"Suicide by Cop"

The tragic story at the Miami airport recalls the fact that mentally ill individuals are far more likely to be killed by police. I googled the topic, and found this website on the phenomenon of Suicide by Cop. How many more of our most vulnerable people may fall victim to trigger-happy air marshals?

One reason for putting people in a mental asylum was to protect them from themselves--and others. It may be that the Global War on Terror will mean that America has to take a closer look at the way we treat the mentally ill, and make some changes in the way their cases are managed (or ignored), in order to protect them from those who might mistake them for terrorists.

More on this story from Laura Rozen.

Sudoku Fever!

There's a classic Soviet film by Pudovkin titled Chess Fever!. The hero goes mad for playing chess.

Well, someone I know is addicted to Sudoku, plays it day and night--in newspapers, online, wherever. And while I was at Borders today, I noticed a wall chock full of Sudoku books.

Apparently, Sudoku is like a crossword puzzle, but with numbers in a sequence instead of witty word clues. And the puzzles are made by machines, instead of people.

It seems to be as addictive as computer solitaire, too...

The Google Story

David Vise and Mark Malseed were at the downtown Washington Borders this afternoon to talk about their new book. Unfortunately, I missed their actual lunchtime talk because I was at an off-the-record Washington event. But I'm glad I dropped by Borders, because I got a chance to chat with co-author Mark Malseed--who turns out to have been Bob Woodward's researcher on his books about the Bush administration and the War in Iraq. He seemed pretty level-headed, and characterized Google as "pushing the envelope" not only in terms of technology, but also in terms of what's legal and ethical, common in successful businesses (anyone remember Bill Gates and a company called Microsoft?), when it came to a discussion of the Google Print copyrright controversy. He signed a book, and I bought a copy, which I'll read rather than scan or index, and may report back on later...

L'Affaire Finkielkraut

Thanks to a link from Roger L. Simon, I read this interesting posting on Bad Hair Blog about the latest intellectual fallout from the French Riots--L'Affaire Finkielkraut.

Which led me to this quote on Solomonia, from Sarkozy:

Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Sarkozy said: "Monsieur Finkielkraut is an intellectual who brings honor and pride to French wisdom ... If there is so much criticism of him, it might be because he says things that are correct."

Here's an excerpt from the Haaretz article that touched off L' Affaire:

What is its origin? Is this the response of the Arabs and blacks to the racism of which they are victims? I don't believe so, because this violence had very troubling precursors, which cannot be reduced to an unalloyed reaction to French racism.

"Let's take, for example, the incidents at the soccer match between France and Algeria that was held a few years ago. The match took place in Paris, at the Stade de France. People say the French national team is admired by all because it is black-blanc-beur ["black-white-Arab" - a reference to the colors on France's tricolor flag and a symbol of the multiculturalism of French society - D.M.]. Actually, the national team today is black-black-black, which arouses ridicule throughout Europe. If you point this out in France, they'll put you in jail, but it's interesting nevertheless that the French national soccer team is composed almost exclusively of black players.

"Anyway, this team is perceived as a symbol of an open, multiethnic society and so on. The crowd in the stadium, young people of Algerian descent, booed this team throughout the whole game! They also booed during the playing of the national anthem, the `Marseillaise,' and the match was halted when the youths broke onto the field with Algerian flags.

"And then there are the lyrics of the rap songs. Very troubling lyrics. A real call to revolt. There's one called Dr. R., I think, who sings: `I piss on France, I piss on De Gaulle' and so on. These are very violent declarations of hatred for France. All of this hatred and violence is now coming out in the riots. To see them as a response to French racism is to be blind to a broader hatred: the hatred for the West, which is deemed guilty of all crimes. France is being exposed to this now."

In other words, as you see it, the riots aren't directed at France, but at the entire West?

"No, they are directed against France as a former colonial power, against France as a European country. Against France, with its Christian or Judeo-Christian tradition."

Rumsfeld Declares War on Media

In today's Wall Street Journal, Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld blames the American press for his failure to accomplish the mission in Iraq. The oped is titled: 'Do Some Soul Searching' Why aren't the media telling the whole story about Iraq? It's based on a talk he gave at Johns Hopkins' SAIS. But like Dick Cheney at AEI a little while ago, Rumsfeld has swung and missed the ball.

Sure the press is biased. What else is new? Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, and without the support of the mainstream media, in part because he was a great communicator. And it's hard to remember right now, but a few years ago Rumsfeld was a media darling. Today he's a bum.

IMHO this change reflects Rumsfeld's own decisions.

First and foremost was his decision to replace Tori Clarke as head PR honcho in the Pentagon. After Clarke left "to spend more time with her family," Rumsfeld's positive image began to sag. And there's nothing that Larry DiRita, a talented numbers-cruncher policy wonk who used to work on another floor of the Heritage Foundation when I was there, can possibly do to fix that. Good PR requires a good PR person in charge. He's just not a good PR person. And if your PR person isn't the best, what does that say about the rest of the operation? It's PR 101...

So, instead of lashing out at the messenger, maybe Rumsfeld might show us that he's willing to do some soul searching himself...

Why Did USAID Chief Quit?

According to whispers at the AEI this morning, it was because Condoleeza Rice forced him out. But why? A Democratic source has this today,according to Karen Finney of the Democratic National Committee, the reason may be that [sic] screwed up the reconstruction of Iraq:

USAID Director Who Predicted Cheap Rebuilding In Iraq Quit. "The head of the government's overseas relief agency (Andrew Natsios) , the U.S. Agency for International Development, is leaving his job... 'Secretary Rice asked him to stay but he felt it was time for new challenges,' Rice senior adviser Jim Wilkinson said. In 2003 Natsios confidently predicted that U.S. taxpayers would not have to pay more than $1.7 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, a job that is now expected to cost tens of billions of dollars. The Washington Post later reported that a transcript of Natsios' remark on ABC's Nightline was removed from the agency's Web site. 'The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges,' Natsios said on the television program. 'The American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.'" (Associated Press State & Local Wire, 12/2/05)

Napoleon: An Intimate Portrait

After a somewhat depressing NGO conference at the American Enterprise Institute, where the former general counsel of USAID reiterated that information about possible US money going to terrorists or terrorist supporters despite certification and regulation to the contrary is probably not available because it is classified, confidential, private, or still in the field rather than at headquarters (what ever happened to "transparency"?)--I had the good fortune to cross the street to see the National Geographic Society's exhibition Napoleon: An Intimate Portrait.

The French Cultural attache had recommended seeing the largest private collection of Napoleonic relics in the world, and it was just fascinating. All the good and bad sides of the French general were on display. Maps, pictures, and charts from his ill-fated Egyptian campaign--"it's just like Iraq" said a woman at the glass case. His camp bed, the sleeve of his coat, his hat, a lock of hair. Busts, portraits, Empire-style decorative arts, plates, cups, and furniture. Pictures of Austerlitz, Moscow, and Ulm. His generals, his wives, his annulment and divorce. His descendants and his wife's--the ruling families of Norway, Denmark and Sweden still in place today are descendants of Josephine. And of course the story of Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase for $15 million.

Napoleon modelled himself on Alexander the Great. And he was not shy of using force. He single-handedly saved the Directory in 1795, when Royalist mobs attacked the National Convention. Barras sent for Napoleon, who ordered his troops to fire point-blank on the crowd. Hundreds were killed or wounded, the streets were cleared--and the Revolution was saved, at least until it became an all Napoleon, all the time, French Empire...

Barras' briefcase was in a glass case, with a note explaining that he introduced Josephine (his former mistress) to Napoleon. How he was betrayed, imprisoned at Elba, returned for the "100 days" and then faced his Waterloo and exile on St. Helena--where he died miserably either from poison or stomach cancer.

Fascinating, and well worth a visit.

Remember Pearl Harbor!

Comparing FDR to George W. Bush may not be fair, but four years after Pearl Harbor the USA had crushed Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo were all dead. American troops occupied a peaceful and quiet Japan, Germany and Italy.

Four years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large, Saddam Hussein is looking feisty, and Afghanistan and Iraq remain terrorist centers. Meanwhile, Paris burned after bombers struck Madrid and London.

What's wrong with this picture?

The Perils and Possibilities of Strengthening the Rule of Law

"Evidence From Uzbekistan" was Dr. Lawrence Markowitz's subtitle for tonight's talk (the title is above) on the role of the Prosecutor in Uzbekistan's legal system at Georgetown University's Intercultural Center, as the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies 2005 Nava'i Lecturer in Central Asian Studies.

Dr. Markowitz was just plain "Larry" when I met him in Tashkent a few years ago. Boy, was I impressed in those days. He was on a Fulbright-Hays, and seemed to know more about every little "kishlak" in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan than any other American. Here, in the USA, as Dr. Markowitz, he seemed more careful about what he said.

The audience seemed pretty high-powered, from the questions. At a reception afterwards, I spoke with someone from USAID, someone from a legal reform project who said she was a Supreme Court fellow, someone from the State Department, and someone who seems to have been on the Georgetown faculty and may have been a State Department official of some sort in Tashkent.

What struck me was that no matter how much I pressed them and tried to provoke an answer, not one could say for certain that the US did not provide funds, indirectly, to terrorist groups or support groups in Uzbekistan. I was told that any relevant emails may have been erased, and although I could file a FOIA request, and although support for terrorist groups or supporters is against regulations, that the recipients of US dollars actually don't have to certify or track the money to guarantee that none of it reaches the wrong hands. Ostensibly, due to the difficulties of doing business in the country. So, for example, a terrorist or member of a banned organization could possibly be a supplier or contractor or employee of an American NGO or Uzbek organization receiveing American money...and no one in Washington would be able to tell. They don't do thorough background checks, apparently. And while I can file a FOIA request, I apparently cannot find out exactly who my American tax dollars ended up going to pay in Uzbekistan, or what banned parties they may have belonged to.

The problem with such an answer, is that while it may be true, and perhaps understandable (I was told on another occasion that USAID had funded Shining Path guerilla leaders in South America), is that it cannot reassure the Uzbek government, which accused the US government of supporting Islamist terrorists responsible for the recent Andijan violence. Nor can such a non-answer reassure anyone that President Bush is very serious about his so-called "Global War on Terror."

Ironically, such answers show American aid isn't "Strengthening the Rule of Law" in Uzbekistan at all. For if the US is supporting illegal Islamist organizations, either directly or via hiring individual members of those organizations, then the US is contributing to undermining the law in Uzbekistan. Supporters of Osama bin Laden, or those affiliated with them, make questionable champions for the American legal system.

Ironically, based on these admittedly anecdotal, informal (and possibly unreliable) conversations over drinks with anonymous sources, I wonder whether lax administration and oversight of American aid programs by USAID and the State Department may have seriously harmed American interests in Central Asia--and cost our country a military base of some geopolitical significance...

UPDATE: More on Markowitz's talk at Neweurasia.net and on the Sunshine Coalition website.

Is the CIA Out to Get the President?

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Thomas Joscelyn seems to say so:

IN THE CIA's continuing campaign against the Bush administration, the agency has found the leaking of classified information to be a potent weapon. This is especially true with regard to the spinning of intelligence connecting Saddam's Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda. Consider, for example, the case of Abu Zubaydah, a top al Qaeda operative captured in March 2002.

Bull Moose: Rumsfeld Must Go

That's his reaction to President Bush's Plan for Victory speech.

The Danish Intifada

The American Thinker has a post on recent riots in Aarhus, Denmark--sparked by publication of a cartoon of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.

I first read about the Aarhus riots in this issue of The Spectator:
It is certainly disturbing news. I was in Aarhus a few years ago for a business communication conference, and it was an interesting town, much more authenticallly Danish-seeming than Copenhagen. Such communal riots have long been common in countries like India, now it appears that Europe is set to suffer the same. There's more on this story in the Brussels Journal:

Islam is no laughing matter. The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten is being protected by security guards and several cartoonists have gone into hiding after the newspaper published a series of twelve cartoons (view them here) about the prophet Muhammad. According to the Islam it is blasphemous to make images of the prophet. Muslim fundamentalists have threatened to bomb the paper’s offices and kill the cartoonists.

The newspaper published the cartoons when a Danish author complained that he could find no-one to illustrate his book about Muhammad. Jyllands-Posten wondered whether there were more cases of self-censorship regarding Islam in Denmark and asked twelve illustrators to draw the prophet for them. Carsten Juste, the paper’s editor, said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark.

The publication led to outrage among the Muslim immigrants living in Denmark. 5,000 of them took to the streets to protest. Muslim organisations have demanded an apology, but Juste rejects this idea: “We live in a democracy. That’s why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures,” he said. The Danish imam Raed Hlayhel reacted with the statement: “This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims. Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world.” . . .
Jyllands-Posten was also included on an al-Qaeda website listing possible terrorist targets. An organisation which calls itself “The Glorious Brigades in Northern Europe” is circulating pictures on the internet which show bombs exploding over pictures of the newspaper and blood flowing over the national flag of Denmark. “The Mujahedeen have numerous targets in Denmark – very soon you all will regret this,” the website says.

More from FreeRepublic.com about a bounty being put on the Danish cartoonists heads--in Pakistan.

La Trou

We enjoyed Touchez pas au grisbi so much that last night we watched Jacques Becker's last film, La Trou. It's a prison escape drama, which was just fascinating for its depiction of life inside a french jail in the 1960s. The little details seemed realistic, and the staggering determination of the prisoners to tunned out through concrete, cement, and rock with little more than their bare hands was just incredible. There were some interesting themes, and twists, to the story. Which I won't spoil by telling. In the end, the solidarity of the men, and their ingenuity, were spellbinding. It is an amazing film, over two hours long, where the main action is just men digging a hole. But it was hypnotic. The acting was great. And the best part was the type of food the prisoners received in their care parcels. I still think about the ending. It's sort of an un-Capote. Add this one to your Netflix queue, too...

Sharon: Nuclear Iran Threatens World Peace

According to Ha'aretz, Sharon is worried that Iran's nuclear program has not been stopped, probably due to the fact that the Iranian president vowed to wipe Israel off the map:

Sharon said Thursday that Israel is watching with growing concern Iran's efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities, and that Israel cannot accept the current situation.

However, Sharon added that "Israel is not spearheading the international struggle against Iran's nuclear arming," although he said it is working with the countries that are at the forefront.

The danger posed by Iran "does not relate only to Israel," Sharon told the editors convention at Sokolov House in Tel Aviv. "It puts at risk Israel, Middle Eastern countries and many other countries around the world. Therefore the efforts led by the U.S. today must include free countries that understand this grave danger."

Earlier this week, Military Intelligence chief Major General Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash) said diplomacy would have failed if Iran was still working on producing nuclear weapons by March.

"If by the end of March 2006, the international community does not manage to use diplomatic means to block Iran's effort to produce a nuclear bomb, there will no longer be any reason to continue diplomatic activity in this field, and it will be possible to say that the international attempts to thwart [Iran's efforts] have failed," Ze'evi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Several MKs said they thought Ze'evi was saying military efforts would become necessary by April.

"The comments by the head of Military Intelligence convey a harsh, worrying and dark picture," said committee chairman MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud). "Iran is going to become a nuclear power in the region and the world is helpless."

Hans Magnus Enzensberger on Islamism

Hans Magnus Enzensberger believes that logic of political Islamism demands the suicide of Arab civilization. As a German, he should know something about the power of suicidal ideologies. So I think this may be a credible analysis of the terrorist project. Enzenberger's article is entitled, The Radical Loser:(ht LGF)

The Arab world has proved similarly unproductive where its political institutions are concerned. Imported forms of nationalism and socialism have failed everywhere, and democratic stirrings are routinely nipped in the bud. Of course, blanket statements of this kind can only aim to say something about the state of the whole. They tell us nothing about individual capabilities, that are subject the world over to the genetic normal distribution. But in many Arab countries, anyone who expresses independent ideas puts their own life at risk. Which is why many of the best scientists, engineers, writers and political thinkers live in exile, a brain drain that can certainly be compared with the exodus of Jewish elites from Germany in the 1930s, and which is likely to have similarly far-reaching consequences.

Although the methods of repression that are customary in Arab countries refer back to the traditions of oriental despotism, in this field too, the unbelievers have proved indispensable as teachers. From machine pistols through to poison gas, they invented and exported all of the weapons that have been used in the Arab-Islamic world. Arab rulers also studied and adopted the methods of the GPU and the Gestapo. And of course, Islamist terrorism is also unable to do without such borrowings. Its entire technical arsenal, from explosives to satellite telephones, from aircraft to television cameras, comes from the hated West.

That such an all-encompassing dependency should be experienced as unbearable makes perfect sense. Especially among displaced migrants, regardless of their economic situation, the confrontation with Western civilisation leads to a lasting culture shock. The apparent superabundance of products, opinions, economic and sexual options leads to a double bind of attraction and revulsion, and the abiding memory of the backwardness of one's own culture becomes intolerable. The consequences for one's own sense of self-esteem are clear, as is the urge to compensate by means of conspiracy theories and acts of vengeance. In this situation, many people cannot resist the temptation of the Islamists' offer to punish others for their own failings.

Solutions to the dilemma of the Arab world are of no interest to Islamism, which does not go beyond negation. Strictly speaking, it is a non-political movement, since it makes no negotiable demands. Put bluntly, it would like the majority of the planet's inhabitants, all the unbelievers and apostates, to capitulate or be killed.

This burning desire cannot be fulfilled. The destructive energy of the radical losers is doubtless sufficient to kill thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and to cause lasting damage to the civilization on which they have declared war. One indication of the potential impact of a few dozen human bombs is the level of day-to-day controls that has come to be the norm.

But this is actually the least of the losses to civilization resulting from terrorism. It can create a general atmosphere of fear and trigger counter-reactions based on panic. It boosts the power and influence of the political police, of the secret services, of the arms industry and of private security operatives; it encourages the passing of increasingly repressive laws and leads to the loss of hard-won freedoms. No conspiracy theories are required to understand that there are people who welcome these consequences of terror. There is nothing better than an external enemy with which to justify surveillance and repression. Where this leads is shown by the example of Russian domestic policy.

The Islamists can consider all this a success. But it makes no difference to the actual power relations. Even the spectacular attack on the World Trade Center was not able to shake the supremacy of the United States. The New York Stock Exchange reopened the Monday after the attacks, and the long-term impact on the international financial system and world trade was minimal.

The consequences for Arab societies, on the other hand, are fatal. For the most devastating long-term effects will be born not by the West, but by the religion in whose name the Islamists act. Not just refugees, asylum seekers and migrants will suffer as a result. Beyond any sense of justice, entire peoples will have to pay a huge price for the actions of their self-appointed representatives. The idea that their prospects, which are bad enough as it is, could be improved through terrorism is absurd. History offers no example of a regressive society that stifled its own productive potential being capable of survival in the long term.

The project of the radical loser, as currently seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, consists of organizing the suicide of an entire civilisation. But the likelihood of their succeeding in an unlimited generalization of their death cult is negligible. Their attacks represent a permanent background risk, like ordinary everyday deaths by accident on the streets, to which we have become accustomed.

An Iranian-Chechen Connection?

There's an interesting post on Siberian Light concerning British reports of Iranian training for Chechen terrorists. Do I believe it is possible?

Yes.

One remaining question is, why do the US and EU offer support and asylum to reputed Chechen terrorists in the context of a war on terror? (Yet, curiously, some Islamic charities in the US have been prosecuted for raising money and supplies for Chechnya.)

More on Russia . . .

Speaking of Russia, my Winter 2006 issue of Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs arrived in the mail yesterday, and it looks pretty intresting. Amitai Etzioni on the issue of national sovereignty, James Kurth on the future of humanitarian intervention, Jan Ting on immigration, William Anthony Hay on Democracy, Andrei Tsygankov on Putin's foreign policy, and yours truly on cultural challenges to democratization in Russia. An excerpt:

Just as France continues to exert influence in its former colonies, Russia
will play its role in the post-Soviet space. Like France, Russia sponsored a
revolution with universal pretensions; won extensive international conquests;
had its ideas affect the course of world history; has a strongly centralized state,
its own form of dirigisme; and has lost its empire. In this sense, U.S.-French
relations might prove the model for future U.S.-Russian relations. Just as
Charles de Gaulle expelled NATO troops in the 1960s and Jacques Chirac
opposed American intervention in Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion,
Russia under Vladimir Putin may prove to be a difficult friend. But that is no
reason to make Russia an enemy.

John LeBoutillier on Bush's Plan for Victory

1) An embattled and defensive President Bush is trying to paint a rosy picture of the hand-over of military and police responsibilities to the Iraqi forces.

2) The problem with this approach is that our own military people over there do not believe that the Iraqi troops or police can do the job. In fact, many of these Iraqis are playing both sides: wearing the uniform and collecting the pay check by day, and then carrying out insurgent attacks by night.

3) Any American has to wonder: Why is it taking so long to train Iraqi soldiers? Why are we almost 3 years into this process and so few are deemed ready?

4) Here is a problem for Mr. Bush: his credibility is so low these days that few -other than his own supporters - will believe all these rosy-sounding stats and stories. Haven’t we been told all along how well things were going? If it is going so well, why is our own military back-channeling that things aren’t going well?

5) There are numerous reports now that the generals can’t tell Mr. Bush the truth about what is really happening in Iraq. He simply refuses to accept the truth. Instead, he lives in the belief that Iraqis who hate each other can suddenly morph into a peaceful democracy.

6) This speech is just more of the same: all is well and we are going to “stay the course.” But the American people don’t buy it anymore. They have heard this exact same thing over and over and over. When is it enough?

7) Yes, this speech will rally the 35% who still want to stay in Iraq; it will give them some new lines to use to defend a war that has become an aimless, endless exercise in wasted lives and money.

8) ‘Victory.’ What exactly is it? In this case, if a pro-Iranian Iraqi government comes out again the US, will that be a ‘victory’ we can be proud of?

9) This is an Administration - and a Republican Party - that is perilously close to losing touch with the American people. Scandals all over DC combined with this never-ending morass of a war are sapping the support of the majority of Americans.

10) Prediction: today’s speech will have little effect. He has ‘spent’ his credibility and frittered away all his political capital from last year’s election. He is a lame duck before the first year of his second term is finished.

Scraps of Moscow

Yesterday evening, at the W.P. Carey Forum of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and SAIS Russian and Eurasia Studies Program talk by Dr. Andrei Piontkovsky--"The Scythian Complex of Russian Foreign Policy"--I met Scraps of Moscow blogger Lyndon Allin, who has moved to DC. (He also has another blog, Moscow Graffiti). He was even more interesting than the speaker, and told stories of living in Moscow and confronting the tax police that were really impressive to someone who wouldn't dare try to do business there (I'm just a teacher). He apparently not only survived, but suceeded, and knew a lot. He spoke excellent Russian and conversed with Dr. Piontkovsky about the immigration issue in Russian politics, the role of Rodina and Zhirinovsky. And that issue is as big in Russia as it is here in America--with the difference that Russia needs immigration a lot more, because of its demographic crisis. The problem is that Russian racism seems to be more pronounced right now than the American variant, and it is causing some problems. I'm hoping Lyndon will blog more on this topic, which seems little discussed in America.

As for Dr. Piontkovsky...
Piontkovsky's point was supposedly in distinction to an earlier presentation by Eurasianist Aleksandr Dugin, which I wrote about a little while ago. Piontkovsky has been called an "enemy of Russia" by Dugin, and in turn says that Dugin's policies would make Russia a province of China. Though I think they have more in common than it would appear. Both believe in a special mission for Russia, both believe in balancing East (China) against West (Europe and America). Both believe the Russians ended Communism for their own purposes, rather than being defeated. Both believe there is really an Islamist threat. Both believe Putin is really intelligent and could stay in power if he wished. Etc. Where they differ is that Piontkovsky wants to use the West to defend against China, while Dugin wants to use China to defend against the West.

But they are united in their attitude towards Islamism, that the US did Russia's "dirty work" in Afghanistan (the first time in Russian history someone did Russia's dirty work rather than having Russia do their dirty work, according to Piontkovsky), They don't really seem angry at Russia for wanting to preserve a post-Soviet sphere of influence--Piontkovsky noted that Russia lost her empire in 1917 and regained it three years later, he predicted this could happen again in the post-Soviet era.

The "Scythian" motif comes from a poem by Aleksandr Blok:

You are but millions. Our unnumbered nations
Are as the sands upon the sounding shore.
We are the Scythians! We are the slit-eyed Asians!
Try to wage war with us--you'll try no more!

You've had whole centuries. We--a single hour.
Like serfs obedient to their feudal lord,
We've held the shield between two hostile powers--
Old Europe and the barbarous Mongol horde.

Your ancient forge has hammered down the ages,
Drowning the distant avalanche's roar.
Messina, Lisbon--these, you thought, were pages
In some strange book of legendary lore.

Full centuries long you've watched our Eastern lands,
Fished for our pearls and bartered them for grain;
Made mockery of us, while you laid your plans
And oiled your cannon for the great campaign.

The hour has come. Doom wheels on beating wing.
Each day augments the old outrageous score.
Soon not a trace of dead nor living thing
Shall stand where once your Paestums flowered before.

O Ancient World, before your culture dies,
Whilst failing life within you breathes and sinks,
Pause and be wise, as Oedipus was wise,
And solve the age-old riddle of the Sphinx.

That Sphinx is Russia. Grieving and exulting,
And weeping black and bloody tears enough,
She stares at you, adoring and insulting,
With love that turns to hate, and hate--to love.

While Piontkovsky didn't go into too much detail in his talk about the relation of the poem to Russia's foreign policy, he has spelled it out elsewhere, for example, in this 1998 Jamestown Foundation article:

"We are part of Europe, but we are being pushed out of Europe." "We would welcome a strategic partnership with the West, but we are being pushed aside." "Our leap towards peace and freedom was not trusted, our goodwill was seen as weakness." Such passages, in various samples of cheerless prose, paraphrase the central motif of a classic poem written eighty years ago by Aleksandr Blok:

"Come to us--from battlefield nightmares into our peaceful arms!... If you do not, we have nothing to lose. Our faith, too, can be broken... We shall take to the wilds and the mountains Woods, letting beautiful Europe through, and as we move into the wings we shall turn An Asiatic mug to you."

There have been many proposals to "turn our Asiatic mug towards Europe" or worse: strategic partnership with China (it would be interesting to know Beijing's opinion on this), "a return of tactical nuclear weapon to the troops," and "offering anti-imperialist regimes access to nuclear technologies and their delivery means."

The entire Russian political class, from the westernizers to the statists, was seized by the "Scythian syndrome." Both groups looked at the West as Blok did--"both with hatred and with love"--differing perhaps only in the relative proportions of these two emotions. Take, for example, the strange public performance in two acts--one "with hatred" and one "with love"--put on by Andrei Kozyrev in Stockholm in December 1992: was this not a remake of the "Scythians"

In this emotionally charged atmosphere among the political class, and in the absence of any distinct constructive ideas, the Russian foreign ministry had to solve an extremely important practical task: to ensure Russia's long-term national interests in one of the key foreign policy areas--relations with the West.

In a way, Dugin and Piontkovsky can be seen as the traditional Russia of the double headed eagle. Piontkovsky points Russia's European face towards Asia, while Dugin bares Russia's Asian face to the West. In the end, despite the mutual invective, both are Russian patriots, determined to protect a unique identity for Russia in the face of threats and blandishments from either East or West.

Daniel Pipes on the Iraq Hostage Crisis

Why did the abductors threaten their friends in this way? What is their possible logic? The statement that accompanied the video that charged the men with "working undercover as Christian peace activists" provides some clues. First, for Islamists and other Iraqis, an organization with "Christian" in the title must be missionary in purpose and presumably targeting Muslims for conversion, something they find unacceptable. Second, the notion that Westerners, and Americans especially, are really on the Islamists' side versus the U.S. government just does not register. Iraqis more readily see such people as spies than as self-loathing Americans, the latter phenomenon remaining deeply foreign to them. Put another way, how could the "Swords of Righteousness Brigade" understand the "Christian Peacemaker Teams"? Their names alone point to a nearly unbridgeable divide.

Orianna Fallaci's NY Speech

Roger L. Simon tipped us off to this report on Atlas Shrugs:

Fallaci claims to be neither left nor right. She despises the left for the obvious reasons and holds the right in contempt for being weak. For not taking a hard stand and making the tough choices.

"Don't believe in a dialog with Islam. That's a naivete. It can only be a monologue. They do not believe in pluralism. There is no such thing as a "moderate Islam" and a Radical Islam. There is only one Islam."
I too believe this as much as it pains me to say it. I would like nothing better to believe that there is a side we can do business with, talk to. But that is self deluding.

Fallaci:"The real enemy is Islam and the most catastrophic threat is immigration not terror. It is immigration. And they do not integrate in Europe. Maybe in the USA but not in Europe. Those riots in France are a result of that very thing". The Chinese, Vietnamese etc immigrants are not rioting and tearing down the very fabric of society.

They [The Islamists] are very patient. And Clever.

This war needs boldness.

"WAKE UP WAKE UP. WE ARE AT WAR. WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THE WEST AND WE MUST FIGHT. One or the other must perish."

and so she has spoken. And while it was painfully clear she was preaching to the converted, it was also painful that the choir was so small.

Here's an excerpt from the report on Fallaci's speech on Frontpage Magazine.com:

Fallaci told the audience that she faced three years in prison in Italy if convicted in her trial for hate speech. “But can hate be prosecuted by law? It is a sentiment. It is a natural part of life. Like love, it cannot be proscribed by a legal code. It can be judged, but only on the basis of ethics and morality. If I have the right to love, then I have the right to hate also.”

Hate? “Yes, I do hate the bin Ladens and the Zarqawis. I do hate the bastards who burn churches in Europe. I hate the Chomskys and Moores and Farrakhans who sell us to the enemy. I hate them as I used to hate Mussolini and Hitler. For the cause of freedom, this is my sacrosanct right.”

What’s more, Fallaci pointed out that Europe’s hate speech laws never seem to be used against the “professional haters, who hate me much more than I hate them”: the Muslims who hate as part of their ideology. While Fallaci faces three years in prison in Italy, “any Muslim can unhook a crucifix from a wall in a school or hospital and throw it into the garbage,” with little fear of consequences. Also unprosecuted, she said, were those responsible for a vile little publication entitled Islam Punishes Oriana Fallaci, which urges Muslims to kill her, invoking five Qur’anic passages about “perverse women.” In Italy Fallaci must be guarded around the clock; but no effort has been made to bring those who threatened her to justice . . .

. . . Then Fallaci threw down the gauntlet to the multicultural, politically correct, and fearful. “There is not,” she asserted, “good Islam or bad Islam. There is just Islam. And Islam is the Qur’an. And the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of this movement. The Qur’an demands the annihilation or subjugation of the other, and wants to substitute totalitarianism for democracy. Read it over, that Mein Kampf. In whatever version, you will find that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit against themselves and against others is in it.”

Consul-at-Arms

After announcing the demise of the Daily Demarche, New Sisyphus tipped us off to this blog from a Foreign Service Officer who choses to remain anonymous. Since Diplomad shut down, and New Sisyphus retired, this may be the last of the Mohicans able to blog from inside Foggy Bottom. A shame, really. Diplomad was certainly better than what is coming from State's public diplomacy shop...

Bush: "Victory Will Take Time"

UPI's Martin Walker has the scoop on Bush's Iraq speech:

"Victory will take time," the document warns, but insists that the strategy is working.

"Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of neglected infrastructure, the ongoing training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation."

"Many challenges remain," the document concludes. "Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, where governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality. It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power."

I guess that means the Iraq mission is not accomplished . . .

"The world would be a beter place if we respect the beauty in nature and its people"

That's the text on the front of Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter's Christmas Card. The back reads: "ON THE COVER: William Woolfork created this artwork for the Barbie(TM) Children's Summit hosted by Mattel, Inc. His artwork is part of the collection awarded to The Carter Center by summit representatives, ages 6-13, in recognition of the Center's efforts to promote peace."
I'm not making this up...

 
 

Season's Greetings from Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter

Believe it or not, today's mail brought a Christmas card signed by Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter (or their autopen), along with a personal-seeming letter asking for money for their Carter Center. Before making a donation, I googled the Carter Center to learn more.

I found this interesting 2002 item from Newsmax:

NewsMax has reviewed annual reports that indicate millions of charitable dollars have flowed into the center from His Majesty Sultan Qaboss bin Said Al Said of Oman, Jordan, from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and from the Government of the United Arab Emirates.

Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to the center by the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. H.R.H. Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah of Morocco has also contributed tens of thousands of dollars.

There are no corresponding contributions apparent from Israeli sources, however.

As the center�s literature describes, "The Carter Center and the Jimmy Carter Library were built in large measure thanks to the early leadership and financial support of the Carter Center founders.� Three of those generous founders:

Agha Hasan Abedi

On July 5 1991, banking regulators targeted Abedi�s Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), triggering a worldwide financial tidal wave. To date, accountants and lawyers have managed to recoup (discounting fees) $7 billion out of the $12 billion money pit that fueled the BCCI fraud.

Agha Hasan Abedi, a banker and self-styled mystic on first-name terms with Carter, created BCCI in 1972. Abedi had charmed seed money out of Arab sheikhs, organizing camel races and hunting trips. The Bank of America bought into BCCI as a way of buying access to the Middle East, holding a 30 percent stake at one point before dumping its holdings in the late-1970s.

His Majesty King Fahd of Saudi Arabia

Last month Saudi Arabia transferred $15.4 million in advance aid to the Palestinian Authority. The transfer was made to a controversial Arab League fund, a product of the recent Arab summit in Beirut. According to Arab spokesmen, the money was hurriedly contributed due to the dire plight of the Palestinian people as a result of "vicious Israeli aggression.�

King Fahd, Crown Prince Abdullah and Defense Minister Prince Sultan jointly donated $4.8 million to launch the fund pot, while Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz sent an estimated $800,000 to the families of "155 Palestinian martyrs� killed in the current Israeli offensive.

Hasib J. Sabbagh

Sabbagh is the chairman of Consolidated Contractors Co. of Oman, Jordan. He is also the Senior Fellow for the Middle East of the Council on Foreign Relations. Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is a membership organization contributing ideas to U.S. foreign policy. The Council publishes Foreign Affairs, a leading journal on global issues.

Individual, foundation, and corporate donors, together with multilateral development assistance programs, support the Carter Center�s current annual operating budget of around $30 million. Among the center�s announced priorities: promoting democracy, global development, human rights and conflict resolution.

Carter said he has spent much time raising money, but he hopes that a campaign to raise a $150 million endowment will lighten the load. Phil Wise, the center�s executive director for operations, said an estimated $110 million has already been raised for the endowment.

Happy Holidays, Jimmy and Rosalynn, but I think I'll let King Abdullah take care of you, this holiday season. Oh, I forgot, publicly celebrating Christmas is illegal in Saudi Arabia.

But of course, Jimmy, you and Rosalynn knew that when you sent out those Christmas cards this year, didn't you?

Phyllis Chesler Speaks!

About wearing the chador in Afghanistan:

Firsthand experience of life under Islam as a woman held captive in Kabul has shaped the kind of feminist I became and have remained—one who is not multiculturally "correct." By seeing how women interacted with men and then with each other, I learned how incredibly servile oppressed peoples could be and how deadly the oppressed could be toward each other. Beebee Jan was cruel to her female servants. She beat her elderly personal servant and verbally humiliated our young and pregnant housemaid. It was an observation that stayed with me.

While multiculturalism has become increasingly popular, I never could accept cultural relativism. Instead, what I experienced in Afghanistan as a woman taught me the necessity of applying a single standard of human rights, not one tailored to each culture. In 1971—less than a decade after my Kabul captivity—I spoke about rescuing women of Bangladesh raped en masse during that country's war for independence from Pakistan. The suffering of women in the developing world should be considered no less important than the issues feminists address in the West. Accordingly, I called for an invasion of Bosnia long before Washington did anything, and I called for similar military action in Rwanda, Afghanistan, and Sudan.

In recent years, I fear that the "peace and love" crowd in the West has refused to understand how Islamism endangers Western values and lives, beginning with our commitment to women's rights and human rights. The Islamists who are beheading civilians, stoning Muslim women to death, jailing Muslim dissidents, and bombing civilians on every continent are now moving among us both in the East and in the West. While some feminist leaders and groups have come to publicize the atrocities against women in the Islamic world, they have not tied it to any feminist foreign policy. Women's studies programs should have been the first to sound the alarm. They do not. More than four decades after I was a virtual prisoner in Afghanistan, I realize how far the Western feminist movement has to go.

Wikipedia on Pajamas Media Troubles

(ht Ann Althouse)

NY Times: Samarkand Barbers Take Manhattan

Boris and Ely Mirzakandov once worked in rival barbershops in the Uzbek city of Samarkand. Now the two brothers share space at a barber spa in the back of the Art of Shaving, an elegant-looking store on Madison Avenue and 46th Street, a few blocks north of Grand Central Terminal. Past glass cabinets containing bone-handled straight razors and badger-hair shaving brushes, they perform straight-razor shaves and haircuts for lawyers and businessmen seeking a moment's respite from the day. A haircut and what the store calls a Royal Shave cost $80.

And to think I could get my haircut and shave for a dollar (sometimes 2 or 3) in the Aleisky Bazaar in Tashkent...

More on the Al Jazeera Bombing Memo

Herb Meyer on How to Win in Iraq

The former Reagan-era CIA official says to follow General Sherman's advice:

“We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make young and old, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war…. I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptom of tiring till the South begs for mercy.”

This is precisely what Sherman was talking about when he famously said that “War is hell.”  He was a decent, honorable man and he hated doing what he knew must be done to end the war and stop the killing.  Here’s one Sherman quote about waging war you won’t see in a New York Times editorial: “The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”  In other words, to end a war you must crush not only the opposing army but also the population in whose name it fights; that sometimes you must act inhumanely to save humanity.

Is Sherman Wrong – or Right?

Of course, it’s possible that Sherman is wrong or that his wisdom isn’t relevant to our times.  Perhaps we really can win the war in Iraq without mercilessly crushing that part of Iraq’s population that continues to support the insurgency.  I hope so, because this is precisely what we are attempting to do.

On the other hand, what if Sherman is right?  Are we not following his advice because we no longer have the stomach to fight as he did?  In an age of photos, of videotapes, of embedded reporters and 24/7 television coverage, has it become politically impossible to impose the level of pain and hardship on an enemy population that is necessary to end a war? 

Or are we not following Sherman’s advice because our current military leaders have forgotten it, or never learned it in the first place?   Certainly this is the impression they give, with their endless talk of spreadsheets and matrices and statistics that “prove” we’re making progress.  From what I can see, a high percentage of our generals hold advanced degrees.  That’s nice, but in the real world there is such a thing as being too sophisticated.  Perhaps our generals should spend less time learning the intricacies of Excel and PowerPoint, and more time studying how Sherman’s brutal march through the South helped end the Civil War.

And perhaps our political leaders, in both parties, should shut up long enough to read Sherman’s memoirs.  They just might learn something about how to end a war.

More on Russia's Alaska Plans

Sergei Blagov reports:

The return of Alaska would be marked by a great national holiday, said Vladimir Zhirinovsky, an outspoken nationalist politician.

Russia would then have a presence on three continents -- Europe, Asia and America -- noted Zhirinovsky, who is deputy speaker of the lower house of parliament.

Touchez pas au grisbi...

Speaking of France, last night we watched Jean Gabin and a very very young Jeanne Moreau in Jacques Becker's Touchez pas au grisbi. It's a great film noir--hard-boiled and romantic at the same time. Very French. Add it to your Netflix list...

Moxie Doesn't Like Pajamas Media, Either

News from France: Sarkozy Starts Blogging

And Yannick Laclau likes what he sees:

The contrast between him and his rivals for the French presidency is...stunning: Sarkozy is out commenting on blogs side-by-side with other commenters that freely insult him, while Dominique de Villepin is out writing books on Napoleon and diplomatic history.

People may not like his ideas, but it's *no contest* that he's much more dynamic, and in touch with what people are thinking, than Villepin or Chirac.

I like the Internet-savvy (very Howard Dean), and hope he pushes the envelope here in France's next presidential elections; and I like his roll-up-your-sleeves attitude to problem-solving (very Rudy Giuliani).

(ht Instapundit)

UPDATE: Here's the link to Mathieu Kassovitz's French Blog with the Sarkozy debate. (I seem to remember his name from film school, perhaps connected with the French film company, MK2 Film). In any case, according to Stunned, Sarkozy's comment was blogged at 7:12 in response to Kassovitz's attack, in the comments section (scroll down). Sarkozy's conclusion (in French):

Voilà les quelques réflexions que m'inspire la lecture de votre blog. Je sais que vous êtes, avec votre style et vos convictions, à la recherche d'une prise de conscience des pouvoirs publics vis à vis des banlieues. Depuis tant d'années, beaucoup d'argent a été engagé, beaucoup d'efforts ont été entrepris par les services de l'Etat comme par les acteurs de terrain. Les résultats ne sont pas à la hauteur des attentes. Nous y avons tous notre part de responsabilité. Comment faire mieux et autrement ? Cette question, il faut maintenant la résoudre.

Demeurant disponible pour poursuivre, si vous le jugez utile, notre échange de vive voix, je vous prie de croire, Monsieur, à l'assurance de mes sentiments les meilleurs.

If you read French, you can read the whole thing...

Leadership v. Cheerleadership

[Annapolis] Mayor Ellen O. Moyer wasn't aware of the president's visit yesterday. But she joked that Mr. Bush should root for Navy as it takes on the U.S. Military Academy in the annual Army-Navy football game Saturday in Philadelphia.

"I'm hoping he's giving a message to spur them on," she said.
The Capital (Annapolis)

President Bush's impending visit to Annapolis--where he may or may not announce the beginning of an American withdrawal from Iraq-- underscores the extent to which his administration has become a captive of his role as national cheerleader. Onc can date this role to the appearance of the President with a megaphone in the ruins of the World Trade Center.

Whatever he says, or doesn't, on Wednesday at the US Naval Academy, there is a sense that Bush can make little difference, now, that he is not the master of his own destiny, that the "insurgents", or "Democrats," or even "traitors" are in control. All he seems to be able to do is "support the troops" by cheering them on at pep rallies around the nation--or damning his critics elsewhere.

The tragedy of Katrina showed America that cheerleadership is not, and never will be, leadership.

Leadership is not a matter of who can yell the loudest, rather it is the ability to persuade people do what needs to be done. Leadership is the ability to act and to inspire others to join with you in solving problems. And a truly great leader helps people to think that they are doing what needs to be done all by themselves. That was the genius of a Ronald Reagan, an FDR, or a Rudy Giuliani.

After watching George W. Bush for some five years, I'm not sure that he realizes this. Every time he stages a pep rally, he is hurting his own authority as a leader. Every time he pulls a publicity stunt instead of solving a problem, he weakens morale. The more he talks, the worse it gets.

Which is not to diminish the importance of cheerleading, in sports or in life. Many successful American Presidents have been cheerleaders in college or high school: Reagan, Eisenhower, and FDR come to mind. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a cheerleader for her Brooklyn high school, as well. And of course, cheerleaders can inspire a team to win in a close game, they can make the difference--but they are no substitute for top talent, a good game plan, a good coach, a good quarterback, a good goalie, or a good pitcher.

For Bush apparently approaches the bully pulpit of the Presidency like the Yale and Andover yell leader he once was. He's grandstanding. He's looking at the crowd, not the game. He doesn't have his eye on the ball.

Instead, he targets his messages to "the base," that is, the fans of one team. He tries cheerleader stunts, acrobatics such as landing on an aircraft carrier, chants like "Stay the course"--equivalent to "Hold that line!" He holds rallies rather than debates, and stays away from the field of battle--whether on CNN, town meetings, Afghanistan or Iraq--in the way a cheerleader stays on the sidelines during a game, not crossing over to confront the opposing team's fans. His entire "on message" Presidential apparatus is seemingly some sort of Yell Team. But it is not in the game.

The emphasis on "contracting out" -- whether to Iraqis, Halliburton, NATO Allies, or Mongolians -- reflects Bush's Yale Yell Captain's approach. He's not playing the game. He's not putting on the helmet and getting in the middle of the action. He's not going to get crushed by a human refrigerator. That's for the jocks. He'll support the troops--but he won't put his neck on the line.

Again like a Yell Captain, Bush doesn't actually make the hard decisions when they need to be made. Since all he has to do is cheer, he doesn't replace the quarterback in time. In this administration, the incompetent quit for themselves, only after long delay and much public outcry. Since there is no penalty for failure on the field, only for insufficient "school spirit," the team falls farther and farther behind.

How long did George Tenet stay on the job after 9/11--the greatest intelligence failure in US history? With him in charge of the CIA, is anyone really surprised the administration failed to find WMD? Or estimate the Iraqi resistance? Not to mention Rumsfeld, Powell, and the rest. Even if some of these guys were once good players, they're like Orel Hersheiser with a burnt out arm--they just don't have anything left to give. Yet the Cheerleader-in-Chief let them stay on the job.

A Commander-in-Chief would take charge, fire the coach, pick some new talent, and rev up the team. But the Bush administration, which values "loyalty" (team spirit), apparently doesn't reward talent or brains. A team owner, coach, or quaterback might listen to critics, might watch game films, might hire and fire. In politics this might mean trying to persuade critics, to bring the Democrats on board, to get everyone playing on the same team. It might recruiting new talent. Taking responsibility. Even resigning, if he isn't up to the task.

But these are not the responsibilities of a cheerleader, not even of a Yell Captain. If the team is losing, the cheerleader just yells louder, cheers harder, maybe even prays...

No wonder Jack Murtha (R-PA) called it quits.

Human Rights Suffer Worldwide

According to the Budapest Times, Persident Bush's crusade for democracy may paradoxically hurt the cause of human rights:

Instead of former communist countries picking up the good habits of the West, there are hints that western democracies have adopted the bad legacies of former totalitarian states, Ferenc Kõszeg, chair of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, stated. He referred to the US-led war on terrorism by way of illustration.

Whereas many of the most flagrant human rights violations of former Communist countries have been largely resolved, new and acute problems have emerged, often in the name of state security, concurred Jeri Laber, senior adviser to Human Rights Watch.

“I am embarrassed and sad that my country America, which 20 years ago represented freedom to the world, is condoning torture,” said Laber. She said she had very different perceptions of the US in 1985, when she helped to bring the Alternative Cultural Forum to Budapest.

Mubarak: Only Sharon Can Make Peace

I remember when Sharon was called a "butcher" and "war criminal." Why have some people changed their minds about him? Could it be that those charges were just anti-crude Israel propaganda? Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's recent statements about the Israeli leader would seem to indicate just that:

"Sharon, of all the Israeli politicians, is the only one capable of achieving peace with the Palestinians," Mubarak said in an interview with Spain's ABC newspaper.

"He has the ability to take difficult decisions, commit to what he says and carry it out," he said.

Karzai Blasts Afghan NGOs

President Hamid Karzai sounds a little bit like Vladimir Putin or Islam Karimov talking about Non-Governmental Organizations:

On the eve of the Afghanistan Development Forum, Karzai issued a stinging rebuke to non-government organizations (NGOs) “for squandering the precious resources that Afghanistan received in aid from the international community.”

Ann Althouse Still Doesn't Like Pajamas Media

Al Jazeera's "Don't Bomb Us Blog"

(ht LGF)

More Miguel Osuna

Westmoreland

Just got a nice email from artist Miguel Osuna, thanking me for mentioning his artwork in the Mexican Cultural Center here in DC. So I took a look at his website, and there's plenty more where "Maelstrom" came from. I think it might be worth a look . . .

Iraqi Shi'ite Leader: US Too Weak Against Terrorists

Big news from Iraq:

His repeated assertion that the United States was being too weak against Iraq's insurgency, allowing attacks to mushroom, appeared to suggest that any future Iraqi government that included him would share his view. With Iraqis scheduled to vote Dec. 15 for the country's first full-term government since the U.S. invasion in 2003, some analysts predict that Hakim will come from behind the scenes into direct political contention.

Abdul Aziz Hakim is chief of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite Muslim religious party.

Russia to Buy Alaska?

I read the original Washington Post column by Steven Pealstein that proposed selling Alaska as a solution to America's financial problems. (It also said that Alaska had a Soviet-style economy because of federal spending obtained by Senator Ted Stevens [R-AK])It seems like a funny joke at the time--but apparently in Russia,according to RIA-Novosti, people are now discussing the idea seriously:

NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA

Alaska buyback: not for another 10 years - Russian expert

Russian experts are commenting on the proposal by Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein that only Alaska's sale to Russia for $1 trillion would recoup U.S. costs.

Mikhail Delyagin, director of the Institute for Globalization Problems: "Russia should create a civilized state in the first place before buying Alaska. I think in about 10 years' time we will cope with the consequences of our national catastrophe, and the American problems will reach their peak. It is not before that we can speak of a buyback. Incidentally, Alaska may have a lower price tag by that time."

Sergei Markov, director of the Institute for Political Studies: "Why buy an almost deserted territory, snow and ice, when our people suffer suffocating poverty, and the health, education and other services are in ruins? Russia has vast tracts of land that it is unable to develop, for example Siberia, where there is the threat that it may be populated by other nations. Adding a new province will not make matters easier."

Dmitry Oreshkin, head of the Merkator research group: "It all sounds like a joke, although the patriots will be pleased. They will shout that it is a restoration of historical justice. They think along 19th century or Stalin-era lines when the perceived wisdom was that a state's territory is its might. Meanwhile, Holland, which is equal to Moscow and the surrounding area in size, is economically more influential than Russia with its 17 million square kilometers. It is a hare-brained plan. What Russia does not need is new territories. We are living in an era when infrastructure, rather than territory, is important."

Yevgeny Yasin, head of research at the Higher School of Economics: "If we are concerned with the problem of sterilization (excessive finances), we should first eliminate all obstacles to free entrepreneurship. In our case it is the very opposite: we are continuing to nationalize, and so the question has cropped up: should we not buy Alaska back?"

When I lived in Russia, my students would always say that Alaska should be returned to Russia, so Pearlstein may have started something here--resurrection of an irredentist territorial claim . . .

Control Room

Just finished watching Control Room on DVD. Given the recent news story about President Bush maybe joking with Prime Minister Blair about bombing Al Jazeera, the cinema-verite style documentary seemed quite relevant.

Yes, it's biased. Yes, the director is obviously leaving something out--and luckily, on the DVD, she put some of it back in. The outtakes consisting of deleted interview snippets are almost the best part. Because in those snippets the interview subjects--charming, educated, sophisticated, Westernized Arabs--admit that they don't believe that what Osama bin Laden does is terrorism (or, if it is, then Bush and America are also terrorists). Yet, one of the protagonists admits that he wants his children to study in the USA--and then stay to live...

The paradoxes and complexities of the Arab mind are on full display. On view as well are the shortcomings of the current American way of war confronting the realities of the Middle East. Lieutenant Josh Rushing, a Marine Corps press attache, is simply outclassed by the media types. He can only repeat talking points, denying that there is a US occupation because America didn't raise a flag. Hassan Ibrahim tells him, "But you are occupying Iraq." Josh won't admit it, till the end. It's pathetic, and evidence of the screw-ups coming from the top. Since Americans are "liberators" they can't be "occupiers"--ridiculous on its face, especially since in Germany and Japan the US occupied the countries for many years.

The killing of an Al Jazeera correspondent in Baghdad would make a good plot for a mystery film. It is unclear what happened, even though much of it was broadcast on TV. Was he doing something he shouldn't have been? From his look at the camera right before he was bombed, one gets the sense that he didn't want to be in the midst of the battle, that he didn't want the cameras to turn to cover the battlefield, and that perhaps there had been an agreement between the TV network and the military to that effect. Or, maybe not. Certainly, his last look had a haunted quality.

Or maybe that's reading too much into it, after the fact. Maybe somebody just heard Bush's joke--and went to work calling in air strikes?

Jehane Noujaim has made a propaganda film, but a very good propaganda film (unlike Michael Moore's crude agitprop). It comes from a Pan-Arabist perspective. It is not reality. It is not truth. And it is certainly not the whole truth, but it may very well be a true account of how many Arabs saw the Iraq war.

For that, we should be grateful.

"Bulls***t Rising"

Here's an extract from Mark Ames' savage--though interesting--review in Exile.ru of Washington Post reporters Peter Baker and Susan Glasser's recent book about Russia, mentioned by Konstantin:

The sheer enormity of their sleaze and deceit is too much even for a lead article. A chapter-by-chapter survey of the duo's book is a good way to become acquainted with their agenda.

Chapter 1, "Fifty-two Hours in Beslan." The brutality and incompetence described in this account of Beslan are shocking and, admittedly, well written. But without some perspective -- namely, the Yeltsin regime's response to the hostage crisis in Budyannovsk in June, 1995, when special forces shot and killed dozens of hostages in bungled attempts to storm the hospital, and again the brutality and incompetence of the Pervomaisk hostage crisis a year later, with similar bloody results. Beslan may have had a higher and more grisly kill-count, but it differed little in substance. By omitting the fact that the Chechen Wars, both 1 and 2, were Boris Yeltsin projects designed to keep him in power and protect his interests, Baker-Glasser manipulate history and throw the entire blame on the bad guys -- Putin, the KGB, and anyone not sufficiently pro-American (Yelstin was our tool, so therefore, the authors do their best to simply leave his name out.).

Another interesting omission is the eerie similarity between Putin's m.o. and Bush's. For example, they take him to task for linking the war in Chechnya to Al Qaeda and international terrorism, observing, "at its root, the Chechnya conflict had little to do with Al Qaeda." With Bush linking the war in Iraq to Al Qaeda, and Blair blaming the London Underground bombings on Al Qaeda, you'd think that Baker-Glasser, whose newspaper was one of the strongest cheerleaders for war in Iraq, would be a little more humble. Wrong. "Rather than resolve the underlying political grievances and remove the popular mandate for the rebels, [Putin] had demonized, victimized, and consequently radicalized an entire people." What's grossly wrong here is that the Chechens were already pretty damn radicalized after Yeltsin's war, having kidnapped (and in some cases beheaded on video camera) some 3,000 Russians during their period of independence from 1996-9, introduced Wahabbi-style Sharia law, and finally they invaded Russia in the summer of 1999. I repeat: they invaded Russia! These facts are given little play, however, making their account of the Chechen war as duplicitous as if someone were to report on the rampant terrorism in Iraq today without mentioning that it first arose with the American occupation.

Chapter 2: "Project Putin." The description of Chubais, a man hairline-deep in the largest corruption scandals in human history: "a tall, red-haired reformer who had orchestrated the largest sell-off of state assets in world history..." Wildly deceitful description #2: "With Yeltsin's permission, Putin dispatched troops to [Chechnya]." That would be like saying, "With Hitler's permission, General Walther von Brauchitsch dispatched troops to the Soviet Union for Operation Barbarossa." The whole purpose of the Second Chechen War was to create popularity for Putin, thereby securing the Yeltsin clan's power, loot and immunity. Stepashin was fired by Yeltsin because he didn't have the balls to launch the second war on behalf of the Yeltsin clan; Putin was brought in specifically to head that war. Saying Yeltsin "approved it" is about as bone-white a whitewash as you can get. Omitting this is incredibly sleazy, yet it is necessary in order to create the Kremlin Villain which is central to Baker-Glasser's pitch.

Chapter 4: "The Takeover Will Be Televised." Here the omissions and whitewashings reach fever pitch, and the revisionism turns to outright lies. Commenting on Putin's takeover of NTV in 2000/2001, they write, "The showdown at Ostankino had been building ever since [NTV's] Igor Malashenko had refused to help the Kremlin install Vladimir Putin as the next Russian president in the summer of 1999, saying he could not trust a KGB man." He sounds like a good guy, right? Except that the real reason Malashenko didn't support Putin was because his boss at NTV, oligarch Vladimir Gusinksy, backed a rival senior KGB operator, Yevgeny Primakov, who, had he won, would have shut down ORT, the TV station that backed Putin. Meanwhile, Gusinsky's rise to power is whitewashed this way: "One venture led to another until finally he was able to put together a bank in 1989." This kind of explanation-by-omission is so cheap, it recalls Ash's attempt to take the Book of the Dead: "Klatu...Veratu...one-[cough]-venture-[cough]-another... Okay, then, we described it. Everything's cool." In one of the most violent, corrupt countries, one wonders what this "one venture led to another" business was all about -- but if explained, it might seriously undermine the dichotomy setup that is crucial to this book. Later in the chapter, Mikhail Kasyonov is described as "pro-market" and "respected in the West as a formidable international-debt negotiator and seen as a reliable promoter of capitalism -- so much so that some had questioned whether he was profiting personally on the side." Note how they slyly avoid mentioning what everyone in Russia associates with Kasyanov -- his nickname, "Misha Two-Percent," supposedly the fee he charged on every single corrupt international debt deal he oversaw -- by arguing that he was so darned good at being a pro-Western capitalist that certain unnamed enemies (and we can all guess who they are) jealously smeared him. No halfway professional journalist could possibly spend four years in Moscow during Kasyonov's reign, and fail to mention his nickname, or how he earned it -- not unless it's part of an agenda. Which of course it is. Kasyanov is a good guy; therefore, any bad news about him is both omitted and dismissed as mere jealousy. Lastly, in this chapter, Baker and Glasser's larger hatred of Russia spews into the open: "While the intelligentsia was outraged at the loss of NTV, the vast majority of the public was not, so long as they continued to get foreign movies and other high-quality entertainment they had come to expect from the channel." To prove their point about the innate savagery of the Russian masses, they compare their reaction to that of America's most reliable lickspittles, the Czechs: "By coincidence, around the same time, more than one hundred thousand people protested in the much smaller Czech Republic against the appointment of a new state television director they considered insufficiently independent." Gee, why not just compare Russian apathy to America?...

* * *

Every chapter of Kremlin Rising is thereafter packed with increasing numbers of glaring omissions and grotesque whitewashings combined with terrifying fear-mongering that would have made Tom Ridge proud. Meanwhile, they constantly fawn over anyone rich and pro-West, while either ignoring the horrible poverty, or blaming the Russians for their own wretchedness. They described the collapsed health care system, which worked better at least before "whiz-kid" Gaidar got his hands on the budget, as the fault of "a rigid system [that] refused to help itself" while making the astonishingly patronizing claim that "many Russians did not even realize hjust how poor the care they were receiving was." This is just a flat-out lie -- all you ever hear about is how poor their health care is, and how much worse it has gotten under Western-backed post-Soviet reforms.

The horrible truth about the Putin regime is that it is largely an extension of theYeltsin regime. It was under Yeltsin that all of the problems and evils described in this book -- from the wars in Chechnya to the destruction of democracy and free speech, the corruption, indifference and cruelty they describe -- began. It has clearly gotten worse under Putin, particularly on the things that matter most to Westerners when we judge other countries. But what matters most to most Russians is making enough money to eat, and hopefully staying alive a little longer than 57 years. This desire to get paid, eat and live a bit longer is of no interest to Baker-Glasser, however, not unless it can somehow bolster their argument that Putin is a scary guy. Of all the omissions in this book, the most glaring is the omission of the economic boom under Putin. Whether or not he hasanything to do with it, at least under his reign, workers get paid, something that often didn't happen under Yeltsin. Baker and Glasser aren't interested in this -- or about the destruction of the labor movement, for example -- because poor people just get in their way. Indeed they are the anti-Michael-Moore: fear-mongering, propagandizing while claiming objectivity, fighting on behalf of the plutocrats against the downtrodden masses.

Konstantin's Russian Blog Likes Washington Post "Russian Chronicles"

Lisa Dickey and David Hillegas did a great job with their Russian Chronicles project. I’m truly amazed. This is one of the most unbiased and honest report on life in Russia I ever read made by a journalist not by a casual tourist. Someone said, “If in Russia you find a dilapidated house in a god forgotten Siberian village. If there’s a dead drunk Russian wino lying in dirt near that house. If that drunk is shouting “Down with Putin”, then be sure to find a Washington Post reporter nearby interviewing the man.” The last book from Washington Post reporters “Kremlin Rising” is a true example of this kind of junk journalism. Here’s a very good review of the book by Mark Ames “Bullshit Rising”. Nice title.

Russian Chronicles is a quite different report although the blog is hosted by WP.

Uzbek Culture Comes to Washington

It may not be enough to undo the terrible public relations that Uzbekistan enjoys in the US capital, yet the Global Uzbek Council will sponsor some Uzbek culture at Washington, DC's American University on December 1st. (I hope the plov is not as fatty as in Uzbekistan--hold the cottonseed oil, please!)

LeBoutillier: Bush Must Dump Rumsfeld to Save Himself

An example: from January of this year until the summer, President Bush traveled the nation doing so-called Town Hall forums advocating Social Security Reform. He did over 70 of these events with massive local media attention. The result of this huge investment of Presidential Prestige? A total dismissal by the American people and the GOP Congress of the entire subject!

In other words, the more President Bush stuck with the same script, the more he killed off the very issue he was promoting.

Now the exact same thing is happening with his signature effort as President: the American people have tuned him out on his views of his war in Iraq. He has squandered his political capital and his credibility.

What a mess!

Now, how to fix it?

He needs to make some changes - in personnel and policy - and do it now.

1) Announce the ‘resignation’ of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

WSJ: Don't Bash Christians

You read it here first, and today the Wall Street Journal weighs in on Anti-Defamation Leader Abe Foxman's mishegass about Evangelical Christians.

Althouse on Kazakhstan v. Borat

Today, I saw that Ann Althouse. has some links to a discussion of the case of Kazakhstan v. Borat.

I hate to disagree with Ann Althouse, but IMHO Borat is wrong and Kazakhstan is right. I'm not a lawyer, soI don't see this is as a legal matter, rather one of good taste and consideration of people of other races and nationalities.

However funny viewers might find Da Ali G show, the jokes are at the expense of a country that just doesn't resemble what Cohen portrays. Would he make the same jokes about Israel? Palestine? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Poland? Italy? Ireland? South Africa? China? I'd like to see the reaction if he did...

IMHO, Borat is bullying the weak. That's not a funny thing to do. It is an ugly thing to do.

The reason that dialect and ethnic jokes went out of fashion in the US in the 1960s was that such humor is not funny to the butt of the joke. When he started his act, I'm sure Borat didn't know too much about Kazakhstan, hadn't met too many Kazakhs, and so thought it would be funny--and safe--to joke about them. Well, Kazakhs are not stupid, in spite of what Borat says. They may not know the ins and outs of the British legal system, but they have feelings that should be considered.

Comedians can learn from their mistakes. Jerry Lewis spent the major part of his career making amends to spastic children for exploiting physical disabilities in his early comedy act, raising millions for "Jerry's Kids" in the Muscular Dystrophy Labor Day Telethon. Lewis realized he had done something wrong, and sought to make it right.

If, on the other hand, Borat decides to tough it out, Kazakhstan has options other than international court. For example, they might decide to shut British oil and gas companies out of their country. If they do, let's see Borat and his fans laugh that joke off. Personally, I'd think it was hilarious . . .

UPDATE: More on Borat, including a link to his video reply to Kazakhstan's complaints, from Nathan at Registan.net.

FT: EU Report Bashes Israel

London's Financial Times is reporting that the EU attacks Israel in a new policy paper dealing with Jerusalem. It's not much of a surprise, but it might make Israel think twice about permitting EU monitors into Gaza--given the legacy of the UK, especially. Indeed, it may be a mistake for the US government to utilize the EU as a proxy in this matter, as we seem to be doing, given memories of the British "White Paper" period in Palestine.

Dennis the Peasant v Pajamas Media

After reading this post relating to the backstory behing Pajamas Media, I'd advise Roger L. Simon & Co. to settle with Dennis the Peasant. I'm no attorney, but based on a similar story with which I am rather familiar, it sounds like Dennis the Peasant has a plausible claim . . . (ht Ann Althouse)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Blogging will be light for a while. In the meantime, here's a link to a Thanksgiving website featuring recipes, history, and other turkey-day lore . . .

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali Faces Life in Prison

According to CNN, the father of President Bush's would-be killer worked in Saudia Arabia's embassy in Washington, DC as a computer specialist. The convicted assassin is an alumnus of the Islamic Saudi Academy in Washington's Northern Virginia suburbs.

After 9/11, I seem to remember that the Washington Post reported that "Death to America!" posters could be found on display in Saudi-funded schools.

Here's an article by Abu Ali's lawyer, arguing his side of the case (he did not testify on his own behalf).

Indochine

The possibility that Iraq really might become another Vietnam--and I hope not, but it is looking a little grim at the moment--was a sobering context in which to screen Regis Wargnier's 1992 epic Indochine, starring the icily beautiful Catherine Deneuve (for some reason she reminded me of a thinner version of Senator Hillary Clinton in this role) as the French doyenne of a Vietnamese rubber plantation.

Unfortunately, unlike East-West, which led me to getthe DVD from Netflix, Indochine left me a little cold.

Somehow, this film rang false. The plot, obviously symbolic, became shambolic as it headed into its third hour. Maybe each event really happened, but it just didn't make sense to a puritanical American. The menage-a-trois between Deneuve, her adopted Vietnamese daughter, and her French naval officer lover seemed preposterous. The chases and escapes seemed farfetched. And the enigmatic ending, in Geneva, peculiarly unsatisfying.

Somehow this Franco-Vietnamese romance seemed a little misguided, if not crazy-- l'amour fou. The French like this sort of thing, but it brought out too much of my own Ango-Saxon education and upbringing to enjoy. I couldn't understand why everyone was doing stupid and crazy things all the time.

Plus, the communists, who are the heroes of this picture (was East-West only anti-Stalinist?) come off as cardboard cutouts. Pure heroes, liberating their nation by torching the estates of the mandarins. Surely, the reality must have been more complex.

For a tragic story to work, all sides must have their human side--heroes are not all good, hence the "tragic flaw." Likewise, villians have their good side. But this was too unsubtle to enjoy fully.

Nevertheless, the photography was good. And it is always fun to see a big star like Deneuve in a leading role. But Casablanca it's not.

JTA: Saudis Pay for Anti-Israel Propaganda in US Public Schools

Here's a story from JTA that might not make it into tomorrow's New York Times:

NEW YORK, Oct. 23 (JTA) ≈ With the school year back in full swing, do you know what your children are learning?

In thousands of public school districts across the United States, without ever knowing it, taxpayers pay to disseminate pro-Islamic materials that are anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.

Often bypassing school boards and nudging aside approved curricula, teaching programs funded by Saudi Arabia make their way into elementary and secondary school classrooms.

Inside the Washington Design Center

After getting the car inspected this morning, someone I know and yours truly took an hour or so to visit the Washington Design Center, six floors of furniture and fabrics in a converted warehouse a stone's throw from the US Capitol. It was really a surprise to find such nice stuff in the bleak area by the railroad tracks and freeways. It also marks a change for Washington, which wasn't exactly a fashion or furnishing center. This place was "absolutely fabulous" with all sorts of strange things, including a bathtub made of stone that looked like an Egyptian sarcophagus from the Metropolitan Museum of Art collection. Favorite vendor was the Fabricut distributor who informed us their old-fashioned patterns and prints came from European venues like Paris's Ritz Hotel--via company headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma Company founders Mssrs. Guterman and Finer were Holocaust survivors who, after a few years in New York, headed West in search of wide open spaces, according to their company's informative website.

Open Source Media Moguls Change Back into Pajamas

You read it here first as mere speculation; now Charles Johnson confirms the hypothesis on his OSM Media website--Republicans in suits ruined Pajamas Media. Apparently, the name was so un-original that it was already being used by another website run by Boston radio host Christopher Lydon, called Open Source. So dumb, dull and unoriginal to copy a bad idea from Public Broadcasting, that only Republicans would do it--and did:

So how did this happen in the first place? Back at the beginning, certain, shall we say, paternalistically minded parties (i.e., the guys in suits) decided that we should act like grownups, and being as yet somewhat immature—at least as businesspeople--we did as we were told.

Which is how, one day, we ended up sitting around a conference table listening to representatives from a "branding" company. What followed is still a bit of a nightmarish blur, but it involved a PowerPoint presentation on the history of names, and such probing questions as, "If you were an animal, what animal would you be?" (Which is how we almost ended up as Jellyfish Media.)

Enough said. So, in the spirit of "open source," we thought we’d tell you the real story behind the reason for our name change. And hope that our corporate parents will be satisfied with good grades and healthy revenue.

IMHO, I'd think about stopping trying to please your corporate parents, and instead try to please yourselves and your readers, if I were Charles Johnson and the OSM/Pajamas bloggers...

Did 9/11 Mastermind Meet Iraqi Spymaster in Prague?

Edward Jay Epstein says that the US government has consigned the answer to a "murky limbo" rather than examining Iraqi intelligence files, in today's Wall Street Journal.

Why is this Man Smiling?

In today's New York Times there's another scandal from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Let's see, while Bob Coonrod was CPB president, the CPB approved a $500,000 consulting contract for him--so, when do we get to see what kind of advice he offered for that price? And did the CPB board take Coonrod's consultations to heart?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Andrew Sullivan on Torture

He's got a lot of posts about ex-CIA and ex-Navy SEALS leaking their techniques.

Did Rumsfeld Sacrifice Iraq Victory for Bureaucratic Gamesmanship?

David Von Drehle's article in last Sunday's Washington Post Magazine on the Rumsfeld "transformation" of the Pentagon certainly leaves that impression. And it's reinforced by his author's Q&A at Washingtonpost.com.

Dick Cheney at AEI: A Swing and a Miss...

Heard the VP's speech about Iraq on CSPAN radio while in the car driving home this evening. Nice try, but the Veep didn't connect. No one doubts there's a problem with terrorists in Iraq--only that the Bush administration appears capable of delivering a solution.

The "happy talk" conclusion shows that Dick Cheney has forgotten nothing--and learned nothing.

Transcript: here.

Conclusion: It looks like Cheney might really have to be impeached, or forced to resign for "health reasons." The country can't afford another three years of a Ford Administration re-run.

Vladimir Putin on Russia's Oil and Gas

Henry Balzer examines Putin's own analysis of Russia's oil and gas industries, in his article in The National Interest. (ht Scraps of Moscow)

French Rioters Target Jews (Cont'd.)

More on the story from Canada's National Post. (ht lgf)

Capote

Last night, we saw Bennet Miller's film starring Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote. Alice Goldfarb Marquis had recommended it, and it was worth seeing, though I'm still not sure what it was really about.

New York high society thrill seekers slumming in Kansas? Rough trade excursions for Truman? A love story? Redemption? Hopelessness. Alcoholism? Dopplegangers?

I liked the Harper Lee angle best. Almost saw Capote as doing his murder story in competition with To Kill A Mockingbird. Harper Lee seemed like a more sympathetic person, IMHO. Perhaps we'll get a biopic about her, someday?