years of human evolution. As the gene – assigned the catchy name HAR1F – appears to play a role in the development of the cerebral cortex, it may be one of the key genetic elements that make us smarter than the average bear – or horse, or chicken, or even chimpanzee.

The newly-discovered gene is unusual in a couple of ways: First, unlike “normal” genes – which are transcribed into messenger RNA which, in turn, controls production of a protein – HAR1F is an “RNA gene”: it produces an RNA string that functions on its own, affecting the organism directly rather than through creation of a protein product. But more importantly (for present purposes), HAR1F has undergone substantial changes in the course of human evolution over the last six or so million years, even though it’s a gene that normally changes very little over much longer time-spans.

The HAR1F gene is “essentially the same” in all mammals other than humans. Even between chimpanzees (our closest relatives) and chickens (who make good soup, but otherwise are not our friends), only two out of the gene’s 118 “letters” (more properly, “bases”) have changed – meaning that the gene has been almost entirely static for hundreds of millions of years. This is unsurprising: if the gene is significantly involved in fetal brain development, we would expect it to be conserved – since most possible mutations would be harmful or even fatal. How, then, do we explain the fact that human HAR1F differs from chimpanzee HAR1F in eighteen out of its 118 bases?

* * *
One of the fundamental implications of Darwin’s evolutionary theory is that humankind is no longer to be viewed as something special, apart from the rest of creation. Instead, we are an animal descended from other animals; and our ancestors, while obviously of parochial interest to our not-so-exalted selves, are no more inherently God-like than those of shrimp or shrew. Even worse, modern Darwinism (as articulated, for example, by the late Stephen Jay Gould) tells us that evolution is not “directional”: there is no inherent drive for Nature to come up with “better” creatures over time, but merely random drift, periodic ecological catastrophe, and fortuitous survival of those creatures lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time with the right characteristics and something reasonably cute to mate with.

Obviously, this demotion of Man from “created in God’s image” to “ape descendant” is something that a lot of people find threatening – which may help to explain why Biblical fundamentalists spend so much time passionately fighting the teaching of evolution and yet often seem rather blasé about equally Biblical stuff like keeping the Sabbath and not coveting their neighbors’ asses. (Alternative explanation: a lot of people get all fired up about reading the Bible cover-to-cover, but get bored when they hit the “begats” after Noah’s Flood and give up; so they stick to the parts they know.) And even for those of us who intellectually embrace Darwinian evolution, it’s awfully hard to accept that our own species is ultimately just another bunch of animals enjoying its brief day in the sun until something wipes us out and we’re succeeded by our not-quite-human-in-our-sense-of-the-word descendants – or by something entirely different, like giant carnivorous land clams.

* * *
I find it rather consoling, then, to think about HAR1F and its implications. It was already well known, of course, that we humans are inordinately proud of our intelligence. Our large brains are so important to us that:

they’re worth sacrificing a fair bit of our efficiency as bipeds (in that our pelvises need to accommodate an oversized birth canal, and thus are less than optimal for running away from giant carnivorous land clams, should such fearsome creatures evolve on our watch);
they’re worth having an almost uniquely difficult, painful, and dangerous childbirth process (with our only mammalian competitor for this title being the hyena, which has a whole different set of problems and motivations than we do);
and they’re worth spending some 22% of our metabolic resources on (meaning that we require a good bit more food than a normally-brainy animal our size would need; so if I’m so smart, how come I ain’t thin?)

HAR1F adds a strong molecular confirmation to these more subjective indications of human uniqueness: after at least 200 million years (and perhaps more than twice that) of nearly complete stasis, HAR1F all of a sudden started to change rapidly as one group of apes set out on the road to humanity. Of course, there is no reason to think that our ancestors’ HAR1F genes mutated more readily than anyone else’s; but for some reason, the benefits provided by some of the random changes that took place were enough to preserve them in our genome, while other species were content to stick with what had worked since before the dinosaurs.

Why was it worthwhile for our ancestors to play Russian roulette with a gene that every other species was afraid to touch? Why was it worth having all the cost and inconvenience of a large brain? If intelligence is such a good thing, why is human HAR1F the only one that differs from the usual sort?

It appears that there is something unique about us after all! Over hundreds of millions of years, animals have lived happily with brains that were perfectly adequate for finding food, for escaping from predators in order not to become food, for creating and raising offspring, and so on – but which would never swoon over a sonnet or solve a Sudoku, much less write a blog. If our fellow animals had a use for bigger brains, they would have them; after all, there is nothing at all inadequate about horses or herons, which are quite smart enough to live the lives they choose to live, even if they can’t comprehend James Joyce.

But our ancestors chose (or perhaps were forced into) a lifestyle in which a much higher degree of intelligence was crucial – so important that it was worth paying a uniquely heavy biological price. And the lifestyle changes must have started before our ancestors’ brain size began to skyrocket; otherwise there would be no evolutionary pressure selecting for ever-larger brains and ever-greater intelligence. As far as we know, this experiment has never been attempted before – at least not on this planet.

So what if we humans are not the Paragon of Creation, uniquely created in the image of God? We’re not just another bunch of animals either! We (or our progenitors) have gone down a path that no other Earthly lineage has ever traveled; we’ve paid a high price for unique strengths. Let HAR1F serve as a reminder of just how special we are, how new and unusual, with our oversized brains.

Now if we could only figure out how to use them!

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Evolution, Creationism, Darwin, Genetics, HAR1F.

No More French: Everyone Is Learning Chinese?

2006-08-30T15:32:00.000-07:00

And while I am on the subject of rising Chinese politico-economic influence, the new "in" language at American schools is apparently Chinese:

"China is being mentioned everywhere in relation to everything from business, international affairs -- even the war on terror," said Kenneth Lieberthal, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan. "You buy things in the store -- they're made in China. . . . No one is hearing about France as the way of the future."

"People are finally beginning to pay attention to Mandarin as a major cultural and economic prospect for students," said Michael H. Levine, executive director of education for the Asia Society. "The push is coming from the defense [community] and government and grass-roots interest from parents." [Bold face mine.]

Well, I don't speak Mandarin, but there is a glimmer of hope for me still:

In January, President Bush unveiled a $114 million initiative aimed at increasing the number of so-called critical languages, such as Chinese and Arabic, taught in U.S. schools. The 10 Chinese teachers are the first recruits in a program the Bush administration hopes to expand to include teachers of Russian, Korean, Farsi and other critical languages. [Boldface mine].

Now that I am no longer affiliated with Discovery Institute, does this mean a government position is in the offing due to my native-level fluency in this "critical" language of Korean?

In all seriousness, I am all for learning as many languages as possible, but I think there are some inflated expectations:

"I think Americans who used to feel other people needed to learn [English] now realize that the time has come when that doesn't work anymore," Groth said. "I've heard from people who say: 'Forget the engineering. Learn the foreign language. If you want a job, the foreign language is going to sell your engineering.' "

Contrary to this assertion, in the private sector, the general trend is still that those with linguistic skills are often sent to foreign offices and have trouble returning to the corporate headquarters later if they stay overseas too long. They are also often shut out of higher level managerial positions for this reason.

Things are different in government, especially the defense and intelligence-related jobs, of course. But in the corporate sector, having that foreign language ability can -- counter-intuitive, I know -- harm one's long-term career prospects.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

So Much for "Bush Lied, People Died"

2006-08-29T00:53:00.000-07:00

It turns out, Joe Wilson was the liar... and his lying left-dominated media friends:

Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Corn write that: "the Plame leak in Novak's column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about prewar intelligence."

They add, lamely, that: "The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework."

They don't mention that Mr. Isikoff and (especially) Mr. Corn have been among the journalists flogging this meme, and the time that it takes to research and write a book indicates they've known for quite some time that it isn't true. They're only willing to tell the truth, now, for money.

So much for "Bush lied, people died." It's more like Dems lied, people were (wrongly) indicted. Meanwhile, Wilson and his cohorts got rich spewing lies in their columns and books about the Bush White House.

The Comedian as the President

2006-08-29T00:32:00.000-07:00

Good grief, it's like Colbert running for President and, gasp, becoming one!

Well, we already have celebrities running for, and winning, office (including the Governator), so this is probably not far off.

It's the Culture, Stupid

2006-08-28T23:24:00.000-07:00

Long time ago, in a galaxy far far away (otherwise known as the pre-"post-modern" American society), we used to hold people accountable for their actions -- including poor people.

If people stole, it wasn't because they were stupid or poor. It was because they were bad people (witness the magnificent scene in the film "Cinderella Man," in which Russell Crowe's character sternly chides his young son for stealing a piece of sausage despite crippling Depression-era poverty and hunger).

No longer. We now routinely make excuses for bad behaviors (bad childhood, poverty, what have you). It's sad to see that extends to excusing reprehensible Iraqi behavior as well:

Armed looters ransacked an abandoned British base in southern Iraq on Friday as Iraqi soldiers guarding the camp stood by and watched...

"The looters stole everything -- even the bricks," said Ahmed Mohammed Abdul Latief, 20, a student at Maysan University. "They almost leveled the whole base to the ground." [Snip]

Given the extreme poverty in Amarah, a town of 300, Burbridge said that it was understandable that residents would loot the base. [Snip]

"The issue here is not really malice. It's economics," Burbridge said. "The people of Amarah -- many of whom are extremely poor -- saw what they believed to be a bit of an Aladdin's cave inside."

It's not poverty, stupid. It's the culture.

Yes, yes, I know. The level of poverty certainly affects property crime rate. But culture plays a much stronger role (stick a group of poverty-stricken Singaporeans, for example, and one will likely not see such looting).

Do not misunderstand me. I still believe in the Iraq War and the potential for transforming the region -- I think it is vital for our own long-term national security needs.

But it is clear from episodes like this that the prevailing culture of the region is not receptive to the rule of law as an exercise in enlightened self-interest.

Thus the mission remains, and will continue to be, a long, hard struggle.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

Clash of the Legal Titans: Fatah meets Resolution 1701

2006-08-28T15:06:00.000-07:00

I’ve long had an interest in the law - not quite enough of an interest actually to go to law school and do something about it, mind you, but an interest just the same. Imagine my fascination and delight, then, to read the following in the Jerusalem Post:

The Lebanese government demanded [that] Palestinians in refugee camps in the Litani area... disarm in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1701...

...according to “senior Fatah operative in Lebanon” Monir Al-Makdah.

Reportedly, Lebanese Prime Minister Faud Saniora made the request to Fatah representative in Lebanon Abbas Za’aki.

Al-Makdah rejected the demand in an interview with Jordanian newspaper Al-Dostur, saying that the Security Council resolution was illegal since it did not include the right of return of Palestinian refugees. [italics mine]

Now isn’t this wonderful? A legally-binding United Nations Security Council resolution can be declared “illegal” simply because it doesn’t include a reference to a presumptive “right” that is nowhere enshrined in international law - and which would be irrelevant to the implementation of Resolution 1701 even if it existed.

Rather than rail at the perfidy of Fatah, wail at the sheer unadulterated sophistry of Mister Al-Makdah’s logic, or otherwise kvetch, I’m going to take this report as a positive development in the evolution of the law: from now on, I’ll obey laws when they include stuff that makes me happy, and I’ll feel free to disobey them (without penalty, of course) if they lack that certain little something.

For example, I see no reason to obey the speed limit any more - since the traffic regulations don’t provide me with a harem of willing and lovely young women to cater to my every whim, it’s only right and reasonable for me to have other legally-sanctioned ways of coping with testosterone. And why should I be subject to the law against robbing banks when the same statute totally fails to rid my house of ever-present cat fluff? (I had thought that the proper term for cat fluff was “dander” - but I just looked it up at Dictionary.com, and it turns out that dander is actually cat dandruff, not cat fluff. And the law against bank-robbery doesn’t take care of that, either.)

Ah well (sigh)... I suppose that Israel’s legal system probably hasn’t caught up with the latest advances coming out of Lebanon. I’d better tell my getaway driver to keep to the speed limit.

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Israel, Lebanon, Fatah, PLO, Palestine, Palestinian, Hezbollah, Middle East.

What To Do About "Gun Violence"

2006-08-24T03:19:00.000-07:00

My latest Seattle Times column is online (please note that, as always, I do not pick the title):

We can limit gun violence by empowering responsible citizens to defend themselves
By James J. Na
Special to The Times

As Seattleites emerge from their state of shock over the July 28 shooting spree at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, there no doubt will be discussions on how to prevent a repeat of this kind of monstrous evil, whether perpetrated as a form of decentralized terrorism inspired by anti-Semitism, or as an act of a deranged individual.

Predictably, there will be cries to restrict the instruments of Naveed Afzal Haq's actions — firearms — as a means to control violence of this sort in the future. Coming on the heels of another shooting spree in March of this year on Capitol Hill, there will be much political temptation to be seen to be "doing something."

And legislating more restrictions on the right to keep and bear firearms is often viewed as an emotionally satisfying and politically convenient way to meet that psychological need to do something — anything — in the aftermath of a tragedy like this.

But that inclination is misguided on two points, one based on principle and the other on practicality. First, as a matter of principle, a free, open society like ours does not, and ought not, preemptively restrict freedom of the general population out of fear that a small criminal minority would misuse that freedom.

Just as the fact that a few pedophiles use the Internet to trade child porn should not move the society to restrict access to the Internet for the public at large, neither should the right of the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns be sacrificed in the false hope that criminals would then be constrained.

Second, as a matter of practicality, such a restriction on guns does nothing to curb violence. Even if legal firearm ownership were completely banned today, no serious person would argue that we could eradicate the availability of firearms on the black market. Those who intend to harm others will still be able to get guns — illegally.

Those who are unable to do so, but still harbor criminal intents, will use other means to inflict harm. In England, for example, a man went on a slashing spree with a sword at a church in 1999; and early this year, a recent University of North Carolina graduate, a native of Iran, plowed into a crowd with a sport utility vehicle "to avenge Muslim deaths."

Guns, knives and any other conceivable arms are obviously banned in our prison system, but despite the most strenuous control measures, people are still assaulted and murdered at prisons, often with improvised weapons. It is a fact of life that there will always be those few, for whatever reasons, who seek to inflict physical harm upon others even in the most benign of utopias.

Then what are we to do as a society?

What we ought to do is precisely the opposite — to encourage a responsible, armed citizenry. Of course, I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not encourage vigilantism. I am not suggesting that people arm themselves and go looking for trouble. You leave that to the professionals who get paid to take the risk.

Nor am I suggesting that an armed citizen could have entirely prevented the Jewish Federation attack. But an armed citizen defending his school, church, synagogue or home could mitigate the extent of the casualty level should such a calamity strike again (as happened in Pearl, Miss., in 1997, when an assistant principal interrupted a school shooting by retrieving his gun from his car — ironically it was illegal for him to bring a gun to school — and holding the suspect at bay until the police arrived).

Despite what some politicians and groups say, there is no magic solution for curbing murderous violence. We cannot ban mechanical objects and expect twisted human beings to cleanse evil from their souls suddenly. Furthermore, in a free, open society like ours, where we all live with some degree of mutual trust and a social contract to not do harm to each other, there is no reliable way of preemptively stopping someone intent on harming others.

The only thing we can do is to try to limit the damage by continuing to empower the majority of law-biding, decent individuals with the freedom to defend themselves.

"Genital-Integrity Advocates"

2006-08-23T05:11:00.000-07:00

I kid you not. Those were the exact words in a Seattle Times piece about the possibility that circumcision may help reduce the chance of AIDS transmission.

Just when the genital-integrity advocates thought they were winning the battle against routine male circumcision, along comes research touting it as a way to stop the spread of AIDS — and reports that the world's best-known Bills (Gates and Clinton) are extolling its virtues.

Anti-circumcision activists from around the world, gathering tomorrow at the University of Washington for a three-day conference, were dismayed by news that circumcision had suddenly become the star of the show at last week's 16th International AIDS Conference in Toronto.

If the Bills are for it, there is a good chance I might be against it.

In any case, the method might have some trouble in Africa where AIDS is most destructive:

"Village or bush surgery in septic conditions, on millions of Africans against their will or with coerced or bogus consent, or upon children, where even clean water is a luxury — with the payoff 18 years from now? Really? Please!"

That's just great. Now Warren Buffett's money is going to be used to snip foreskin from African boys.

ClichéWatch: “Israel’s lost deterrence”

2006-08-22T08:15:00.000-07:00

Deterrence is a topic that has been much on my mind since the early days of the “al-Aqsa Intifada” – when every time our army knocked down a suicide bomber’s family home or otherwise seemed to act in a draconian, thoughtless, and insensitive manner, the authorities trotted out the justification that Israel was acting “to deter future acts of terrorism”. The IDF eventually investigated its policy of home demolitions and decided, unsurprisingly, that the practice had never had a significant deterrent effect; indeed, home demolitions had probably acted as a stimulant for Palestinian terrorism. (I blogged on this topic back in December 2005; and my most recent academic conference presentation, at the IEEE Intelligence and Security Informatics conference in May 2006, was on “Rational-Choice Deterrence and Israeli Counter-Terrorism”. I’ll post the full article here if anyone’s interested.)

In the aftermath of our recent military campaign in Lebanon, many Israeli right-wingers have been wringing their hands (and, rhetorically, the necks of our Prime Minister and Defense Minister) over Israel’s supposed “loss of deterrence” due to our failure to destroy Hezbollah and its rocket-launching capability. Now I would hardly claim that our operation in Lebanon was an unqualified success; but I’ve become enough of a deterrence-skeptic that I’m instantly suspicious of people who use “deterrence” as a rationale for using maximal military force in asymmetric conflicts. Too often, “deterrence” is really just an excuse to blast away at people we don’t like.

It was refreshing, then, to read the following in an article by Yair Lapid about the Israeli news media’s handling of the Lebanon campaign (the italics are mine):

“Israel’s deterrence capabilities have been severely handicapped,” we told the whole world. This without bothering to remember that deterrence is a psychological situation for which there are no standards of measurement and no one can really know what those capabilities are.

After the Six-Day War, for example, the Israeli deterrence was at its highest and we got attacked on Yom Kippur anyway. After Yom Kippur every one knew that Israel’s deterrence had been damaged but no one attacked.

In other words, even when dealing with state actors, deterrence can be very difficult to measure – except, of course, in retrospect.

Deterrence works best against entities with a basically materialist outlook. The reason that the American-Soviet deterrent system of “mutually assured destruction” worked as well as it did was that both nations, while differing in many other values, were fundamentally uninterested in “martyrdom”; communism and capitalism both justify their policies based on the prosperity and well-being they provide their populations, and neither system could find a way to portray a nuclear holocaust, even a “victorious” one, as a success.

At the opposite end of the “deterrability” scale, suicide bombers are notoriously almost impossible to deter. How, after all, do you threaten someone who is already determined to die, and who has been promised extravagant rewards in an afterlife that is beyond your reach?

In evaluating potential deterrence, it’s crucial to determine where the entity to be deterred belongs on the Soviet-Union-to-suicide-bomber scale. Syria, for example, is not at all opposed to death per se, but much prefers to see other countries doing the fighting and dying. (Dr. Boaz Ganor of the Institute for Counter-Terrorism has suggested that Syria might be a more fruitful target for deterrence than Hezbollah itself in Israel’s attempts to solve its Lebanese problems.) Iran, on the other hand, is currently being led by a radical Shi’ite clique that appears to set a high value on “martyrdom”, even if Iran itself is the “martyr”. This is why the prospect of Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons is so scary: a country that is willing to become a nuclear wasteland in return for destroying its enemies cannot be easily deterred, even by a country with superb second-strike retaliatory capabilities. Thus the confrontation between an eventual nuclear Iran and a presumed-to-be-nuclear Israel would not have the inherent deterrence-driven stability of the American-Soviet match-up, or even of India and Pakistan.

I see no reason to believe that Israel’s ability to deter Syria has been degraded by our recent operations in Lebanon; after all, we certainly proved that we have plenty of firepower, the political will to deploy it, and even the ability to take casualties without panicking. I don’t believe our ability to deter Iran has significantly declined either – it wasn’t much to begin with. And Hezbollah? Remember who introduced suicide bombing to the Middle East! Hamas and the rest were taught the bomb-belt business by our friends up North; so we shouldn’t delude ourselves that we ever had a meaningful capacity to deter Hezbollah from attacking us simply by attacking them in return.

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Deterrence, Terrorism, Middle East.

Some Updates

2006-08-22T01:20:00.000-07:00

I should have some major site-related news shortly. Sorry about the long absence.

In the mean time, there are some interesting tidbits from WaPo.

1. Thank Shiva I don't have any kids yet. Family discipline is on the loose. Message control to external parties on the need to know basis is becoming increasingly difficult due to technological advances.

Again, I am glad that I only have dogs for now.

B. "Arrested Development" is back! Well, sort of. It's on DVD. If you haven't seen it, it's new to you.

I saw all three seasons of the show, and, despite occasional gratuituous Bush-bashing, it was one of the funniest things on TV... ever. I recommend that you put it on your Netflix.com or run to the nearest Blockbuster's to get it.

III. It turns out Governor Kaine's (VA-D) folks had a hand in the "non-partisan" study that tried to scare off growth in South Riding (another DC/NoVA exurb near where I live) and potentially lend validation for his efforts to raise taxes, ostensibly for "transportation needs of Northern Virginia."

Folks, when a private developer offers .75 billion (that's a B not an M) dollars in proffers to improve transportation in return for developing a residential area, run, do not walk, to take up on it! Or you can hope that the state government that is taking a huge amount of taxes from your county and is returning only cents on the dollar back to the county will one day, after having levied more taxes yet, come to its senses and helpfully provide more transportation money. Take a pick.

That's it for now, but, again, stay tuned for an exciting news.

Mainline Extremism

2006-08-16T00:59:00.000-07:00

The publishing group of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) just put to press a book claiming the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the American government. Theologian David Ray Griffin propounds his tinfoil hat conspiracy theory in "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11." Utterly ridiculous. (Story here.)

The PCUSA's house is as divided as ever; conservative theology contending with looney-left conspiracy theory.

A new star in Cyberspace: Ahmadinejad blogs!

2006-08-14T07:53:00.000-07:00

The Jerusalem Post (apparently along with the rest of the world’s news media) has informed us that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has started his own blog. The blogsphere’s newest sensation (or at least, its newest sensation as of a day or two ago) can be found at www.ahmadinejad.ir (WARNING: see postscript below before accessing this site, especially from Israel!), and is apparently available in a bunch of languages including English, French, and Arabic as well as its original Farsi. According to the Post’s story (supplied by the Associated Press), Ahmadinejad’s first entry recounts “childhood memories, the country's Islamic Revolution and Tehran's war with Iraq” – possibly a bad move on the newbie blogger’s part, since that much material could easily be stretched out to cover three or four blog posts, keeping the punters coming back for more and building up that all-important Google PageRank rating.

I must admit that my own efforts to peruse Ahmadinejad’s blog have so far proven frustrating: at best, I get a “Server Error” screen. Iran’s President, despite a level of intelligence sufficient to impress veteran CBS interviewer Mike Wallace (who gushed, “He's an impressive fellow, this guy. He really is. He's obviously smart as hell.”), has evidently not quite figured out all the technical wrinkles involved in fine-tuning his blog’s HTML code; perhaps he should have taken the easy approach and set up a Blogger.com blog as I did, using one of their standard templates. I don’t mean to criticize, Mr. President – it’s just a friendly tip from one of your new blogging colleagues. Please don’t nuke me!

One of Ahmadinejad’s local colleagues, (ex-?) blogger Keivan Mehrgan (formerly?) of Tehran, dismissed the President’s blog as “nothing more than a publicity stunt” – implying, I suppose, that the blog’s contents are not a genuine personal project of the Iranian leader. I think that the possibly-late Mr. Mehrgan is (or was) being overly cynical – for even if Ahmadinejad did receive a little help in getting started as a blogger, I have no doubt whatsoever that he will soon become as avid a blogger-hobbyist as the rest of us. I fully expect to see him sweating his Technorati rank, refreshing his SiteMeter visitor statistics page every half hour (struggling not to do it every fifteen minutes), and laboring to evolve in the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem from “Adorable Rodent” to “Marauding Marsupial”. (I blush to admit that I’m still a “Crawly Amphibian”.)

It’s a cheerful thought, isn’t it? An Iranian President busy blogging would hardly have time or energy to send nuclear-armed missiles our way, rearm Hezbollah, or otherwise destroy the Western world that provides the bulk of his readership, would he? Sedentary hobbies are notoriously good for keeping Presidents peacefully occupied: look at Franklin Roosevelt, a famous stamp collector. He never got the United States into a war, or even nuked anyone! (OK, he might have used a small, primitive nuclear device or two had he had the chance, but he died a couple of months before the Bomb was ready. In any case, stamp collecting is deathly dull compared to blogging, so my thesis stands.)

Hey, I finally got through! I’d better post this and read what my new blogging buddy has to say. Do you think I can get him to link to me?

P.S. A comment on the Jerusalem Post article referred me to this page, claiming that President Ahmadinejad’s blog tries to install “Trojan Horse” code when Israeli users click on the links at the left-hand side of the blog’s homepage. Users from other countries did not report this problem, so it may be that if you try to click around the site and you’re not in Israel, you won’t experience any nastiness. Wherever you are, though, I would suggest avoiding Ahmadinejad’s blog – or at least treating it with extreme caution – until and unless all such hostile code is purged from the system.

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Israel, Iran, Ahmadinejad.

Born Into Trouble: Resolution 1701’s rocky start

2006-08-12T12:29:00.000-07:00

The ink is not yet dry on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, but there is already at least one indication that the resolution’s implementation will be problematic: Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah’s supposed “acceptance” of the resolution in fact contradicts two of its most important operational clauses.

Here are the relevant parts of the resolution:

[The Security Council...]

1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and Unifil as authorised by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;

And here is some of what Nasrallah has to say about the resolution (with italics supplied by our expert Typography Department):

We believe that the resolution that was agreed on last night was unfair, but if there is an agreement on the cessation of hostilities between the Lebanese government and the enemy, we will abide by it without delay...

Regardless of our reservations and political positions, we will cooperate when the Lebanese soldiers and UNIFIL forces are deployed...

We must be aware of the fact that the war will continue for another few days. That's why we are continuing to fight today. We will fight as long as Israeli soldiers are in Lebanon.

In other words, Hezbollah will continue its attacks against Israel – certainly guerrilla warfare against Israel Defense Force soldiers inside Lebanon, and perhaps rocket attacks on Israel’s civilian population – despite the fact that Resolution 1701 calls for “the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks” before the Lebanese army and a beefed-up UNIFIL take the place of the IDF in South Lebanon. (One Associated Press report claims that Nasrallah “said Hezbollah rocket strikes on northern Israel would end when Israel stopped airstrikes and other attacks on Lebanese civilians” – but as it doesn’t give Nasrallah’s exact words, even in translation, it’s hard to know how seriously to take this statement. In any case, given Hezbollah’s deployment among South Lebanon’s civilian population, almost anything the IDF does there can be interpreted as “attacks on Lebanese civilians”.)

In short, the evidence so far is that despite the headlines, Hezbollah does not, in fact, intend to abide by the terms of U.N.S.C. Resolution 1701 – and thus it’s entirely possible that the fighting in Lebanon, and Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israeli cities, will continue.

A more detailed analysis of Resolution 1701 in its entirety would probably be a good, albeit unoriginal, idea – if I can get around to it before the resolution becomes completely irrelevant.

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Nasrallah, Middle East.

Lieberman Goes Independent

2006-08-09T22:16:00.000-07:00

I am glad to see that Sen. Joe Lieberman will not be deterred by his defeat in the Democratic primary, but will be seeking re-election as an independent. Make no mistake, Sen. Lieberman is no conservative and he would surely continue to caucus with the Senate Democrats. But I would gladly see him re-elected. James Taranto has an early sketch about how we can expect the Connecticut Senate race to pan out. (It's the fourth item from the top.)

Part of me wonders why I would be at all interested in this race. Except for the war, Sen. Lieberman's views certainly don't reflect mine. But that noted exception is most certainly the source of my concern. The war against Islamofascist terrorists is the central issue of our day. This war is too important for us to allow anti-war appeasers to gain ground in the U.S. Senate.

Israel and Lebanon, continued: Some thoughts on the end-game

2006-08-09T06:58:00.000-07:00

I just fielded yet another AllExperts question on the Lebanon conflict, dealing specifically with the “end game” that seems to be developing on the ground and concurrently at the United Nations. Here’s the question and my answer – slightly retouched, but that seems to be basically normal these days.

Question:

What do you think about the continuing inability of Israel and Lebanon to agree on a ceasefire? From what I have heard, 15,000 Lebanese troops at the border would be useless and Israel will not leave until it believes it is going to be protected. They are at a standoff, right? How do you think the matter could be made appealing to both sides so that both will agree to a resolution? Do you personally think it is time to stop the war or should Israel continue to move north into Lebanon??

Answer:

Dear G_____ -

The question isn’t only how “useful” the deployment of the Lebanese Army to the South would be in strictly military terms. Having the Lebanese government take responsibility for its own country has a tremendous political value, even if its armed forces are (A) weak and (B) largely sympathetic to, and even infiltrated by, Hezbollah. Once the government has its forces deployed in the South, they can (and should) legitimately be held responsible for what happens there - as opposed to the current situation, where Hezbollah attacks Israel from Lebanese soil and the Lebanese government acts as if the country were a completely peaceful, harmless, innocent victim. In effect, by permitting Hezbollah to operate as a semi-autonomous mini-state in the South, official Lebanon has been getting the benefits of being peaceful without actually having to give up armed struggle; once the government takes responsibility for their own country, they can’t act as if Hezbollah attacks on Israel were originating from somewhere in outer space.

Israel’s position is that the Lebanese Army is indeed insufficiently capable and motivated to act decisively to disarm Hezbollah; thus we believe that a strong international force will be necessary in order to supplement and strengthen Lebanese government forces. I don’t see any real impasse here; I view it more as an indirect negotiation that will take a little time to conclude.

I’m not particularly convinced that controlling territory X kilometers into Lebanon will be the answer to all our troubles; thus I don’t think that it will necessarily be a tragedy if we fail to reach the Litani River (or further) before fighting stops. On the other hand, we have something of a dilemma on our hands: we can’t withdraw our forces before an effective Lebanese/international force takes over in South Lebanon, and we also don’t want to stop where we are, take up static positions, and be a sitting target for Hezbollah suicide bombers as we were during our previous occupation of southern Lebanon. So we pretty much have to continue on the offensive and work our way northward, at least until a U.N.-sponsored ceasefire takes hold; at that point we can sit tight (at high alert, you can be sure!) and wait for our forces to be replaced by the Lebanese army and/or a strong United Nations force.

At the same time, I believe that we should always keep in mind that a conflict like the one in Lebanon seldom, if ever, ends in a conventional military victory. Low-intensity conflicts (and the current Lebanese campaign is, I think, in many ways a sort of high-intensity low-intensity conflict) are won and lost in political rather than military terms; and thus when we talk about “letting the IDF win” we are merely fooling ourselves. In my view, the reasons for continuing to move the IDF northwards are at least as much political as they are military: by keeping the offensive going, we ensure (assuming the campaign goes reasonably well) that we end the active phase of our engagement in Lebanon on an upbeat.

Best regards,

-Don Radlauer

The whole issue of defining “victory” in low-intensity conflicts – and thus identifying exit points when the conflict occurs on foreign soil – is a complex and baffling one. At the same time as much of the Arab world has defined victory down to the point where stalemates and even crushing defeats are seriously portrayed as great victories, many Israeli thinkers apply a conventional-war-based definition of victory to our conflicts with Hezbollah and the Palestinians; this creates a situation where our adversaries claim victory merely because we haven’t bombed them into oblivion (or at least “back to the Stone Age”), and we basically agree with them because our criteria for victory are unrealistically high. More of this anon, methinks…

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah.

Up for Election: Joe Lieberman & Democrats' Identity

2006-08-07T23:38:00.000-07:00

Like most everyone else who follows such things, I am awaiting with interest tomorrow's Senate primary in Connecticut. The race between Sen. Joe Lieberman and anti-war challenger Ned Lamont may provide a key signal as to just how anti-war the Democratic Party is slouching. Sen. Lieberman was almost a Democratic Vice-President, and he has a track record that leans strongly left. He's no conservative. It's simply his willingness to take national security so seriously that has won him Republican admirers.

Much of the commentary on this race that I have come across asserts that that the party of Scoop Jackson is no more. Then again, the late Sen. Henry M. Jackson never could generate enough support within his own ranks for a Presidential nomination. All things being equal, one might think that the Reagan years, our subsequent victory in the Cold War, and our current struggle against international Islamo-nazism might make national security stalwarts welcome again in Democratic ranks. But all things aren't equal, with a lingering and growing anti-war, "blame America first" worldview influencing the party. An electoral defeat for Sen. Lieberman might become a most visible signal that pro-war, anti-Islamofascist leaders are totally unwelcome in the Democratic party.

Israel in Lebanon: Goals, prospects, and “reasonableness”

2006-08-02T05:01:00.000-07:00

Like pretty much everyone in Israel, I’ve had Lebanon on my mind for the last few weeks. After all, we’re at war up there – even if my own life, so far, has been remarkably unchanged by the fighting. Judging by the questions I’ve received through AllExperts.com, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has been on the minds of a lot of other people as well.

The question below is a fairly typical one, as is my answer. Many of the topics raised deserve much longer responses; in particular, I’ve been considering writing something about the controversy over the “proportionality” of Israel’s military response to Hezbollah.

Question: What is it going to take for the fighting to stop and for a reasonable solution to be put into place? I understand Israel’s goals, but can they be met anytime soon? I’m also concerned that Israel is creating so many collateral enemies through all of this that she is going to be left with very few allies. What are the chances of Syria and/or Iran becoming directly involved in the war at this point? Do the citizens of Israel need to be concerned about attacks from the east?

Answer: Dear I_____ –

Good questions! I’ll deal with them (or attempt to do so) in order:

1) At this point, I’d predict that fighting will stop when the U.N. Security Council manages to come up with a resolution that more-or-less forces it to stop; or perhaps, less likely, when the U.S. or some other non-U.N. entity comes up with a cease-fire formula that both sides can agree to. I don’t think that Israel is going to be able to achieve a conventional victory over Hezbollah in the time available, largely since the organization is not going to stay in place and let itself be defeated.

Guerilla organizations are notoriously difficult to defeat: rather than fight pitched battles and lose against larger conventional forces, they cut and run, regroup, and maintain their existence to fight another day. At the same time, there will be no Lebanese Dien Bien Phu: the Israel Defense Forces, while they may not be able to deal Hezbollah a decisive defeat, will not themselves be beaten. At the end of the day, Hezbollah will be severely damaged but still standing; the IDF will go home with no more than minor bruises (relatively speaking, of course); and the Lebanese mess will enter its next phase without any real resolution.

Is that “reasonable”? Not really, and I’d certainly love for my prediction to prove to be incorrect and overly pessimistic. Some “reasonableness” would be a very welcome thing around here! What would it take to obtain a truly “reasonable” resolution? Probably a miracle or three.

2) Right now, it’s hard for me to imagine how Israel’s full goals can be met in the near future. There are simply too many players in the Middle East with an interest in preventing a peaceful resolution to the various parts of the over-all Arab-Israeli (and Iranian-Israeli) conflict, and not enough international powers will back Israel strongly enough for us to be able to force all the Arab/Islamic world to recognize our existence and cease sponsoring attacks on us. A more achievable goal would be for Israel to prove (yet again) that it is capable of defending itself, willing to do so, and unwilling to pay an exorbitant price for liberating Israeli prisoners. (Past Israeli governments have erred badly, in my opinion, in their negotiations for the return of living and dead Israelis in enemy hands.)

3) I’m not at all sure that Israel is creating a lot of enemies who didn’t hate us already. Who, after all, were our “allies”? The United States, Micronesia, and that’s about it. The rest of the world has always been ready to condemn us for anything we do in our own defense, not to mention the occasional things we do that actually deserve condemnation. Of course, it’s sad that in pursuit of Hezbollah’s fighters, installations, and materiel we unavoidably kill a lot of Lebanese noncombatants; it’s equally true that Hezbollah very deliberately set things up so that this was our only option other than simply to absorb their attacks without mounting a meaningful defense.

According to the Geneva Conventions and related elements of “international law”, the onus for Lebanese noncombatant fatalities is on Hezbollah, and not on Israel – as long as we are attacking what we believe to be genuine military targets, with levels of force that we believe to be necessary, reasonable, and proportional to the military importance of the target. While our results have not always been perfect (nobody’s are), I believe that Israel has held quite well to this standard.

Of course, most of the rest of the world completely misunderstands (through ignorance or through malice) the concept of proportionality, and thus compares Israeli fatalities with Lebanese fatalities (or Hezbollah fighters killed with Lebanese civilians killed). By such an unrealistic and irrational “proportionality” standard, Israel obviously comes off as the bad guy; but we have no option but to defend ourselves according to the requirements of genuine international law, not according to the bowdlerized version promulgated by our critics.

4) Neither Syria nor Iran is in any hurry to become directly involved in fighting with Israel; nor is Israel especially interested in fighting a shooting war with either of these countries until and unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Iran, in particular, has evidently drawn some “red lines” for Hezbollah – withholding permission for the organization to use their Iranian-made long-range missiles to attack cities in central Israel. This shows that Iran is looking to limit its direct involvement in the current war. When and if any Iranian Revolutionary Guards are killed in the fighting in Lebanon, I fully expect them to receive posthumous Lebanese citizenship with a name-change thrown in at no extra charge.

Of course, any time armies of hostile countries are mobilized, on alert, and positioned near their respective borders, there is a chance that some mishap will lead to fighting even if neither side intended for war to break out. This means that there is a real, if slight, chance that we will wind up fighting Syria; but I would assume, given past history and current intentions and interests, that both Syria and Israel will make every effort to keep the fighting contained inside Lebanon even if a bullet or two goes astray. (Iran, of course, is far enough away that an accidental war is pretty much impossible – unless a few Israeli F-15’s happen to get lost, accidentally get refueled by an equally misdirected airborne tanker, and mistakenly bomb Iran’s nuclear complex at Isfahan in an effort to improve their fuel economy by shedding excess payload.)

5) I assume that by “the east” you mean Iran and/or Syria, rather than Jordan. As I’ve said above, I don’t think either Syria or Iran (and especially not Jordan, for that matter) is looking for open conflict with Israel at this point.

Syria, while it has a substantial military and some non-conventional (chemical and perhaps biological) weapons capability, has a lot of vulnerabilities as well: Its tanks and planes are old and outmoded, and its minority-led government might well not survive any significant military reverses. Accordingly, I would expect Syria to stick to its historical pattern of instigating conflicts but not doing a lot of actual fighting.

Iran is a long way from Israel. While they can certainly annoy us by sponsoring Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations, the only way they could pose a real threat to us would be to acquire or develop nuclear weapons and long-distance delivery systems. I would certainly say that a degree of Israeli (and global) “concern” about this possibility is warranted!

Israel is believed to have significant deterrent capability, including (so it is rumored) submarine-based second-strike nuclear weapons. The problem, of course, is that even such deterrence may not work against Iran’s extreme Shi’ite leaders, who seem to have something of a penchant for “martyrdom”; President Ahmadinejad and those who think as he does might be willing to absorb a massive nuclear attack on their own country in exchange for destroying Israel (and with it, inevitably, most of Palestine). I would hate to stake my life on my ability to predict the whims of Iran’s mullahs and their adherents; and yet (as I live in Israel and work in Tel Aviv) it appears that I have in fact done so.

Best regards,

-Don Radlauer

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran.

Blaming Jews, the Multicultural American Edition

2006-08-02T02:45:00.000-07:00

Part 1 dealt with the tragic Seattle shooting; part 2 dealt with Mel Gibson's drunken, anti-Semitic tirade.

Now, the inevitable comedy version:

"Police said today they found a bottle of tequila in Mel's Lexus. So let's sum up what happened here: Mel Gibson, who grew up in Australia, was drinking alcohol from Mexico in his Japanese car while yelling about the Jews in Israel. You know where he was coming from? A Thai restaurant. Welcome to America."

In all seriousness, just read the execrable "apology" from Gibson:

Gibson added that he had begun an unspecified "program of recovery" and asked "the Jewish community" for help "in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display." [Boldface mine.]

He is still in denial. Either he thinks that we are stupid enough to believe this shifting of the blame to an unknown force or he really is a deeply messed up bigot who needs some serious professional help.

And, yet, Hollywood has not completely disavowed Gibson:

Guber disagreed. "Sure, I'd work with him on a picture like 'Lethan Weapon' or 'Mad Max.' I think he's a terrific actor and director." If he stopped working with people in Hollywood who behaved badly, Guber added, "I'd only work with one person -- and that would be Cinderella."

In other words, since allegedly everyone misbehaves in Hollywood, every kind of misbehavior is normalized. It's just sad.

"In Hollywood, it's the bottom line," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations Inc. and an expert on movie finances. "If people go to see the movies, he'll get to keep making movies."

"Gibson doesn't have to worry," author Zev Chafets wrote in the Los Angeles Times yesterday. "Before 'The Passion' came out, there were studio execs who bragged to Jewish reporters that they would never work with Gibson again. But after the film grossed more than $600 million, those execs raised Gibson on their shoulders and began optioning every goyish property from Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer."

History suggests that the movie biz is quite forgiving of people who behave badly, especially if their movies make money. Actor Robert Downey Jr. still works regularly despite a long rap sheet for drug arrests. Director Roman Polanski fled to France to avoid a prison term for having sex with an underage girl he had drugged. Polanski not only finds regular employment, he also won an Academy Award for directing "The Pianist."

Lastly, Rabbi Daniel Lapin seems to suggest that there is hyporcrisy among those who criticize Gibson harshly now but refrained from doing so when others of a different political persuasion engaged in anti-Semitism:

Let us address his apology. I have no way of knowing what is in Mel Gibson's heart but I do know that he has no need to act obsequiously towards Jews or curry favor with us. If Gibson never makes another film he will still be able to buy gas for his Lexus. He is not a politician trying to win an election after an imprudent remark, like Georgia State Rep. Billy McKinney, who blamed "J-E-W-S" after his daughter, U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, was defeated in a congressional primary in 2002.

By the way there was virtually no Jewish criticism of that remark for which there was little apology and which was not made while Billy was drunk. More cynical observers than I suggest it might have something to do with the McKinneys being Democrats.

The same explanation could probably be advanced for why Marlon Brando's infamous outburst on Larry King Live, about the "kikes" running Hollywood also received pretty much of a free pass. And Brando was sober.

Film maker and Democratic propagandist, Michael Moore has made the most preposterous statements about Israel for which he has never apologized and for which the Jewish community has never criticized him. For instance he has identified Israel as one of the epicenters of evil in the world, and he has explained how "..Arabs came up with the idea that Americans are supporting Israel in its oppression of the Palestinian people when a Palestinian child looked up in the air and saw an American Apache helicopter firing a missile into his baby sister's bedroom just before she was blown into a hundred bits."

Point taken... but, full disclosure:

On the other hand, though he has provided some financial support to [Lapin's] Toward Tradition, I don't feel obliged to leap to his defense. That is not the purpose behind my writing this column. [Boldface mine.]

I must say, it appears no one is covering himself with glory on this one.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

Links to My Op-Eds

2006-08-01T21:55:00.000-07:00

The Seattle Times

An Asian American in D.C.: Adjustment and Assimilation

We Can Limit Gun Violence by Empowering Responsible Citizens to Defend Themselves

Provocative Missile Launch Could Backfire on North Korea

Hines Ward's Tale of American Transcendence

Free Enterprise and Choice: the Making of a Conservative

The Roadblock to Beijing Runs Through New Delhi

Don't Worry, Be Fortunate

Choosing to Weave into the Fabric of America

Tales of Horror Falling Mostly on Deaf Ears

Brace for the UN Tax Man

Sovereignty, From Sea to Sea

Seattle's Charms Can't Hold the Young and the Restless

The Lesson of Gwangju Reverberates Today

Underrepresented Minorities

Here's the Real Poop on Civic-Minded Seattle

Honoring a True Martyr for Freedom in Iraq

Urge to Rant Propelling Blogs to Status of Mainstream Media

How to Define Success in the War on Terror

State's Next Governor Must Reverse Economic Slide

A Political Survival Guide for Red-Leaning Blue-Staters

Why Bush is the Best Choice to Fight the War on Terror

We Can Fight Terrorism by Fostering Free Debate

We Must Teach The Insurgents To Respect US Power

RealClearPolitics

North Korea: A Dangerous, But Incompetent Villain

Republicans on Immigration: The War Within

What About 'Carrot and Stick' for Immigration?

Another "Rising Star" Governor Takes on President Bush

Condi Challenges "Old Diplomacy"

2,000 American Military Deaths in Iraq: Context and History

The US Congress Strikes Back in "the Battle of Inchon"

Operation Paul Bunyan 2?

China's Strategic Direction

High Time for Confronting North Korea

Profile of an Iraqi Politician

Others

Troop Realignment Vital to US Security (Seattle P-I)

No WMD: The Myth That Won't Die (Guns and Butter Blog)

US Deaths in Iraq: A Historical Perspective (Rosenblog)

North Korea on Brink of Implosion (Seattle P-I)

Al-Qaida Defeated: Onto Its Demise (Proceedings)

A Two-Track Approach Toward Pyongyang (Wall Street Journal Online)

China, India, and the Middle East: a question and an answer, sort of

2006-08-01T08:32:00.000-07:00

As has by now become painfully obvious (especially to me) I’ve been somewhat remiss in my blogging of late. (“Of late”, in this context, means that I haven’t posted anything since May; “somewhat remiss” my oversized butt!) In my defense – and a flimsy defense it is, I admit – I’ve been rather busy with other activities, including projects at work and other such trivial pastimes. Mea maxima culpa.

At the same time, since Hezbollah attacked Israel and Israel attacked back, I’ve been kept rather busy answering questions at AllExperts.com. Even my monumental capacity for sloth cannot prevent me from writing answers to these questions, since if I don’t respond to them within a few days I’ll be unceremoniously purged from the AllExperts list of distinguished pundits on every subject from crises to cockatoos to carburetors. For some reason I can’t quite fathom, I’m quite protective of my status as an AllExperts “expert” – even though I’m paid nothing for my effort and occasionally receive abuse from some of my less philo-Semitic querents. Mine is not to wonder why; mine is just to write or die – metaphorically, of course.

I recently received the following question (which I’ve edited slightly):

The Israel Arab conflict is bad. Currently it seems like the U.S. has the most sway in the region, and influences the politics of many of the countries there. However, as you know, other countries are gaining political strength. As India and China gain in power, and their influence grows in the Middle East, how do you think this will affect the Israel-Arab conflict?

Are China and India more pro-Arab or pro-Israel? Is this changing? I know that India also has problems with the Muslims in Kashmir; will India favor Israel? What about China?

I find this question interesting, because those two countries are greatly increasing in importance. They will gain influence in the Middle East, and this could change the crisis there. What do you think?

Here is my answer:

Dear J____ –

China and India are indeed major nations, and are both becoming more significant powers as time passes. Your question about their current and future influence in the Middle East is thus a very good and important one.

To date, both China and India have played only a rather subdued role in the region – basically saying nice things to everyone, buying oil from the Arabs and weapons from Israel, and doing their best not to upset anyone too much. While the oil issue obviously gives the Arabs a degree of leverage (especially with China, whose appetite for oil is large and growing), it’s equally true that India (to a huge extent) and China (to a lesser extent, but with significant problems with Muslim separatists in Xinjiang) are threatened by Islamic radicalism. Israel is a natural ally to both countries in confronting this threat. (Of course, India has a large Moslem population of its own – so while many Hindus might be ready to embrace Israel more closely, the Indian government is careful not to befriend Israel too openly.)

Both countries, then, have chosen a rather typical (if perhaps less than admirably forthright) approach: In public pronouncements, U.N. votes, and so on, both tread a rather pro-Arab line; while in private conversations with Israelis, representatives of both countries explain that these public statements are basically for show, and we should not take them seriously. Of course, we Israelis respond (or at least I do, when I get the chance) that public pronouncements, even when not backed up by concrete action, can still do a great deal of harm.

I can’t really predict the future – or at least, I can’t do so and expect to be any more accurate than anyone else! The obvious prediction in the short term would be for both India and China to continue doing more or less what they’ve been doing: condemn Israel when they feel it’s diplomatically advisable to do so, buy arms from us, get advice from our counter-terrorism experts, and otherwise try to be friendly to everyone. I don’t see any real reason for either country to do otherwise; after all, they have nothing much to gain by ruffling anyone’s feathers.

While I don’t see any reason for a change in China’s or India’s muted approach to the Mideast conflict in the near future, the further we look ahead the more uncertain the picture becomes. I really can’t say what either country will be thinking, saying, or doing twenty or more years from now. Of course, it’s equally hard to predict what will happen in the Middle East between now and then.

Best regards,

-Don Radlauer

Tomorrow I’ll post another question and answer from today; someone asked about Lebanon, a small country somewhere north of Afula where there has evidently been a bit of unpleasantness recently. Stay tuned!

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don’s Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Israel, China, India.

Blaming Jews

2006-07-28T21:51:00.000-07:00

Hizbullah invades Israel, kills and Kidnaps Israeli soldiers, hoping to engage in extortionate "prisoner swap." Israel responds in force by pounding Hizbullah fighters and infrastructure. Civilian casulaties on both sides rise because 1) Hizbullah does not wear military uniform and blends into the civilian population, using the latter as shields and 2) Hizbullah launches rockets indiscriminately into Israeli population centers like Haifa.

So who's at fault? "The Jews" in Seattle, apparently. Or so according to one Muslim who took action based on this deranged, but widely shared view and shot up a Jewish center in Seattle:

A woman was dead and five others were hospitalized this afternoon after a shooting at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in downtown Seattle by a man who declared he was "angry with Israel."

Seattle police later arrested the alleged gunman, who reportedly had walked into the building between Lenora and Virginia streets on Third Avenue in Belltown and started shooting. One victim died at the scene, according to police. [snip]

A few minutes later, the man surrendered to officers.

"He was confronted by officers and peacefully gave up," said SPD Assistant Chief Nick Metz.

According to Amy Wasser-Simpson, the vice president for planning and community services for the Jewish Federation, the man had told staff members, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," then began shooting.

I wouldn't call what he did "peacefully" anything. He shot defenseless people, and then took advantage of the restraint an American police force is bound to show.

Guess he was too cowardly to meet his seven virgins.

Oh, how I wish someboy, SOMEBODY, at that building had been legally armed. Coming on the heel of another shooting in Seattle, there will be, no doubt, calls for "stricter gun control" (like that would have stopped this creature of evil).

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

Profile of "The Blogger"

2006-07-20T12:26:00.000-07:00

Interesting article on WaPo about bloggers:

"Of all the bloggers out there, there are only about 10,000 that have an audience beyond their friends and families," said B.L. Ochman, a business blogger who tracks online trends. [snip]

"The average blogger is a 14-year-old girl writing about her cat," said Alexander Halavais, an assistant professor of interactive communications at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut.

I can assure y'all that none of us is "a 14-year old girl writing about her cat" (for one thing, I am a dog lover).

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

Miami Vice Is Back!

2006-07-20T11:41:00.000-07:00

When I first came to the U.S., I learned English by watching Miami Vice. Maybe that explains a lot (as does the fact that I grew up watching Westerns and Kung Fu movies in Korea).

Now the new movie by Michael Mann will be out shortly.

And The New York Times discusses the cultural impact of the original TV show:

“Miami Vice” may also have marked the earliest mainstream appearance of that indestructible cultural chimera, the metrosexual. “As tough as Sonny Crockett was meant to be,” the dude on a boat with a pet alligator named Elvis, “he still had the meticulously groomed scruff on his face and the pastel, linen-y sports jackets,” said Dan Peres, the editor of Details. “That all was certainly a part of the cultural moment that allowed men to embrace their vanity a little more openly.”

It was their big weapons, of course, that gave the “Miami Vice” guys confidence enough to wear girly clothes and to moisturize. From the start the show unabashedly showcased the latest and scariest in armory, something it has in common with the new film, which rarely shows anyone unholstering a pistol when there’s a submachine gun around.

Hey, use enough gun, as they say. And that brings us to... the famous (or infamous) Bren Ten:

From the pilot episode, in which Crockett carried a sleek automatic, it was clear that the show sought to telegraph macho credibility and insider cool by swiping a tactic rappers were using successfully in their lyrical boasting, outgunning both everyday criminals and cops on the beat. So what if weapons experts considered the Bren Ten stainless steel pistol that was used for several early seasons to have been a dud, prone to malfunction and with a magazine that cost $100?

“The gun was a nice design, but you couldn’t find or afford the damn magazine,” said Garry James, a senior editor at Guns & Ammo. The Bren Ten was abandoned and replaced by a variety of other pistols, including one uncannily like a gold-plated model later found and looted from Saddam Hussein’s palace in Baghdad, and then seized by the British Customs and Excise Service early in 2003.

If it weren't for the 10mm, of course, cops today won't be carrying the ubiquitous 40S&W.

Killing Hezbollah

2006-07-17T09:17:00.000-07:00

Earlier, Joshua expressed concerns that the Israeli response to Hezbollah's attack could kill the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon.

As I stated before, my view is that this will turn the Lebanese population against Hezbollah, rather than against Israel. Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon (and in fact, paved the way for the Syrian military withdrawal as well); thus, Hezbollah no longer had the occupation excuse to launch attacks on Israel and rally the Lebanese public.

If anything, there seems to be a growing sense in the region that, in fact, Hezbollah is working on behalf of Iran and is sacrificing Arab interests for Tehran's sake:

With the battle between Israel and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah raging, key Arab governments have taken the rare step of blaming Hezbollah, underscoring in part their growing fear of influence by the group’s main sponsor, Iran.

Saudi Arabia, with Jordan, Egypt and several Persian Gulf states, chastised Hezbollah for “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts” at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo on Saturday.

The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said of Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, “These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them.” Prince Faisal spoke at the closed-door meeting but his words were reported to journalists by other delegates. [Snip]

“There is a school of thought, led by Saudi Arabia, that believes that Hezbollah is a source of trouble, a protégé of Iran, but also a political instrument in the hands of Iran,” said Adnan Abu Odeh, a Jordanian sociologist. ‘This school says we should not play into the hands of Iran, which has its own agenda, by sympathizing or supporting Hezbollah fighting against the Israelis.”

Hanna Seniora, a Palestinian analyst with the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, lauded the Arab opposition to Hezbollah on Sunday.

“For the first time ever, open criticism was heard from countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan against the unilateral actions carried out by radical organizations, especially Hezbollah of Lebanon,” wrote Mr. Seniora, who favors coexistence with Israel and opposes radical Islam. “It became clear and beyond doubt that the most important Arab countries did not allow their emotions to rule their judgment.”

It's good to hear -- for a change -- something other than "It's the bloody Jews" from the Arab world.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

Meanwhile Russian Turns More Autocratic

2006-07-07T09:25:00.000-07:00

WaPo reports:

Russian regulators have forced more than 60 radio stations to stop broadcasting news reports produced by Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, according to radio managers and Russian officials.

The regulators cited license violations and unauthorized changes in programming format. But senior executives at the U.S.-government-funded broadcast services and at the stations blame the Kremlin for the crackdown, which has knocked the reports off stations from St. Petersburg in western Russia to Vladivostok in the Far East.

Considering that Radio Liberty had much to do with bringing down communism in Russia, this is bad news for Russians who seek an outside (read: truly independent) source of news.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

Whew! We Dodged One in Mexico...

2006-07-07T09:20:00.000-07:00

... for now. But why is it that leftists everywhere are sore losers?

I am getting tire of them claiming "election fraud" every time they lose.

Now For Something Less Tense

2006-07-07T09:14:00.000-07:00

It's Friday, so, as is my habit at times, I give you something totally unrelated to Korea and not at all serious.

The Internet, especially the blogosphere is a wonderful place where information can be found in abundance. I don't buy entirely into the hype of the blog (or podcast or whatever) as the next big thing to supplant the traditional print and TV media. But it is clear that blogs and other non-traditional media add great value, particularly in the "niche" areas (like Korea, for example) that are often poorly served by the mainstream media with a focus toward 50 million viewers as opposed to 10,000 who may be interested in Korea issues.

But there are pitfalls to the media, which is aptly summarized by one reader of Achenblog:

John in Ashburn writes: "Before the Internet, every village had its idiot, but all the idiots could do was sit and mumble to themselves in the village square. With the Internet, all the previously isolated village idiots were able to connect with each other, cross-breed their cock-eyed views, and concoct even more grandiose theories. So now we have... global village idiots. Most bloggers aren't idiots, but the principle is the same."

Still, this mumbling global village idiot (that'd be me) thinks that sometimes the society-at-large can be wrong, and the village idiot right. In such a case, empowering the village idiot by allowing him to commiserate in his global village idiot virtual ghetto is a good thing!

Now onto another topic that is gaining popularity: manliness. The Weekly Standard online has a review of three recent book offerings on what it means to be manly (maybe those who are formulating North Korea policy should read these):

There's a scene early in The Godfather when Don Corleone meets with popular singer Johnny Fontaine. The young man is in something of a bind--he desperately needs to land a part in a movie to further his career, but a stubborn producer refuses to give him the role. Overcome with frustration, Fontaine breaks into tears, clutching his patron and crying "Oh Godfather, I don't know what to do! I don't know what to do!" Simmering with rage, Corleone slaps the singer, yelling "You can act like a man! What's the matter with you? Is this how you turned out? A Hollywood finocchio that cries like a woman?"

The Godfather makes clear how a man was expected to act in the Corleone family in the 1940s. [snip]

Frank Vincent ["Phil" in The Sopranos] seems to believe that being a real man takes one thing above and beyond everything else: money. Consider, for example, the opening to his chapter on cigars. "They call cigars 'the smoke of kings.' From the $5,000 humidor that sits on your desk to the $1,000 lighter you keep in your pocket to your $200 cutter, cigars are a true lifestyle." Or flip through the chapter on visiting Las Vegas, in which Vincent recommends hotel rooms like the Wynn's Fairway Villas, which starts at $1,200, and the Real World suite at The Palms, which will set you back $7,500 per night. As Mansfield writes in his book, "Manliness likes to show off and wants to be appreciated. And it is critical of those who do not measure up to its standard."

For Vincent, though, it's not all about spending money. It's about being stylish. It just so happens that being stylish is expensive. Almost as important as the ability to throw around cash without concern is confidence. A man's man is a confident man. While interviewing a bouncer for his book, Vincent asked what it takes to get into a swinging nightclub. The doorman replied that a man's man "is discreet, well-groomed and, above all, confident about himself. I remember I turned some guy down who tried to give me $500." Mansfield agrees: "The confidence of a manly man gives him independence of others."

Actually, now that I think about it (acting like the head of organized crime, spending money to buy influence), it sounds more like Kim Jong-il's been reading these books.

But, at the same time, it seems that Kim Jong-il is a classic example of someone who has a god-king like status (and money) in his society and yet fails miserably in the style element.

Maybe it's because, deep inside, he lacks confidence. After all, he supposedly wears inserts in his shoes and poofy hair to look taller. So clearly, among other things like being an evil, monstrous dictator, he lacks self-esteem about being short-statured.

By the way, as far as style goes, I don't necessarily think "that being stylish is expensive." I've known some very stylish people in my lives, and some of them had entire wardrobes that cost less than other people's singe pair of designer jeans. Money can help, but a sense of style can't just be bought.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

Sexual Slavery Right Here in D.C.?

2006-07-06T11:05:00.000-07:00

Previously I wrote about human trafficking issues, particularly in conjunction with the Traffcking in Persons (TIPs) report published by the State Department.

I noted that South Korea is:

a source, transit, and destination country for women who are trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation... Korean women are trafficked to Japan and to the United States, sometimes via Canada or Mexico, for forced prostitution.

Recently, while I was waiting at a Korean restaurant, I was flipping through a Korean weekly and found the following ad.

It says "Sauna, body shampoo, table shower, body scrape, massage, private room" on top, followed by "New Management, "Spa 14K: We have really different choices," "We take credit card."

This "spa," by the way, is only one block away from my office, amidst all the lobbying firms and such. The ad, along with several others like it, was found in "Korea Entertainment Weekly" published by none other than The Washington Times! So much for family values (to be fair, The Washington Post also runs ads for "escort service" and such, apparently).

The image of a demure, vulnerable Asian young woman clutching her knees has all the markings of a brothel ad.

Katherine Chon of Polaris Project, a pioneering non-proft that combats trafficking in persons, told me that such a place is usually run by ethnic Koreans in D.C. On the question of whether the "spa employees" are voluntary prostitutes or victims of trafficking, she told me that the answer is difficult to ascertain due to scarcity of information ("the women are rotated often") and because the boundary is blurred to the extent that some women/victims have trouble telling it apart due to "conditioning."

Coercion, whether actively physical abuse or threats/psychological intimidation (or of deportation), is widely suspected to be used, but again, without the ability to interview the women, it is difficult to tell.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

Honory Thy Contracts

2006-07-05T22:47:00.000-07:00

Today saw the posting of my latest piece, "Good Faith Contracting, Bad Faith Judging," available at Intellectual Conservative. I analyze the ruling of an Iowa federal judge who recently struck down as unconstitutional a voluntary prisoner re-entry program because the education and instruction provided in the program comes from a non-profit organization's religious viewpoint. The judge's decision is too long to discuss in detail. And there are aspects to the re-entry program and its accounting that could arguably be improved. But I consider such matters trivial compared to the most troublesome aspect of the judge's decision: the undermining of contract. As I discuss, the judge disturbingly ordered the non-profit organization to pay back $1.4 million for services legitimately and legally contracted for and ALREADY performed.

Liberty to contract is a hallmark of a thriving, free society. Governments held accountable to their own promises is another. Infringement of contractual obligations runs contrary to the rule of law.

North Korea: A Dangerous, But Incompetent Villain

2006-07-05T11:02:00.000-07:00

The following op-ed appeared in RealClearPolitics (original link here).

July 05, 2006
North Korea: A Dangerous, But Incompetent Villain
By James J. Na

Ever notice the modus operandi of movie villains? When the villain captures the noble protagonist, instead of simply executing the latter and moving on to perform other evil deeds, he dithers and trots out complex machinery to "torture" the hero for a while -- a gift, really -- leaving just enough time and wiggle room for the protagonist to escape and bring the villain to justice.

That, in a nutshell, is North Korea today -- a dangerous, but incompetent villain.

The six-party talks to denuclearize North Korea has stalled. While Japan has aligned its North Korea policy with that of the United States (Prime Minister Koizumi is always welcome at Graceland), South Korea has continued to appease North Korea, and China has remained unwilling to restrain its ally in Pyongyang.

In other words, while the Bush administration's rhetoric on North Korea has been outstanding, its actual policy has not been effective. And time was running out on the administration. It was looking more and more like North Korea would wait out the remainder of the "lame duck" administration and shop for a more amenable negotiating partner, perhaps hoping that it could repeat the Clintonian bargain struck in 1994 (known as the Agreed Framework).

But like Hollywood's dangerous, but incompetent villains, North Korea has offered the United States an unwitting gift. Despite the admonition from all the regional powers, including China and South Korea, not to test-fire its Taepodong 2 missile, it went ahead to do so yesterday and fired off several shorter range missiles for a good measure. Better still, its main intercontinental ballistic missile test went awry, as did its earlier Taepodong 1 test of 1998.

This was the best of all outcomes. The test likely provided a wealth of intelligence data for the U.S. The failure of the test was also a great blow to the prestige of the North Korean regime and its leader, Kim Jong-il in particular. Furthermore, Pyongyang's aggressive provocation threw eggs on the faces of Beijing and Seoul that have propped up the North Korean regime.

The stage is now set for a decisive action from the United States. Clearly, any military strike against North Korea is out of question, and would, in any case, abdicate the now accrued diplomatic advantages. Instead, the U.S. should press for an immediate quarantine of North Korea to prevent the outflow of ballistic missile and nuclear technology and the inflow of energy and food that sustain the regime. And, for a change, Pyongyang will have to give up something to end the quarantine.

Japan, already angered by past North Korean provocations, will join the U.S. immediately. Given a sufficient demonstration of willpower from Washington, Seoul will, in the end, not object to this policy (in any case, if it were to do so, the present South Korean administration will implode finally, leaving the way for a conservative administration next year). A tougher bargain will be required to bring Moscow to the fold, but given its relatively low level of leverage and interest in North Korea, it will not be impossible.

That leaves, as always, Beijing. To say that China is embarrassed by North Korea's latest provocation is an understatement. Thus it is now the time to press Beijing hard, for once. North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear threat would not be where it is today were it not for Beijing, and the U.S. should finally make China take responsibility -- by agreeing to the quarantine. And the United States should make the continued Sino-American economic relationship contingent on China acting like a mature great power by exercising this responsibility.

Ultimately, China's economic relationship with the U.S. is far more important for China's economic growth and political stability than continuing to protect North Korea's arsenal. The choice ought to be, thus, very clear for China's leaders -- provided, of course, that Washington presents Beijing with the choice.

Will the Bush administration, at last, exercise this potent lever to contain North Korea's nuclear and proliferation threat? Or will the pro-China business lobby again trump national security and constrain the administration into rhetorically magnificent, but utterly ineffectual, symbolic gestures?

I Am an American

2006-07-01T14:19:00.000-07:00

July 1st is the anniversary of my naturalization as an American. Yes, I know, I missed the Fourth of July by three days!

On that day, I uttered the Oath of Allegiance, which I re-affirm:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Happy Fourth, everyone!

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

SCOTUS: Bin Laden's Driver Wins, Separation of Powers and History Lose

2006-06-30T18:47:00.000-07:00

Ronald Cass has the best op-ed discussing Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) that I've seen yet.

First the elitists at the New York Times undermine our struggle against Islamicist terrorists by outing an important project for tracking and shutting down terrorist financing. Now elites comprising a 5-member majority of SCOTUS ignore historical practice, defy the President's legitimate exercise of war powers, defy Congress's clear statute and overrule a wise decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to give more rights to violators of the laws of war, such as Osama Bin Laden's driver.

A lot of the recent commentary on the case by persons opposed to the trials of Gitmo terrorists by military commissions is that Gitmo itself has brought the United States into disrepute. But that is itself a matter of international politics--something entrusted to the President of the United States.

Members of Congress are going back to the drawing board to write a new statute. But they shouldn't have to be doing this. As they write their statute, I hope to hear lots of called-for outrage at the 5-member majority from legislators who take Islamicist terrorists seriously.

SCOTUS Drops a Bomb

2006-06-29T07:34:00.000-07:00

I wish I could say I didn't see it coming, but this morning SCOTUS released its decision on the legality of military commissions for terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. A 5-3 majority apparently held that such commissions were beyond the President's authority and in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Then-Judge John Roberts was on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that upheld the military commissions. That D.C. Circuit opinion was surely correct. I haven't yet had the chance to read the SCOTUS opinion, but it would require an act of judicial imperialism to overrule the D.C. Circuit on this. Activist judges have gone out of their way to give special rights to terrorist violators of the rules of war, such as Bin Laden's driver. This is another instance of elites undermining our war against Islamicist terrorists.

Go Ahead, Launch It and See What Happens

2006-06-28T00:34:00.000-07:00

My latest Seattle Times op-ed is online.

Image Source: The Seattle Times

June 28, 2006
James Na / guest columnist
Provocative missile launch could backfire on North Korea

Will North Korea test-launch its Taepodong 2 missile? And if North Korea were to do so, what should be the U.S. response?

Although earlier reports from Japan and South Korea discounted the possibility, a provocation of this magnitude is not out of step with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's regime. In 1998, it test-fired an earlier-generation missile, supposedly in an attempt to launch a satellite. The missile flew over Japan, prompting shock and outrage from the Japanese government. In addition, North Korea has engaged periodically in acts of sabotage, assassination and terrorism in the past.

North Korea has learned that international extortion pays. In light of the incentives — or concessions — the U.S. and its Western allies offered to Iran recently, Kim's regime may have calculated that fomenting a "crisis" may indeed garner the attention and aid it craves.

While the prospect of North Korea's missile launch has increased tension in the region, it presents the United States with a unique opportunity. Should North Korea foolishly overplay its hand and test-launch Taepodong 2, the attention it receives will not be the kind it has sought.

Such an action would further demoralize the appeasement-friendly administration of South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, whose political party is imploding due to a crushing defeat in local elections. A provocative North Korean missile test will further strengthen the pro-American, anti-appeasement conservative party in South Korea, and boost its candidate in next year's South Korean presidential election.

Similarly, Japanese politicians advocating a tougher stance against North Korea and an increased Japanese military role in the security structure of East Asia will gain favor. Since the Japanese public is already deeply disturbed by past kidnappings of its citizens by North Korean intelligence agents and the violation of its territory by the last missile test, the Japanese government is unlikely to tolerate a further provocation.

In contrast, China has been utterly unhelpful to the U.S. regarding North Korea, despite the fact that North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile developments could not have occurred without Chinese acquiescence and "willful neglect." A missile launch would be an ideal occasion to put pointed diplomatic pressure on China to cooperate with the U.S. to curb the North Korean menace.

Given these conditions, the American message to North Korea should be a diplomatic equivalent of, "Go ahead, launch it and see what happens."

What is vital, however, is that should North Korea launch the missile, the U.S. must not overplay the advantages thusly derived from the situation. The recommendations to launch a preemptive strike against North Korea or destroy the missile on the ground in North Korean territory would be psychologically gratifying, no doubt, but is not advisable. Such a move would forfeit all the diplomatic leverages; the U.S., not North Korea, would now be seen as overreacting and being belligerent, while North Korea would play the victim card of having been attacked by the U.S.

Instead, what the U.S. ought to do is declare a North Korean missile test a grave provocation and an unacceptable threat to both the U.S. and East Asian regional security, and establish a quarantine of all transport in and out of North Korea. Tokyo will likely join the U.S. and even contribute naval and air elements for the effort. Seoul may not participate actively, but will acquiesce in the end.

Crucially, the U.S. should use the occasion to present Beijing with an ultimatum — as "Nuclear Showdown" author Gordon Chang has suggested — to make the continued Sino-American economic and trade relationship contingent upon China's cooperation to disarm North Korea.

Once a quarantine is in place, the U.S. should convey a simple message to Pyongyang that the quarantine will not end until North Korea backs down first. For once, it will be North Korea's turn to give something in return for reverting to the status quo.

But won't the North Koreans escalate? They previously declared that a quarantine would be an act of war. Would they not initiate a military conflict?

They will not, because such a conflict would be the death of Kim's regime and the end of North Korea as a state. Pyongyang has far more to lose.

For too long, North Korea has played chicken with the U.S. and has won. A North Korean missile launch would be, finally, the right moment for the U.S. to play chicken with North Korea — and win.

An Unconstitutional Constitution?

2006-06-27T23:58:00.000-07:00

James Taranto points to an op-ed by one Dr. Susan Roberts, who writes disapprovingly of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Writes Roberts:

It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would now uphold an amendment prohibiting flag burning, even with the change in the court's composition.

Taranto provides a good laugh at the expense of the political scientist Roberts and the editor of the Charlotte Observer who missed the error.

That all being said, I think that the very concept of a constitutional provision being declared unconstitutional is a concept may need to be taken seriously. It's an absurd concept, to be sure. But I have had some discussions about such a possibility with acquaintances before. What IF a judge declared (in a ruling or in dissent) that a validly enacted constitutional amendment was simply incompatible with the rest of a constitution and thereby unconstitutional? Or, what IF a judge declared a particular provision in the main body of a constitutional document incompatible with the rest of a constitution and therefore unconstitutional?

In my view, for a jurist to declare a validly-enacted constitutional provision unconstitutional would be to necessarily commit an IMPEACHABLE offense. Jurist swear oaths to uphold and defend constitutions. Declaring those same constitutions unconstitutional would violate the very oaths that jurists swear. Such an act would completely deny the republican principle that constitutions derive their legitimacy from the consent of the people.

Aside from corruption or criminal activities unrelated to a judge's expounding upon a constitution, it can be difficult for legislators to draw lines in particular cases as to just how activist (or derelict) a judge's decision must be to constitute an impeachable offense. But I think all could agree that this line is clear: any judge who would declare a validly-enacted constitution unconstitutional MUST be impeached. Let's pray that neither Congress nor any State's legislature ever faces such a situation.

David Broder Says Texas...

2006-06-26T20:27:00.000-07:00

"Historically and culturally, it has been part of Mexico." If don't believe me, read his latest op-ed.

I just hope that it is a simple error on his part. Here is my little immigrant English grammar lesson for y'all: Texas HAD been a part of Mexico. Not HAS. "Has been" implies that it was and it continues to be, where as "had been" implies that it was but stopped being so at one point and no longer is.

Geez. I don't think Broder should visit Texas anytime soon.

More Hurricanes = More Tax Dollars?

2006-06-26T06:24:00.000-07:00

According to the NYT (take it with a grain of salt):

State officials assumed that Louisiana's tax base had been battered by last year's hurricanes, but the latest figures show that the opposite occurred: more tax dollars than ever are pouring into the state's coffers as the budget year draws to an end.

The state predicted that tax collections would plunge by almost $900 million this year, and it slashed spending to match. Instead, a record $9.2 billion is on track to be collected by the time the budget year ends on June 30, and at least some of that tax flow looks as if it is likely to continue.

The main reason?

But the biggest surge by far has been in sales taxes, as hurricane victims have used federal aid, insurance proceeds and their savings to replace items as disparate as socks and S.U.V.'s. Officials forecast that the state will end up with almost $500 million more in sales tax revenue than they expected before the storms hit.

Well, Alert the Media!

2006-06-26T06:20:00.000-07:00

... WaPo says that politics in Mexico might be, just might be, corrupt!

What will they tell us next? That NYT runs left?

Indian Wrestling

2006-06-23T21:10:00.000-07:00

Loyal readers of this blog know that I am a big fan of fighting sports, especially grappling arts (if you didn't before, you should now). WaPo has an article about Indian wrestling today:

All of this is part of the regimen for a trainee in traditional Indian wrestling -- a pehelwan .

The sport has a long history in India. Temple carvings and ancient paintings depict it. Ancient Hindu texts such as the Mahabharata mention it. And variations continue to be practiced in neighboring Pakistan, as well as Turkey and Iran.

Once, the sport enjoyed royal patronage and immense popularity. Whole villages would turn out to watch local tournaments. But over the past few decades, it lost ground to cricket -- an obsession in this country -- as well as soccer and tennis.

[snip]

People here say their sport was the precursor to the freestyle wrestling that is practiced around the world today.

Well, I don't know about that last part as wrestling of various forms has been practicied in just about every region and country (Ssireum in Korea, Sumo in Japan, Mongolian wrestling in, well, Mongolia, even the ancient Greeks had a sport called Pankration, which likely was similar to Indian pehelwan).

And, yes, Mexico has lucha libre.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

Pre-War Iraq and WMD

2006-06-22T09:48:00.000-07:00

As Coop noted earlier, declassified documents show that the pre-war Saddam regime in Iraq did possess WMD:

This is certainly significant, but what they're talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn't appear to constitute evidence that Saddam's regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years. What it does demonstrate is that the picture with respect to Iraq's WMDs is much more nuanced than the usual "he didn't have any" mantra. There is no doubt about the fact that Saddam had, and used, chemical and biological weapons. Nor is there any doubt about the fact that he eagerly pursued nuclear weapons. Further, the Iraq Survey Group report says that he had every intention of resuming his programs as soon as the coast was clear and the U.N. sanctions were behind him. Add to that the fact that hundreds of chemical weapons, at a minimum, were secreted in various locations around Iraq--as also shown by this document--and it is reasonable to conclude that, even though the CIA and nearly all other observers over-estimated Iraq's WMD capabilities, the fear that Saddam might use such weapons, or slip them to a terrorist group, was well-founded.

I think it's another "I told you so" moment. Let's take a look at what I wrote two years ago (May 2004), shall we?

In reality, President Bush offered the following reasons in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002 and in the accompanying document titled "A Decade of Deception and Defiance: Saddam Hussein's Defiance of the United Nations":

1. Saddam Hussein's defiance of United Nations resolutions, including violations of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement.
2. His development of weapons of mass destruction.
3. His repression of the Iraq people.
4. His support for international terrorism, including an attempt to assassinate a former US president by the Iraqi intelligence service, and the support for Mujehedin el-Khalq, PLF and Abu Nidal terrorist organization.
5. His refusal to account for Gulf War prisoners.
6. His refusal to return property stolen by Iraqi forces.
7. His efforts to circumvent economic sanctions.

In other words, Saddam Hussein's development of WMD was one of several serious reasons why the president decided to act. Setting aside the issue of the WMD, the validity of the other reasons is not in doubt today, and one is not likely to find anyone in the media who say otherwise.

But what about the WMD issue?

[snip]

Furthermore, the coalition forces recently discovered an Iraqi 155 mm shell containing sarin, a nerve agent, in a roadside bomb. They also found a weapon containing mustard gas, another chemical agent. Both discoveries have been confirmed in lab tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG), which is responsible for finding Iraqi WMD. Yet Hans Blix incredulously continues to claim that this "is not a sign that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed WMD" and "did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles" of such weapons. In light of the damning evidence, the bar has apparently risen from stockpiles of WMD to "large" stockpiles.

The media have treated these significant discoveries as non-events, and continue to perpetuate the myth that there is "no evidence" of WMD and that the WMD issue was the sole -- fabricated -- reason we went to war.

But go on bleating "Bush lied, people died" idiocy like mindless parrots that you are, Kossacks.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

Iraqi WMD Disclosure

2006-06-21T23:07:00.000-07:00

Powerline provides a fine post discussing some just-declassified information concerning weapons of mass destruction maintained by Saddam's regime prior to the onset of Gulf War II. Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Peter Hoekstra would like to see even more information disclosed to the public. So long as such disclosures do not compromise the safety of our soldiers on the ground, who could be against that?

And the Clueless Remark Award Goes to...

2006-06-20T13:44:00.000-07:00

Governor Christine Gregoire* of Washington State (D):

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire said Monday the threat of a missile attack by North Korea reinforces the idea U.S. troops should leave Iraq as soon as possible.

In other words, if we retreated from Iraq with our tails tucked between our legs, just as success appears to be dawning, then the North Koreans will finally come to the negotiating table, tell us how sorry they've been and scrap their nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

In the mean time, the ground troops who are now freed from Iraq can line up as a human shield on the West Coast to protect us from a potential ballistic missile from North Korea. Because, you know, that's what's making our missile defense capability weak -- the lack of ground troops.

*The very same politician whose tenure as state attorney general was plagued with management problems and silly mistakes that cost the state millions of dollars, and who only became governor through a selective hand recount of the votes in overwhelmingly Democrat-friendly King County (incl. Seattle) in perhaps the most embarrasing and flawed election in recent American memory.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator.]

Hollywood is Rightist?

2006-06-19T05:23:00.000-07:00

Jim Pinkerton says that Hollywood leans right (!) and writes that the latest B movie "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift" is a latter day western:

Meanwhile Sean the car drifter is indebted also to all those cowboys, the drawlin' and twangin' men who drifted from the Old West into the American pantheon. Those cowboys didn't have cars, of course, so they sometimes raced their horses against stage coaches and Indians. And yet just about every Western ever made is also a meditation on authenticity: Which is more real, the life the city slicker, or the life of the honest farmer -- or the life of the loner? In movies such as "Shane," the presentation of the problem is bittersweet; Shane might like to settle down, but he can't. So he must travel to far places, doing good works when he can, till the time comes for him to head to that great cattle drive in the sky. The leading man in "Drift" is like that, too; whereas cowboys hired themselves out as ranch hands, Sean hires himself out, in effect, as a drag racer.

Well, maybe. But the old Westerns were also about righting the wrong and standing up for the weak (and often undeserving cowards) against the evil strong (often many). In other words, there was a societal purpose beyond proving one's manhood and getting the girl.

And the old heroes often didn't get the girl (e.g. "Shane"), because they felt compelled to leave, having restored the society's balance by vanquishing evil (no evil, no need for the vigilante... until next time, that is).

A little trivia about the film, by the way. It was directed by Justin Lin who made his name with the Asian-American-themed indie hit "Better Luck Tomorrow."

Hold the Ethanol!

2006-06-19T04:00:00.000-07:00

I lived in Iowa for some years, so I hate to point this out, but it seems Ethanol is not all that it is cracked up to be. In a Wall Street Journal Review and Outlook titled "An Energy Field of Dreams" (req. registration; h/t Maryland Taxpayers Association), one finds:

Ah, but what about the other alleged virtues of ethanol? One favorite is that every gallon of ethanol will supplant a gallon of gasoline imported from tyrannical Mideast oil regimes. Thus, a la Brazil, ethanol can help the U.S. achieve the miracle of "energy independence."

Sorry. The most widely cited research on this subject comes from Cornell's David Pimental and Berkeley's Ted Patzek. They've found that it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol -- 29% more. That's because it takes enormous amounts of fossil-fuel energy to grow corn (using fertilizer and irrigation), to transport the crops and then to turn that corn into ethanol. The Saudis ought to love the stuff.

Oooops. That's not gonna help. But Ethanol helps to clean the air, right?

Ethanol is also said to be vital for reducing smog. This fiction is even written into the Clean Air Act, which mandates the use of 'oxygenates' -- of which ethanol is the leading type. But studies from the National Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency's own Blue Ribbon Panel have shown that oxygenates don't do much to clear up hazy air. That's especially the case now with ever more clean-burning engines.

Why can't we just let the market bear what it will???!!!

Korea Liberator Down Again

2006-06-19T03:49:00.000-07:00

Arggghhhh! The server for The Korea Liberator is down again. My blog partners and I decided that we had enough, and are moving the host.

We should be up again shortly, this time from a more reliable server.

Now the U.N. Wants Our Guns?

2006-06-17T12:16:00.000-07:00

In her latest TownHall column, Mary Katharine Ham discusses U.N. ambitions for global gun control.

Here, one won't find any overt declaration of intent to confiscate the arms of law-abiding American citizens. But in the long run, should one really expect a program of a global scope to respect the niceties of American constitutional aspiration of limited government?

Gun Fashion

2006-06-16T14:23:00.000-07:00

Since it's 5 PM on Friday, here is something lighter -- gun fashion.

Previously I reviewed my Mitch Rosen "Premier" express holster and the BHL gun belt combination (part 1 and part 2).

I have been using and testing Rafter S black sharkskin belt recently.

The workmanship is good. The design is excellent, especially the seven conveniently spaced (.75 inch apart) holes. The belt is considerably lighter than my Mitch Rosen belt. It is not quite as rigid either (but rigid enough to support my holster/pistol). The Rafter S sharkskin belt is more supple, and this makes the belt much more comfortable, especially as the day wears. There is also less squeak than the Mitch Rosen belt.

I wonder how the belt will hold up over the long-term compared to the Mitch Rosen. Only time (and use) will tell. Supple belts tend not to last very long, but sharkskin is supposedly very tough, so we'll see.

What I would like to try next is Rafter S's honey elephant belt.

Attractive belt, isn't it? It should go well with light colored pants and light brown/tan shoes.

The more salient question now is, should I stick with 1.5-inch width (which affords more stability, I guess) or switch to the more fashion-conscious 1.25-inch width (which looks more "normal" and thus lowers profile)? If anyone has a thought or advice, please let me know.

Rafter S also makes holsters with exotic leather/skin, by the way.

Dick Morris on GOP's Prospects

2006-06-15T20:44:00.000-07:00

Whatever one may think of Dick Morris's morality, one thing he is not is politically inept. He is not always right in his analysis of political situations, but is always astute (it's just that he doesn't get that politics is a means to the end, not the end itself, that winning is about enacting the principles into policies rather than simply winning elections by taking up your opponent's cause, i.e. "triangulation").

I agree broadly with his latest analysis of the GOP's prospects this year (h/t RCP).

Current surveys show a tendency toward the Democrats but do not show a rout as of yet. But any Republican strategists who take comfort from that did not live through 1986 or 1994, the two most recent years when a party trend swept through Congress like a plague, killing the deserving and the undeserving alike.

In both of those years, the trend toward the party that eventually won manifested itself only in the last week of polling and really only in the last few days. So it will be in 2006.

Whether there will be a rout or not is anybody’s guess — mine is that there will be and that the Democrats will win both Houses of Congress. But you won’t see the process one way or the other in today’s polling data.

The GOP establishment may sigh a relief over the save in Randy Cunningham's district, but all around me in the exurb I see enormous discontent with the GOP elites and the establishment among the rank-and-file conservatives. There was a revolt of sorts here that was more or less put down by the establishment. But feelings have soured for sure, and I predict that this base will NOT turn out for the establishment in the upcoming midterm elections.

And without an enthusiastic base, the GOP establishment will not be able to hold the House. Since the Democrats are also somewhat divided and unable to form a coherent platform, this election is quickly going to be a race to the bottom in terms of enthusiasm. As of now, I'd say that our base is slightly less enthused than the Democratic base.

If there is any chance at all for the GOP this year, it boils down to two things. First, the establishment has to listen to the grievances (e.g. illegal immigration and spending) from the conservative base seriously (unlikely to happen soon). Second, it has to continue to expose the fact that the Democratic establishment has been captured by the lunatic fringe, which led one former Democrat to rue:

Still, I approached the 2004 primaries with an open mind. I was still a Democrat, still hoping that leaders like Sam Nunn and Scoop Jackson would emerge, still fantasizing that Democrats could constitute a party of truly progressive social thinkers with tough backbones who would reappear after 9/11.

I was wrong. The Left got nuttier, more extreme, less contributory to the public debate, more obsessed with their nemesis Bush - and it drove me further away. What Democrat could support Al Gore's '04 choice for President, Howard Dean, when Dean didn't dismiss the suggestion that George W. Bush had something to do with the 9/11 attacks? Or when the second most powerful Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, thought our behavior at the detention center in Guantanamo was equivalent to Bergen Belsen and the Soviet gulags? Or when Senator Kennedy equated the unfortunate but small incident at Abu Ghraib with Saddam's 40-year record of mass murder, rape rooms, and mass graves saying, "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management, U.S. management"?

A War Story

2006-06-15T20:35:00.000-07:00

Michael Fumento of Hudson Institute (which inhabits the same building as Discovery Institute's D.C. office) forwarded me the link to his latest war reporting from Iraq, a multimedia piece that he considers his best. The article has many photographs and video clips, and documents the heroic efforts of our troops in Ramadi, a city to which many of the jihadists fled when Falluja was cleared out.

Some choice parts:

The Iraq war is covered mostly by reporters who hole up in Baghdad hotels and send out Iraqi stringers to collect what the reporters deem news, as an article in the April 6, 2006, New York Review of Books described in great detail. The reporters convert these accounts into prose and put them on the wire. Except for that all-powerful "Baghdad" dateline, they might just as well be writing from Podunk. [snip]

Although firefights and other hostile action are routine, IEDs are the worst problem, he said. They were responsible for five of the six deaths his men have suffered since deploying in January. As of mid-May, the troops at Corregidor had suffered 380 attacks from IEDs while finding and destroying 667 more. Five deaths (and additional injuries) are tragic, but these numbers do counter the misimpression that "ingenious" insurgents are expert in making and laying bombs. In fact, they must expend a massive amount of effort and materiel to do any harm to coalition forces. [snip]

An added "attraction" is the snipers who occasionally pop off a round into the camp from the minarets. They know of Americans' unwillingness to attack "religious" buildings, even when they're clearly being used for military activity. When I asked Col. Clark why Iraqi army or police couldn't be used to make sure nobody entered the mosques with weapons, he was quick to say, "We never hesitate" to fire back when fired upon. "However," he added, "our fight requires strict cultural and religious sensitivity in order to be successful and legitimize the Iraqi government and army." If, he said, "the Iraqi army and Iraqi police established check points and conducted security screens at mosques it would undoubtedly be viewed negatively by the Iraqi people whose trust is vital to our success." [snip]

The U.S. strategy in Ramadi is to improve relations with the civilians – who are more sympathetic than you might think because they passionately hate the foreign Arabs and their efforts to impose radical Islam on Iraqis – and to keep the insurgency in check as the size and abilities of the local Iraqi army and police improve. The coalition inflicts grossly disproportionate casualties – 1st Battalion and its support elements routinely kill more jihadists in a day than the entire unit has lost since arriving. Yet this incredible kill ratio is also disturbing. It seems that no matter how readily they're mowed down, the bad guys just keep on coming and coming.

I am in awe of the courage and dedication of our troops. I also marvel at Michael Fumento's bravey. He has done an extraordinary service to document the heroism of those who fight for us.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

A China-Taiwan Détente? Or timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

2006-06-14T21:55:00.000-07:00

WaPo says that China is quietly lowering tension with Taiwan.

First, the good cop:

Gradually and without fanfare, China has substantially softened its stand on Taiwan, according to senior officials and diplomats. President Hu Jintao, they said, has begun to play down China's long-standing vow to recover the self-ruled island by force if necessary and shifted the focus to preventing any move toward formal independence. [snip]

"Before, we never said 'status quo,' " said a Chinese academic who advises Hu's government on Taiwan. "Now we say it all the time."

Officials and diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. One of them, a high-level official, said he had visited Beijing and spoken to Hu privately about Taiwan for several hours. Hu, according to the visitor, said he had no plans to act militarily against Taiwan unless the status quo was changed in a way that risked causing him to "lose face."

Now, the bad cop:

Backing up that resolution, China has deployed nearly 800 medium- and short-range ballistic missiles in southern China, with targets around the Taiwan Strait, and is steadily building its military forces with Taiwan as a principal focus.

The government also passed an anti-secession law in March 2005 that legally enshrined the long-standing pledge to use military force as a last resort to prevent independence. [snip]

Hu's predecessor, former president Jiang Zemin, had emphasized early reunification, by force if necessary. A number of deadlines were attributed to him -- 10 years, 15 years and 50 years -- although he never laid out a clear road map.

The master plan?

Beijing's policy is to encourage more economic and other exchanges between Taiwan and the mainland in hopes that, at some undefined point, China will have liberalized enough that peaceful reunification will be possible.

To encourage those ties, the two governments announced on Wednesday, China and Taiwan will launch direct charter passenger flights between them during major holidays.

The real motive, I suspect, is the following:

As part of China's longer-term strategy, Hu's government has high hopes that Taiwan's strongly pro-independence president, Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party, will be voted out of office in the island's next elections, scheduled for 2008, and will be replaced by Ma Ying-jeou, the Nationalist Party leader, who favors better relations with the mainland.

Since the last presidential election when the saber-rattling proved to be counterproductive, I think the PRC leaders are falling back on a softer touch this time. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

My Guns are Safer...

2006-06-14T21:23:00.000-07:00

than cars driven by the Kennedys.

I am fond of repeating the bumper sticker line "My guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car."

Now, I can also say that my guns have done less damage to public property than Patrick Kennedy's car.

Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, who lost control of his car near the Capitol last month in what he says was a drug-induced stupor, pleaded guilty yesterday to driving under the influence of prescription medication and could face 10 days in jail if he fails to comply with a long list of court-imposed conditions. [snip]

U.S. Capitol Police officers suspected that Kennedy was intoxicated when he staggered out of his Ford Mustang shortly before 3 a.m. after he nearly hit a police car and then crashed into a security barrier.

Thus, the logic is simple. There should be a ban on the Kennedys owning and driving cars. They must be made to ride buses, trains and bicycles. They are environmentally more sound anyway, and aren't the Kennedys great supporters of the environment (except when it interferes with their ocean view).

Stossel on Eco-Liars

2006-06-14T18:11:00.000-07:00

John Stossel's "Religious fanatics terrorize American farmers" tells an outrageous story of government bureaucrats breaking the law and infringing the rights of law-abiding, property-owning citizens.

Global Testing the Constitution

2006-06-13T07:58:00.000-07:00

My article "Foreign Law Fuelling Judicial Activism," is available at The American Thinker. Therein, I discuss how using foreign court decisions to interpret the U.S. Constitution is entirely antithetical to our constitutional system's foundation in the consent of the governed.

SCOTUS's forthcoming decision concerning the constitutionality of military tribunals for enemy terrorists at Gitmo could provide the latest instance of SCOTUS Justices using foreign court decisions as partial justification for their opinions.

Zarqawi's Toast

2006-06-08T18:39:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to our armed forces for vanquishing a terrorist who preyed upon innocents and took the lives of too many of our own. I'm glad he's dead.

Read about it here.

North Korea Might Have Oil!

2006-06-06T08:25:00.000-07:00

Tool of Gambling, Not Satan

2006-06-06T08:19:00.000-07:00

I'm back from the hiatus. Now with something appropriately amusing for the "666" date:

To be sure, 666 was the most popular bet yesterday in the three-digit DC Lucky Numbers midday drawing. It often is, says Bob Hainey, chief of communications for the D.C. Lottery. "It's pretty popular all the time, because of Revelations, the Number of the Beast," he says. (The other popular numbers yesterday were 555, 222 and 777.) For today's drawings, 666 is sufficiently hot that Hainey expects it to sell out. Does that make the lottery the tool of Satan?

"We are the tool of gambling," says Hainey. "Even Satan can lose playing the lottery. If it comes up 660, we're taking his money. Or her money. Or whatever the angel Lucifer has transformed into. We don't discriminate."

Evaluating ABA Evaluations

2006-06-05T23:43:00.000-07:00

In "Lowering the Bar," Ed Whelan gives us a look at the ABA's process for ranking federal court nominees. The evaluation of now-Judge Brett Kavanaugh provides a glaring example of just how impartial that process is. Whelan makes a strong case that Kavanaugh was subject to lower rankings by the ABA over time because of political antagonism by ABA committee folk rather than by an impartial evaluation of his record as a lawyer.

Absent serious reforms to inspire confidence impartiality will prevail over political views, Whelan contends that no one--the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee included--should take the ABA's judicial evaluations seriously. Wise counsel indeed.

Roberts Gets Things Right

2006-06-04T22:54:00.000-07:00

Confirming Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have been the two most important achievements of President Bush's second term. (Signing class action lawsuit reforms, signing bankruptcy reform, sending John Bolton to the U.N., and seeing the tax cuts extended must also be remembered.) In fact, I think America is a little bit better of a place with the new Chief Justice presiding at SCOTUS. A couple of recent opinions by Chief Justice Roberts support my strong hunch that we can expect many wonderful things from the new Chief in the years ahead.

Chief Justice Roberts stands up for private property. In Flowers v. Jones (2006), the new Chief penned a 5-4 majority opinion supporting greater due process protections for citizens when government tries to take away their property. In this case, a man was delinquent on his property taxes, but apparently unawares that the the State of Arkansas foreclosed and sold his house out from under him. The man's ex-wife and daughter lived at the house, and the State's mail to the man was simply returned to the post office marked "unclaimed." Knowing the man never received the mail, the State did nothing further to notify him. Fortunately, Chief Justice Roberts acted with a strong dose of common sense and held that where government has actual knowledge that the mail is not getting through, they need to take at least SOME sort of additional, affirmative steps to notify the property owner that property is subject to confiscation or forclosure.

I am actually surprised and disappointed that Justice Thomas wrote the 4-member dissent. Justice Thomas wrote the STRONGEST dissent from SCOTUS's last eminent domain case, Kelo v. New London (2005).

Chief Justice Roberts supports eschews judicial supremacy. As Ed Whelan pointed out recently at Bench Memos, the new Chief recently wrote that the Constitution is not simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. In Daimler Chrysler v. Cuno (2006), Chief Justice Roberts discussed the Great John Marshall's landmark opinion in Marby v. Madison (1803). The new Chief pointed out that the federal judiciary's duty of judicial review is something that is limited, arising in the context of and out of the necessity of deciding "particular cases."

Obviously, under the workings of our 3-branch system, the federal courts often come last in time to deciding contested matters and giving an interpretation to the constitution. But recognizing that the courts come last in time and decide constitutional questions in order to decide individual cases is a far cry from the modern judicial supremacist view. In that latter, erroneous schema, the constitution derives legitimacy and stability through the power of the courts to say to all what the constitution means. Whelan has a succint post discussing both the new Chief's views about the role of the judiciary in our tri-partite system and how it differs from judicial supremacy.

American Anti-Semitism Goes "Mainline"

2006-06-03T14:07:00.000-07:00

The leadership of America's mainline Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) furthers a hate-filled propaganda campaign against Israelis. This has already caught some public attention. But today's article at The American Thinker, "Presbyterians Bearing False Witness," lays out this horrendous phenomenon with painful examples. The article is written by one Diana Appelbaum.

Despite the horrible anti-Semitism Applebaum chronicles, there are still many good pastors and parishoners in the PCUSA. But the anti-Israel propagandists are shouting the loudest. Church bureaucrats are still bureaucrats. They hold views largely at odds with those that they "serve." I hope to see more righteous indignation by PCUSA-goers over the attacks on Israel that are coming from within their own ranks. They need to take greater responsibility for what their leaders are doing, and hold them to account.

It seems evident that Israel is beset by internal and external problems. But the bottom line is this: Israel is a nation operating through democratic elections and by the rule of law. It is a free nation. It has the right to exist. The views of anti-Israeli Presbyterians deserves the strongest ridicule.

Having read of the PCUSA-associated hateful propaganda about Israel and also having read Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy, let me say this: on the issue of Israeli and Palestinian freedom and security, Sharansky has more moral clarity and moral authority in his little finger than all of those rogue clergy and church bureaucrats combined.

Will Hastert Step Down as Speaker?

2006-06-01T13:15:00.000-07:00

Quin Hillyer argues that House Speaker Dennis Hastert should hand over the reigns to someone new. Hillyer's American Spectator Online column is very to the point. Today, Hillyer blogs that Speaker Haster is the Republican party's longest-serving House Speaker.

So will Speaker Hastert hang it up? I doubt it. As Justice Antonin Scalia remarked in one of his judicial opinions, nobody ever said that power tends to purify. Based upon the accounts I've read, I can understand why Hastert would be so upset with the White House over the treatment of former colleague Porter Goss. On the other hand, my first impression is that Hastert was entirely off-base in blasting law enforcement for conducting a warranted search of Congressman Jefferson's office. I was glad when Hastert took over as House Speaker, but I think the length of his service is itself an important consideration in whether he should continue. I'll armchair quarterback this one and say that Hastert resign as House Speaker after the conclusion of this Congress.

Why Don't They Ask About Swimming Pools?

2006-05-30T20:10:00.000-07:00

Another ridiculous anti-gun article in WaPo in classic "Save the Kids!" routine:

For years, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that pediatricians ask parents about guns in the home as part of what it calls "anticipatory guidance" -- attempts to keep children safe in cars, on bikes, around swimming pools and elsewhere. Some groups are encouraging parents to ask other adults in homes where children will be playing whether guns are present and how they are stored -- a conversation experts say they know many parents are reluctant to have for fear of seeming intrusive or alarmist.

Fairfax pediatrician James Baugh said he stopped asking parents about guns because many seemed annoyed and most told him they knew what to do. Occasionally, he said, a parent told him she kept a gun under her pillow.

Stuart Weich, a partner in one of Montgomery County's biggest pediatric practices, said he often asks gun questions, especially when he interviews teenagers whom he sees separately from their parents.

"In 15 years I can only think of a handful of parents who actually admitted it," said Weich. "I know they're out there.

Hopkins's Vernick said that a public service campaign known as "ASK" -- Asking Saves Kids -- is trying to persuade parents to inquire about guns in the homes of their children's playmates.

"This is about slowly trying to change norms," he said. "Twenty years ago no one would have thought it was normal or socially acceptable to have a designated driver or take away a friend's keys."

Okay. Far more children die from car accidents, falling or drowning. How come they don't ask about cars (or seat belts), stairs or swimming pools. ("Do you have a swimming pool at home?") Or, for that matter, common household chemicals. Or chainsaws. Or knives. Or... you get the point.

But, nooooo. They should only ask about the eeeevil guns. Call it ignorance, call it irrational fear of guns, call it leftist ideological motive against guns disguised as a concern for your children. Call it whatever you will. It's just not common sense.

The article is right about one thing. Children are naturally curious. There is no way one can child-proof a gun. But you can gun-proof a child by taking a kid to shoot under adult superivision, remove the element of forbidden mystery, teach the kid to handle a gun safely and demonstrate the awe-inspiring noise, recoil and power of a gun. That, in my view, will be far safer for kids than engaging in hysterical nonsense about asking parents intrusive personal questions.

The End of the Dream: Hughes Pounds Gracie

2006-05-28T09:15:00.000-07:00

Long-time readers of this blog know that I am a big fan of the sport of mixed martial arts (MMA)/no holds-barred fighting (NHB). No thanks to Senator McCain, that is. (May his political career die a swift death!)

Last night witnessed a historic bout in the MMA/NHB world, the much-hyped Huges vs. Gracie (see the background here).

Royce Gracie, a legendary Brazilian Jujutsu fighter, helped to launch a revolution in the fight world, when in the early 1990s, he showed that a lanky, normal guy could beat up muscular, powerful strikers by utilizing crafty grappling skills.

Alas. That was over ten years ago. Matt Hughes, the reigning welterweight Ultimate Fighting Champion, shattered the legend, by pounding Gracie to victory on the ground, using his superior athleticism, power and grappling skills.

I expected Hughes to win, and hoped that Gracie would not get knocked out silly or otherwise would not be embarrased too badly. Unfortunately, the man who began the UFC phenomenon was utterly dominated and humiliated. His arm was almost broken by Hughes; the latter backmounted Gracie, pinned him belly down helplessly on the ground and mercilessly pounded his head.

This bout was a definitive declaration that the sport of MMA/NHB has matured. It is no longer enough to be skilled in one discipline (especially grappling skills like Brazilian Jujutsu or wrestling) to gain victory over clueless street fighters. Today's MMA/NHB fighters in promotions such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) or Pride Fighting Championship in Japan are elite, highly-conditioned fighters who are versed in boxing, Muay Thai kickboxing, wrestling, Brazilian Jujutsu and are capable of fighting in all ranges.

As Royce Gracie himself once said, today, it is no longer style versus style in the martial arts world; it is, rather, the individual -- who is better prepared, who is the superior fighter.

Bad Timing, Part 2

2006-05-27T10:17:00.000-07:00

Right after I declared myself a "certified gun nut" on talk radio yesterday, it was rumored that gun fire rang out at the Rayburn Senate building.

That's bad timing.

I know, I know. I can launch into a lengthy explanation of good gun-use vs. bad gun-use ad naseum. I can even sarcastically remark that there shouldn't be any handguns in "gun free" D.C.

Either way, it was a good thing the whole affair was an overblown mistake, a confusion stemming from construction tools.

Fox News was a bit over the top yesterday, relaying "reports" from two individuals from the Rayburn building who ran out after allegedly seeing someone hiding in the gym with a gun.

Obviously those individuals didn't get a good look, and were engaging in a bit of hysterics. Perhaps more familiarity with actual guns might have helped.

My wife, for example, can now ID the make and model of most handguns (yeah, it helps to have a sample each of the most popular handguns at home, heh). We'll walk by a police officer, and I'll say "I think he was carrying a Glock, but I couldn't get a good look." And my wife will retort, "It wasn't a Glock. The grip was not polymer. I looked like a Beretta to me. It's probably a 96, you know, the 40-caliber model since the 9's not that popular with cops anymore."

Oh, I'm so proud. It only took 9 years of marriage, but there she is.

"The Korea Liberator" Down for the Moment

2006-05-26T09:07:00.000-07:00

Argh. Call it bad timing.

The host of the talk radio show I was on, Tom Marr, was kind enough to mention The Korea Liberator (my joint blog project with Joshua and Richardson) several times on his show.

Unfortunately, TKL is now offline. There seems to be some sort of a spam attack going on, and the "excessive usage" has caused the server to take the site offline.

We're working on the issue, and hopefully the problem should be resolved shortly.

I'll Be on Talk Radio

2006-05-25T11:32:00.000-07:00

I am officially on vacation starting today. But tomorrow (Friday, May 26th) I'll be on The Tom Marr Show (Talk Radio 680 WCBM Baltimore) via telephone.

I was asked to be available for an hour starting 10 AM. The topic of discussion will be immigration.

I've done TV a few times, but this is my first radio gig. Hopefully I won't sound too incoherent, but practice makes perfect, I guess.

Weber's Confucian Heirs

2006-05-25T11:26:00.000-07:00

Here is something that turns Max Weber on his head:

The story of Asian-American "domination" of campus Christian organizations (h/t Marshall Sana). Some juicy bits:

At Berkeley, California's premier public university, "evangelical Christian" and "Asian American" are almost interchangeable descriptions. Three trends come together. One is California's demographics: It is 11 percent Asian compared to 4 percent for the nation as a whole. Two is academic prestige: As the oldest and most selective campus of the University of California, Berkeley has an undergraduate population that is 42 percent Asian. (As a general rule, the more selective the school, the higher the percentage of Asian students.) Three is a national fact: Asian students are more likely to show Christian commitment than other ethnic groups, including whites.

And here's some affirmative action for ya:

When campus fellowships remain united, their greatest challenge may be to hang on to non-Asian students, including Anglos, who feel uncomfortable as a minority. At Stanford, for example, IV had become predominately Asian five years ago. Only a determined effort has drawn in whites and other ethnicities to create a more diverse group.

And why are they flocking to Christianity? Maybe to find something other than money:

"If someone were to ask me what religion is practiced by Chinese immigrants, I would say money," says Steven Chin, pastor of a large Chinese church in Boston that ministers to many college students. "This is what they live for and dream about. They want financial security. This is why they want education—not just any kind of education, but an education that will make money. They were taught that if you have enough money, you will be happy, that money will provide the answers for you. As people got money and began to live well in nice homes, young people felt that something was missing. The next generation of Asian Americans is looking for purpose that money cannot fulfill. Many are looking to God. It's not the influence of Christian parents [that leads so many young Asians to Christianity]. These are non-Christians who are searching."

Or better yet, to find... a wife!

Asian campus fellowships have unique opportunities for evangelism. The close community draws in non-Christian Asians, who are not likely to find a comparable sense of belonging anywhere on campus. Rarely is another Asian group so large and friendly. Christians so dominate the Korean American student world that one Stanford student posted a lengthy online lament. As a non-Christian, he said, he stood a much-diminished chance of finding a Korean wife. "The challenge for Asian Americans in an ethnic fellowship is to use it as a base for evangelism," Tokunaga says, "not just to stick with people they are comfortable with." [Boldface mine]

"We understand sacrifice, because our parents have sacrificed for us. We understand that Christ's sacrifice for us can't be repaid, but that it demands a great response. Confucianism is a pretty good background for responsibility, sacrifice, and grace."

Good grief, did hear enough about the "sacrifice" thing. My parents taught me that there is one commonality to love, whether fraternal, paternal/maternal, platonic or romantic: sacrifice. Doing something for another you love with no expectation of anything in return.

This "Confucian" explanation seems to pop up everywhere (even Bill Lind, a noted cultural conservative claims that "Confucian" Asians are culturally compatible with "Anglo-Saxon" traditions; for the record, I disagree with the notion that only people who come from "compatible" cultures are able to appreciate and adopt Anglo-American civic traditions).

In any case, how ironic that heirs of Confucious are also heirs of Weber.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator.]

Why I Love Virginia

2006-05-25T10:05:00.000-07:00

Because, Virginia isn't just for lovers, it's also for gun-lovers!

"Lost" Finale

2006-05-25T08:18:00.000-07:00

I was really frustrated with the first season finale, because it did not explain enough but left me "just hanging." Apparently, the producers made an attempt not to repeat that mistake with the second season finale:

When that finale was broadcast, Mr. Lindelof was in Hawaii about to be married. "We felt everybody was satisfied and psyched," he said. "It never occurred to us that the backlash was going to begin."

Mr. Cuse said: "There started to be Internet chatter. We take that feedback to heart. By the time August rolled around, the spin on it was everybody's frustrated that we didn't go into the hatch."

The Season 2 premiere tried to remedy that frustration immediately. In the hatch was Desmond, who had been stranded on the island three years earlier. There were also plentiful provisions, retro furniture and, most important, a button that needed to be pushed every 108 minutes to dispel a powerful electromagnetic charge that could lead to catastrophic consequences.

I don't think it was a success. I felt that last night's finale (again) didn't explain enough, but left the viewers dangling a bit too much. But I understand the problem of TV series:

Because they don't know how long the show will run, Mr. Lindelof and Mr. Cuse have to pace its revelations. "If you answer too many questions, the audience doesn't have anything to care about on the show anymore," Mr. Cuse said. "We had to end the show with a powerful mystery that suggested what the show was going to be about next year and would leave the audience curious about where we're going."

If they reveal too much, they end up destroying the mystery and the fans might not come back ("Twin Peaks" anyone?). Even if they do come back, the producers now have to work extra hard to be creative, to outdo themselves. That's just too much work, right?

But if they err on the side of caution and not reveal enough, viewers get frustrated. What's worse, the show might suffer ratings drops, end prematurely and not get a chance to finish the story threads, really making the loyal fans angry.

Ratings suffered as the season progressed. In response to complaints from both viewers and the show's creators, next season ABC will run the show in two uninterrupted segments, without reruns that stop its flow. But its biggest problem was the return of Fox's "American Idol" in January at the same time on Wednesday nights. Before then, original episodes of "Lost" delivered 21.5 million viewers; after, they brought in 16.5 million (and repeats fared poorly all season).

I, for one, would rather watch a creative show like "Lost" than get a cheap thrill at the expense of deluded people who think they can sing. That's, like, so two seasons ago.

This Time, Doctor Sues Patient and Wins

2006-05-25T07:55:00.000-07:00

What a contorted tale:

A woman who accused her doctor of sexually molesting her — and of allowing his identical-twin brother to impersonate him to assault her — must pay the doctor $2.8 million because she fabricated the allegations and damaged the doctor's reputation, a Pierce County judge ruled Wednesday.

The particularly juicy bit:

Judge Katherine Stolz also slapped the woman's lawyer with a $300,000 fine, saying he was a knowing participant in the falsehoods against the physician, Dr. Dennis Momah, and his brother, Dr. Charles Momah. [snip]

The judge also ordered the Saldivars' lawyer, Harish Bharti of Seattle, who represents most of the other former patients who are suing the Momahs, to pay Dennis Momah $250,000 and pay the court $50,000 in sanctions.

Bharti also must "prominently" post the judge's scathing ruling on his Web site for as long as the site contains any reference to the Momahs, and at least for a year.

The judge said Bharti was an "active and knowing participant in the fabrication of Perla Saldivar's ever-changing accusations against Dennis Momah." The judge also said Bharti filed "irrelevant and salacious" allegations just to get media attention and "harass and damage the reputation" of Dennis Momah.

I guess ambulance-chasing can go a little too far.

DoD Report on China

2006-05-25T07:14:00.000-07:00

The 2006 Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People's Republic of China is available on the DoD website (h/t Logan Gage).

For those of you who are too lazy, below is the executive summary:

China’s rapid rise as a regional political and economic power with global aspirations is an important element of today’s strategic environment – one that has signifi cant implications for the region and the world. The United States welcomes the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China. U.S. policy encourages China to
participate as a responsible international stakeholder by taking on a greater share of responsibility for the health and success of the global system from which China has derived great benefit.

China’s leaders face some important choices as its power and infl uence grow. These choices span a range of issues: challenges of China’s economic transition and political reform, rising nationalism, internal unrest, proliferation of dangerous technologies, adoption of international norms, and China’s expanding military power.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is in the process of long-term transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to a more modern force capable of fi ghting short duration, high intensity confl icts against high-tech adversaries. Today, China’s ability to sustain military power at a distance is limited. However, as the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report notes, “China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and fi eld disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages.”

In the near term, China’s military build-up appears focused on preparing for Taiwan Strait contingencies, including the possibility of U.S. intervention. However, analysis of China’s military acquisitions suggest it is also generating capabilities that could apply to other regional contingencies, such as confl icts over resources or territory.

The PLA’s transformation features new doctrine for modern warfare, reform of military institutions and personnel systems, improved exercise and training standards, and the acquisition of advanced foreign (especially Russian) and domestic weapon systems. Several aspects of China’s military development have surprised U.S. analysts, including the pace and scope of its strategic forces modernization. China’s military expansion is already such as to alter regional military balances. Long-term trends in China’s strategic nuclear forces modernization, land- and sea-based access denial capabilities, and emerging precision-strike weapons have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region.

China’s leaders have yet to adequately explain the purposes or desired end-states of their military expansion. Estimates place Chinese defense expenditure at two to three times offi cially disclosed fi gures. The outside world has little knowledge of Chinese motivations and decision-making or of key capabilities supporting PLA
modernization.

This lack of transparency prompts others to ask, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did in June 2005: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases? Why these continuing robust deployments? Absent greater transparency, international reactions to China’s military growth will understandably hedge against these unknowns.

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator.]

War Dogs

2006-05-25T06:51:00.000-07:00

Dogs are Man's best friends. They fetch, they guard, they retrieve, they hunt, they play. Now they fight terrorists.

(Of course, dogs -- like guns -- can be misused... even by the military.)

Border Madness: Telling It Like Is

2006-05-25T06:04:00.000-07:00

An interesting story about a documentary of the border area life. The choice part:

In the salons of Cambridge and San Francisco, Ms. Maharis has encountered indifference to her account of border chaos. Screenings there have attracted mere handfuls of people. Her New York show drew exactly one viewer, actor George Maharis, her brother-in-law.

As she prepared to submit "Cries" for an Academy Award nomination, a viewer told her it was too political. Translation: the wrong politics for Hollywood. Especially to the open-borders lobby, the film is deeply subversive. Ms. Maharis knows that playing the politically correct game would've won bigger audiences and media acclaim, and it would've played nicely into the PR machine of street protesters demanding "rights" for illegals.

Of course, Maharis should know that if she simply made up things like Michael Moore did, she'd be lionized and awarded for her "documentary" by Hollywood.

Why Suburbs (or Exurbs)?

2006-05-25T05:41:00.000-07:00

Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution explains why he prefers suburbs:

1. We live 30 minutes from Washington but we also have a fox in the backyard. Deer are a frequent sight as well.

2. Chinese restaurants are usually better in the suburbs these days.

3. Driving is fun and a good way to experience music. MR readers know I favor a (revenue-neutral) gas tax. My worry is that car culture makes people more individualistic and thus I have some reluctance to tax this trend. Try Chuck Berry's "No Particular Place To Go."

4. A few weeks ago, the first Fairfax County police officer died in the line of duty. That's the first ever. In New Jersey, where I grew up, you might speak of the first local cop to die today.

5. Many of my friends who live in Manhattan lose interest in global travel or never acquire it. Sadly they feel they already have everything they need from the world right at home.

I live 30 miles from D.C. and I have not only deer but also an occasional bear!

The ethnic restaurant scene is indeed getting better every day here, and sometimes has food that is not found in D.C.

Cars? I can never give them up. Might as well take my guns away! Okay, not really. But I noticed that no car cities usually equate to no gun cities (e.g. NYC). It's the freedom and individualism thing.

Yes, my exurb is incredibly safe. There is hardly any violent crime. In Seattle where I lived before here, cars were stolen out of people's locked garages. Kids here leave their bikes on the street and leave their front doors open. Nothing happens.

Also, exurbs, too, can have the world. My neighborhood in the exurb is probably far more diverse than the one in which I lived in NYC. I have Korean, Vietnamese, East Indian, Thai, Turkish, American-born black and plain vanilla bubba neighbors. Some of them are recent arrivals to the country (usually working tech jobs in the area). It all makes for interesting conversations when I walk my dogs (yes, we in the exurb all have a couple of these creatures per home).

Finally, something that Cowen does not address. Politics. It's more competitive and interesting, because it's purple, unlike urban areas where one party, the Democrats, dominate. One party cities (I repeat myself) inevitably experience corruption and inefficiency. Why try to improve these when the pols are perennial incumbents?

The Problem of Amnesty

2006-05-23T08:47:00.000-07:00

I recently wrote in RealClearPolitics:

And under no circumstances should illegal migrants be granted amnesty or be allowed to "jump the line" ahead of those who are following the rules. To grant such an amnesty under any guise is not only grossly unfair to those who are already Americans, but also to those who have abided by all our laws and requirements to come to this country legally or are still waiting outside patiently.

Unless the immigration system is reformed thusly, legal immigrants who seek to assimilate into our society will continue to suffer exasperating delays, frustrations and high costs while illegal aliens will continue to pour through our borders, undermining our American sense of fair play and, ultimately, our rule of law.

Similarly, Lawrence Lindsey, a former Bush economic adviser (and a father of three adopted overeas infants), writes (h/t Richard Falknor):

The line the current illegals will go to the back of is the citizenship line. Under the proposed law, current illegals, newly minted green card in hand, will have to wait six years, then get in line to apply for citizenship. But even after six years, they will be years ahead of many people who have gone through the legal process and are waiting overseas for a consular official to let them come here. Once those who have been playing by the rules all along get here, they too have to wait six years before getting in line for citizenship.

If we really mean "the back of the line," that should be behind everyone who is already in the pipeline to come here legally. If you are granted your green card under the new "guest worker" system, you shouldn't be able to apply for citizenship until after everyone already on queue has had their citizenship adjudicated. It's a simple matter of not rewarding people for line-jumping.

This is more than an appeal for elementary fairness. There is a very practical reason to prevent queue jumping: It helps consular officials keep order on the front lines of immigration policy. How can anyone enforce the rules for entry to America if line-jumping becomes the law of the land? Once the world knows that we make citizenship easier for those who break the rules, enforcing the rules becomes a nonstarter.

We've seen this movie before... in 1986. Should the President's "earned citizenship," an amnesty by another name, be adopted, legal immigrants will suffer while illegal immigrants will be emboldened. More illegal migrants will flood the U.S. with the hope that there will be another bout of "reform" in the future ("just this once" doesn't work since it is now "just this second time").

[Cross-posted in The Korea Liberator]

2006 Election: Motivated Base vs. Unmotivated Base

2006-05-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

From Bruce Bartlett:

A more important concern for both parties has to do with turnout, which is a function of voter intensity in off-year elections. Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 mainly because so many Democrats sat out the election. Since it is mainly the ideologues that vote in such elections and since turnout is lower than in presidential elections, each party's wings are more crucial to the outcome.

In the end, the election may turn on which party's base is less dispirited this year.

The answer to that, unquestionably, is that the GOP base is more dispirited this year.

L.A. Times:

Some Republicans are so discouraged by the direction of the country and the record of their party —including the growth of federal spending, turmoil in Iraq, and Bush's immigration policy — that they have begun wondering if Republicans might be better off losing control of Congress.

"Two years in the political wilderness would do us a lot of good," said one Republican member of Congress who asked not to be named because of his heretical view.

Actually, that view is not that heretical among the rank and file. The establishment elites in the party want to hold on, but the rank and file think that defeat might be a good reality check for the party.

Despite such views and grim polls, Republican National Committee spokesman Brian Jones argues that GOP candidates will fare well when attention turns to the kinds of policies that Democrats would promote if they won control of Congress. That points to a key element of the Republican strategy to motivate conservatives: Remind them what political life would be like if Democrats took control.

This sort of fear-politics is a loser, and looks desperate to boot. People generally vote for positive changes, not to prevent negative changes.

As a loyal Republican, it pains me to write this, but I concur with the following:

Although the sweep was driven in part by local political dynamics, analysts said it might be a cautionary tale for Republicans nationwide: Conservative voters are restless and may be ready to strike back.

"It gave us a glimpse of just how angry Republican voters are," said former Rep. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania conservative who backed the insurgency. He now heads the economically conservative Club for Growth advocacy group. "That certainly suggests that Republicans in Washington have a lot to worry about going into the fall elections."

I Beat Anne Coulter

2006-05-18T21:32:00.000-07:00

... to the phrase "Read my lips, no new amnesty." She had an op-ed titled the same in Human Events on May 17th.

I used that phrase in my blog entry on May 16th.

I was in the midst of writing an op-ed titled the same when I found Coulter's. Rats! I should've moved faster. Since I don't think Coulter or her editor reads GnB regularly (or at all, for the matter), I guess it was one of those same-idea-developed-independently.

Hastert Not Happy

2006-05-17T22:44:00.000-07:00

House Speaker Dennis Hastert has been fuming over the ouster of Porter Goss as CIA Director. Michael Novak's latest column, "The Speaker's Wrath," gives an account of the Speaker's choice words for the VP and his meeting with the President on this subject.

Hines Ward's Tale of American Transcendence

2006-05-17T10:38:00.000-07:00

My latest Seattle Times column is online.

James Na / guest columnist
Hines Ward's tale of American transcendence

Now that it is May, have Seattleites recovered from the Seahawks' Super Bowl loss? May is also "Asian Pacific American History Month." What does the Super Bowl have anything to do with this ethnic tokenism? Hines Ward, the Super Bowl most valuable player, of course!

Ward's saga made headlines after the Pittsburgh Steelers' victory in February. It had the makings of a mediagenic tale: a child of a broken home, born to a black GI and his Korean wife; a dedicated immigrant mother who worked three menial jobs to support her son; an unselfish player winning the MVP award. Capping it all was Ward's triumphant visit last month to his native South Korea, where he was feted by its president and hailed by the local media as a Korean hero and a symbol of new South Korean multiculturalism.

There were, however, sour grapes. Some multiracial South Koreans, especially those with dark skin, expressed bitterness at all the attention Ward garnered. These mixed Koreans, who still struggle with daily discriminations, think that the Ward story is essentially an American one, impossible in South Korea, despite the rhetoric of Korea's globalization. They fear, probably accurately, that the new awareness will subside shortly.

Underneath the glitzy exterior of economic success and high-tech development, South Korea is still a clannish society that values family ties and ethnic purity. Women who marry American soldiers are derided as "GI princesses"; those who marry blacks are scorned as little better than prostitutes. Mixed children, especially those with African or Southeast Asian ancestry, face taunts, impolite stares, spitting and other indignities. Many drop out of school and become unemployed.

But if Ward's story highlighted the dark side of South Korea's society, it seems to have done little to shed light on ethnic relations in the United States. While the American mainstream media fixate on black-white issues (note the Duke University rape scandal), they pay less attention to the more complicated ethnic mosaic that is our country today.

The black-white fixation fits the leftist stereotype that whites are the oppressors, blacks the victims, and that this is the primary problem of racism today. Ward's case is interesting for those who see beyond this simple construct, because he is a product of two nonwhite ethnic groups considered hostile to each other.

Korean immigrants in the U.S. often bring the prejudices of their own society, and the view that blacks are less developed human beings is pervasive. The Korean bias against blacks tends to emerge as "soft racism" — from stares and extra vigilance to discrimination in housing and employment (Korean shopkeepers, for example, prefer Latino employees, "because they work harder and don't steal").

In turn, many American blacks, far from being helpless victims of racism, harbor hostility toward Koreans. Much of this hostility is based on economic resentment (the myth that Koreans cheat blacks to become wealthy is found among blacks of all strata) and nativism ("Koreans shouldn't be making money in black neighborhoods"). If Korean prejudice against blacks generally manifests as rudeness, that of blacks against Koreans has taken a violent turn at times: robbery, assault and even occasional pogroms — most infamously during the Los Angeles riots and the "Boycott Koreans" demonstrations in New York City.

And yet, there he is — Hines Ward, a product of these two seemingly incompatible communities, a kid who was at once shunned by Koreans, and ashamed of his Korean mother. He is neither one nor the other, but that quintessential American character, a hybrid success story.

Indeed, without any counterproductive social engineering, it is the new generation of Americans that is redrawing this complex ethnic map on its own. Away from urban ethnic enclaves where old habits still persist, young, middle-class families in "tech" cities and suburbs are mixing, mingling and intermarrying.

In a new exurban development outside D.C. where I now live, there are many multiethnic couples, having children who will not be able to identify themselves with a single box on government forms and college applications.

Despite this new reality — or an old one, given that human beings never existed in discrete, separate categories but along a continuum that belies the imprecise construct of "race" — the government and other institutions of our society continue to insist on separating us into color-coded tribes that stand in the way of forging our single American-ness.

Isn't it time for "E Pluribus Unum," finally? That is what I saw when Hines Ward won the MVP — neither a black nor a Korean story, but a tale of American transcendence.

James J. Na, senior foreign policy fellow at Discovery Institute (discovery.org), co-authors "The Korea Liberator" (korealiberator.org) and "Guns and Butter Blog" (gunsandbutter.blogspot.com).

A “Palestinian Holocaust”?

2006-05-17T02:15:00.000-07:00

I received the following AllExperts question last night, and I just sent in my response. I did not enjoy writing it; but I didn’t have any good excuse to refuse to answer.

The question:

Boker Tov and Shalom Don,
I have a question, I was watching Yulie Cohen Gerstel’s documentary about the Holocaust and the possibility of Israel imposing the same hardships on the palestinians that the jews went through and my question is, do you think that the past is repeating itself meaning are the israelis doing the same thing to the palestinians that the nazis did to the jews years ago, what is your stance on this? Thanks.

My answer:

Dear A_____ –

I haven't seen Ms. Gerstel’s film, so I can’t comment on it in any detail.

The idea that Israel “imposes the same hardships on the Palestinians as the Jews went through during the Holocaust” would be laughable if it weren’t evil. Even to suggest such an equivalence would require complete ignorance of the two conflicts, or else an anti-Israeli bias so strong that facts cannot penetrate it.

The Holocaust was the systematic, industrialized destruction of an entire culture: fully one third of the world’s Jews were killed, and European Jewry as a living community was essentially eliminated. In particular, the Eastern European Yiddish-speaking culture and the Greek-Sephardic Ladino-speaking culture were destroyed; all that is left of these vibrant, creative cultures is fossilized remains. These Jewish communities posed absolutely no threat to Germany: there were no Jewish suicide bombings on German buses (or anywhere else), no Jewish military threat, no Jewish boycotts of Germany (at least until after the Holocaust began). The Holocaust was a gratuitous, unprovoked, brutal, and unrestrained attack on a defenseless and inoffensive people.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an entirely different matter. Palestinian terrorists have been killing innocent Jewish civilians since at least the 1920's; the Palestinian terror organizations receive substantial backing and funding from much of the Arab world as well as from Iran. While Israel’s actions in relation to the Palestinians are not always legally or morally perfect, the idea that Israel is trying to commit genocide – either by killing huge numbers of Palestinian Arabs, or by destroying their culture – is simply not borne out by the facts.

While numbers don’t tell the entire story, they are illustrative. Remember that the number of Jews in Europe pre-1939 was roughly comparable to the number of Palestinians living in or near Israel/Palestine today. In 5 1/2 years of the “al-Aqsa Intifada”, fewer than 4,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel – and of these, at least 55-60% have been combatants. Contrast this with the Holocaust: the gas chambers and crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau were designed to “process” 12,000 people per day; and at the height of the destruction of Hungary's Jews in the summer of 1944, as many as 46,000 Jews were killed there in a single day. (Those not “lucky” enough to be “processed” in the standard way were simply burned alive in pits in the ground.) The average number killed daily at Birkenau was not quite that high, of course – but it was still at least a couple of thousand per day; the entire Palestinian death toll in 5 1/2 years of “Intifada” is the equivalent of a day or two at one extermination camp.

It is true that Israeli restrictions on Palestinian movement, including checkpoints and roadblocks, are onerous and inconvenient, and harmful to the Palestinian economy. It is equally true that the terrorist organizations, while supposedly working for “the liberation of Palestine”, are doing everything in their power to ensure that the roadblocks remain in place – after all, Palestinian poverty and alienation are the terrorists’ best recruiting tools. Were the Palestinians, as a collective, to renounce terrorism unequivocally and decisively, the roadblocks would quickly disappear; and in fact, if the Palestinians had truly acted in good faith to achieve statehood, they would have had their own state many years ago. So while Israel is complicit in the oppression of the Palestinian people, the Palestinians’ own leadership is very largely to blame for their people’s plight.

In the mean time, Palestinians are able to get an education (as Jews under the Nazis were not), follow professions (as Jews were not), and vote for their own leadership (as Jews were not). When and if the Palestinians decide to stop blowing up Israeli women and children, they will have their state handed to them on a silver platter, with generous foreign aid to build their economy and institutions. The Jewish victims of the Holocaust do not even have graves: those burned at Birkenau are just mud at the bottom of a lake.

Obviously, I could continue in this vein - but I think I've made my opinion on the topic clear enough. I'll be happy to deal with any follow-up questions you may have.

Best regards,

-Don Radlauer

(This post can also be found at On the Contrary: Don's Mideast Musings.)

Categories: Israel, Palestine, Holocaust.

The Right to Save Yourself

2006-05-16T12:22:00.000-07:00

My column at The American Thinker analyzes the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' recent ruling that American's have a fundamental right of self-preservation.

We hear a lot about the right to die these days. But seldom do we hear about a right to preserve one's own life. In my short article I analyze a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit involving a challenge to FDA regulations of potentially life-saving medications.

The Big Speech on Immigration

2006-05-16T07:21:00.000-07:00

I can't write too much today. I am too distressed by what I heard (the complete text is here for those you who haven't).

All I can say is I feel disappointed and, frankly, betrayed. I will just say this:

That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, ... to pay their taxes, ... to learn English ... and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship...

What I heard is this: "Read my lips, no new amnesty." And we all know what happened when the last time a Bush said "read my lips."

Democratic Hypocrisy on Surveillance

2006-05-12T07:12:00.000-07:00

Democrats are squawking about NSA surveillance programs that merely attempt to find patterns of phone numbers dialed (information that is already collected by phone companies). In other words, they are engaging in demogoguery as usual.

Yet one Democrat has shown that violating the privacy of others is no big deal if it helps the Democratic political cause:

McDermott is embroiled in a civil suit, filed by an Ohio Republican, over whether the dissemination of an intercepted cellphone conversation of public officials should be considered free speech. [snip]

On Jan. 8, 1997, a Florida couple gave McDermott a tape of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, talking on his cellphone about a pending Ethics Committee probe of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

At the time, Gingrich was publicly promising not to organize opposition to the ethics probe, and the cellphone conversation suggested he was violating his pledge.

McDermott, then the highest-ranking Democrat on the Ethics Committee, leaked the tape to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The New York Times, which later ran a front-page story.

Boehner sued McDermott, charging the liberal lawmaker had violated state and federal wiretapping laws.

Last month, McDermott asked the full nine-member U.S. Court of Appeals to take the case after a three-judge panel ruled against him.

The appeals court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner about $700,000 — $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.

Nothing like a little criminal hypocrisy, eh? And this is Jim "Baghdad" McDermott who graced Michale Moore's anti-American "documentary" with his presence and has generally peddled paranoid (and popular, at least in Seattle) theories of an out-of-control government robbing people of their freedom and privacy.

Maybe we should be more concerned with people like McDermott controlling the government than those who are in charge of the NSA.