What is going on at the National Arboretum? We went there yesterday, and while some of the exhibits were nice--such as the Bonsai house, herb gardens, and such--there were signs of neglect. Unmown lawns gone to seed, empty fountains, unkept trails, and loose stones. And in some areas, the sprinklers were on during the day, subjecting visitors who wanted to walk among the trees and flowers to a soaking. It is still beautiful...but really does need proper attention.

India on My Mind...

India is on my mind, these days. The Indian head of state was in DC getting all sorts of attention from President Bush, not long ago. Last week, I saw Bride and Prejudice, I have a couple of students from India in my course, as well as a number of IT professionals who have gone back to school after their jobs moved to Hyerderabad and Bangalore. The other day, I had coffee with a couple we met in New Dehli, who were stopping by DC on their way back home to Australia. They recommended I read Being Indian: They Truth about Why the Twenty-First Century Will be India's. The author is an Indian diplomat who once headed the Nehru cultural center in Moscow, and now runs the same operation in London. While it is not a done deal, it certainly sounds like India is on the move...

Exit Roman Abramovitch

RIA Novosti's Peter Lavelle says the oligarch owner of Britain's Chelsea football club is on his way out of his Russian oil business--because he's selling out to the Kremlin:

The sooner Gazprom acquires Sibneft, the better for the Kremlin. With Russia's 2007-2008 election season approaching, buying out Abramovich now will give the Kremlin more time to deal with the political fallout. Additionally, the authorities will be able to spin paying billions to a billionaire as evidence of the state's respect for private property rights - 'the days of stealing assets are in the past.' This may not be completely convincing to an average Russian who dislikes the oligarchs, but it may do wonders to strengthen Russia's investment case.

The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection (continued)

In the Weekly Standard, Ed Morrissey connects some more dots that link Mohammed Atta to Saddam Hussein:

...after 9/11, Czech intelligence privately told the United States that it had evidence that al-Ani met with Mohammed Atta on April 9, 2001. Later, the Czechs went public with the information--and to this day, the Czechs insistently stand behind this intelligence. Part of the reason for this insistence is not just a belief in their source, but also a corroborating entry in al-Ani's datebook, which the Czechs apparently discovered during a surreptitious search of the Iraqi embassy after Saddam's fall in April 2003. The datebook contained an entry for an April 2001 meeting with a "Hamburg student," the same description used by Atta himself when applying for his visa. (It is perhaps worth noting that Epstein is the only person to have reported on the existence of this daybook.)

However, the 9/11 Commission disregarded the Czech intelligence and declared that Atta had never gone to Prague in April 2001. How did the Commission reach this conclusion?

BTW, On his 9/11 website, Epstein also makes a persuasive argument that the anthrax attacks may have been linked to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Senator Kennedy to Block Roberts Nomination

That's Robert Novak's prediction in today's Washington Post. Novak points to the return to Kennedy's staff of James Flug, a 66-year old retired lawyer who, as a young Kennedy aide, helped stop the Carswell and Haynsworth nominations during the Nixon administration. Prepare for a "Borking" of Bush's Supreme Court nominee . . .

Britain's List of Banned Behaviors

Little Green Footballs led us to this interesting list from the Home Office, published in The London Times, that describes the kind of actions that, after the July 7th bombings, will result in deportation from the United Kingdom:

Terrorist violence
Cannot foment, justify, glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs

Terrorist acts
Cannot seek to provoke others to terrorist acts

Criminal acts
Cannot foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts

Inter-community violence
Cannot foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

Method
Individuals who do the above by any means or medium are caught by the legislation, including:

- writing, producing, publishing or distributing material;

- public speaking including preaching

- running a website

- using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader

War, Revolution and British Imperialism in Central Asia

No, it's not about International Crisis Group's work after the breakup of the USSR, rather Frederick Stanwood's 1983 book, based on documents from the Foreign Office and other primary sources, explains Britain's policy in the Caucases and Turkestan roughly from 1914-1922. The war in the title is World War I, the revolution is the Bolshevik revolution, and British imperialism involved a very real British Empire (colored red on the maps).

That said, the fascination of this historical study is that it is demonstrates the cliche that even paranoids have enemies. For in the wake of World War I, not only did Britain peel off bits of the Ottoman Empire, drawing the lines in the map for today's Middle East and Balkans; Britain also had plans to break up the Russian Empire and take bits of it as well. The places mentioned in British policy memos from 1918 read like today's headlines: Georgia, Azerbaijan, Trans-Causasia (Chechnya), Dagestan, Armenia, Turkestan (today's Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, et al.), Persia (today's Iran), Siberia. As today Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Afghanistan play pivotal roles in the proposed forward strategy, designed to take advantage of Russia's weakness due to revolution and civil war. Russia itself was to be divided in two--an Eastern Siberian republic, with its capital in Omsk, intended as an ally of Britain against a Western Russia that stopped at the Urals. A series of British allies in Turkestan and the Balkans would form a "cordon sanitaire" around the Bolshevik revolution, containing it from spreading to other countries (George Kennan didn't come up with the strategy of containment, it turns out). Britain would obtain a League of Nations mandate to administer a protectorate in Georgia and other such small countries--eerily reminiscent of Lord Patten's position as UN administrator of Kosovo today (Patten is chairman of the International Crisis Group,). These small, weak buffer nations ringing Russia would have been dependent on British financial support. Muslim leaders and white Russians were seen as the natural allies of the British against the Bolsheviks.

Sound familiar?

Anyhow, the policy failed, in part because the British were outfoxed by Lenin, who offered national autonomy to the rulers of Turkestan; and later by Stalin who redrew the maps of both Turkestan and Eastern Europe. And in part because of America. And in part, the author argues, because they didn't know what they were doing. On the British side, only the Government of India (based in Delhi), which opposed the plans and advocated an alternate strategy that sounded a lot like "benign neglect," comes off looking good. One element that really struck this reader was that the British appeared to be equally opposed to both Leninist Bolshevism and "Wilsonian Idealism." They worried that American rhetoric of national self-determination might harm the British Empire, although they preferred an alliance with the US against their perceived enemies at that time: the French and Germans.

Indeed, one might conclude from Stanwood's account that in the aftermath of World War II, it was the the victory of America's Wilsonian Idealism and Lenin's Bolshevism that did cause the collapse of the British Empire. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, it is almost as if we have returned to 1918, with everything in flux once more. No wonder the Russians are worried that the US and EU want to break up Russia. Because, as Stanwood documents, in the aftermath of WWI, that was indeed official British policy. Perhaps we in the West have forgotten what the Russians remember...

Sharansky's Alternative Gaza Plan

He spoke with Newsmax.com about his opposition to Sharon's disengagement strategy:

Sharansky's own roadmap to peace: no concessions, no funds, no legitimacy for the Palestinians unless they adopt democracy. On the other hand, however, hold forth a lush "Marshall Plan" for the Palestinians if they choose the path to true freedom and democracy.

It's a hard line, but Sharansky recalls that it worked like a charm for Ronald Reagan against the Soviet Union - and it would work for Israel against the Palestinians.

"I am convinced that all people desire to be free," Sharansky writes in his latest book. "I am convinced that freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere. And I am convinced that democratic nations, led by the United States, have a critical role to play in expanding freedom around the globe."

Bull Moose: Bush a Divider, Not Uniter

And he thinks that's why America is losing in Iraq, as support drops at home.

The President is now suffering a loss of support from a deeply divided public. Instead of uniting this country, the Bushies have divided it during a time of war and are now paying the price.,,

...We must prevail in the Iraq - but that is impossible without the support of a unified nation. In pursuit of partisan advantage, the Bushies have squandered the unity necessary to win a war.

Our country desperately needs a new politics of national unity and service. For too long, the national interest has taken a back seat to the obsessions of the left and the right to score polarizing, partisan, political points. Can either of the two parties produce an elevated politics?

Or is there a need for a new vehicle?

Actually, a credible third-party "Reagan Democrat" candidate (such as Zell Miller) might help the Democrats re-take the White House in 2008, as Perot did in 1992.

Where are Hollywood's War Heroes? (continued).

Thanks to Roger L. Simon for the link to this confession by Hollywood screenwriter Robert J. Avrech:

Hollywood, once upon a time, was one of the most patriotic colonies on the planet. During World War II, Frank Capra made a series of propaganda films titled “Why We Fight.” Marlene Dietrich put herself through a most grueling schedule visiting and entertaining our troops and selling war bonds. Jimmy Stewart joined the Air Force. Numerous movie stars put their careers on hold to help the war effort. These men and women loved America and understood who the enemy was and why the enemy had to be not only defeated but obliterated from the face of the earth.

Look at Hollywood now. Sean Penn goes to Iraq and apologizes for American war crimes. Hollywood’s patron saint is Michael Moore, its liturgy his package of lies, the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11.” When this film had its Hollywood premiere, the red carpet was choked with stars just dying to make an anti-Bush statement. We’re talking about movie stars who know basically nothing about politics. To call them fools would be generous. I have spent time with too many of these people, and believe me, if you’re not talking about how beautiful or how talented they are, the conversation sort of just dies.

It is, I kid you not, a badge of honor in Hollywood to hate America....

Inside 9/11

Little Green Footballs recommends watching this new television documentary from the National Geographic Society, on the National Geographic channel. For those who don't have cable, like myself, you can click on video clips at their website.

One question: Will this be shown on PBS, for those who don't have cable?

What's Wrong with Scotland Yard?

Now they are accused of a cover-up in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the unarmed Brazilian, by anti-terrorist police. IMHO Something must have been wrong with Ian Blair's police force, even before July 7th, for the bombing plot to have been able to succeed in the way it did...

What Do Russians Think?

Konstantin's Russian Blog has the results of a Russian public opinon poll that give some idea of how Russians see themselves, as well as how they see Westerners. These results are not surprising to someone who has lived there, but might come as something of a shock to those who didn't know what they thought of us...

Andrew C. McCarthy on Michael Graham

From National Review Online

Why has brutality in the name of Islam endured? Well, it is because, as Graham posits, this violence--driven by an interpretation of scriptures that self-evidently lend themselves to just such an interpretation--has long been coupled with 'an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name.''

The eminent Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis described the phenomenon in his 1993 book, Islam and the West. Divergences among Muslims in the interpretation of Islam, Lewis explained, are not easily labeled 'heterodox' or 'heretical,' for such notions are Western ones that have 'little or no relevance to the history of Islam, which has no synods, churches, or councils to define orthodoxy, and therefore none to define and condemn departures from orthodoxy.'

Taken together, the lack of formal hierarchy, the plain language of Koranic passages, and what is, indisputably, the military tradition out of which Islam emerged, have made it difficult for Muslims convincingly to condemn terrorism as antithetical to their creed. Meanwhile, acts of terrorism have continued unabated. Thus, the system is open to the reasonable conclusions that: (a) it promotes violence, (b) it has spawned violence, and (c) it has been unable to restrain violence despite the vastly superior number of non-violent adherents.

Michael Graham connected these dots and reasonably found that the system, Islam, was to blame. Now, do I wish he hadn't phrased it quite so bluntly by calling Islam itself a 'terror organization'? Yes. Even if his conclusion was within the bounds of acceptable argument, in the same sense that branding the entire company a 'fraud' is not unreasonable in my multi-national corporation example, the comment was not helpful. It was certain to irritate our allies in the war--authentic moderate Muslims--to call their religion 'a terrorist organization.' And even if Graham was convinced he was right, being right is not always a complete defense to incivility when one has been gratuitously provocative. He certainly could have found a way to apologize for his tone without apologizing for his point.

But all this is substantially mitigated by Graham's closing sentiments. He pointedly left his listeners with the 'good news' that the vast majority of Muslims do not support terror committed in the name of their religion. And he offered what sounded like a very sincere hope that they can and will take steps to marginalize and discredit the militants’ use of Islam.

On balance, Graham did what successful radio hosts do. He made a defensible argument in a manner designed to startle. The controversial phrase was ill-advised, but it was very far from the hanging offense it has become. And while it seems unduly stubborn for him to have resisted at least some expression of regret about his phrasing, that should not, in any event, have been a precondition for keeping his job.

The role of Islam in terrorism is a crucial issue. There is currently a good deal of contention, much of it from Muslim interest groups, that terrorism is a reaction to political conditions rather than a result of doctrine. That many of us would disagree--vehemently--with that assessment hardly means the argument should not be heard. But it is at least equally viable and appropriate to air the position that much of the problem of Islamic terrorism lies with Islam itself--something that even courageous Muslim moderates have acknowledged.

Daniel Pipes on Michael Graham

I disagree with Congressman Tom Tancredo about keeping the option open to "take out" Mecca and with Michael Graham that "Islam is a terror organization." But I do think it vital that they and others be able to conduct a freewheeling discussion about the Koran, jihad, radical Islam, Islamist terrorism, and related topics, without fearing a reprimand from the U.S. government or a loss of their livelihood.

Michael Graham Speaks Out

He's apparently been blacklisted by ABC because he criticized Islamic fundamentalists--here's his statement. I hope he sues ABC and CAIR for a million dollars...

Democracy and Terrorism

I just received the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs in the mail, and this article on Democracy and Terrorism is worth the cover price. Basically, examination of the available data appears to suggest that democracy fosters terrorism, that authoriarian states have less terrorism, and that while democracy is good in its own right, it may not be a solution to the terrorism problem. China suffers less terrorism than India, for example.

IMHO Bush's use of democracy in an instrumental way actually cheapens the cause of democracy. It is not just a tool for another purpose--democracy is an end in itself. Which is why I'm of the mindset to crush terrorism first, build democracy second...which is the point of another excellent article in the same issue, titled, How to Win in Iraq.

My Cousin's Heart...

...has its own website. and you can read all about it--here.

Russian Intelligence: Terrorists Seek WMD

An article in today's Moscow Times reports Russian FSB (successor to the KGB) charges that terrorists are currently seeking chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

More Iraqi Blogs

For an Iraqi point-of-view on what is going on there right now (Healing Iraq seems to be a little out of date these days), take a look at Iraq The Model. It's put together by two brothers, and has a blogroll of yet more Iraqi blogs.

One of them is called Neurotic Iraqi Wife, and seems very interesting. Here's an excerpt from a recent post:

I ve lost hope in the future of Iraq. I know many of you will find this distrubing but this is generally my own views and what I came to realize by being here. Im sorry, but the free democratic Iraq we all are hoping for wont take place, not now, not in 5 years not even in 10 years unless we get a real government who cares sincerely about the Iraqi people. Iraq needs someone who is honest yet firm, someone who is caring, yet strong. Someone who really is serious in building a country and reviving the people.

People here have no faith in anyone anymore. All the dreams they had during the elections have evaporated, all the hopes have gone and now they live their day just to survive the moment. Some people might think Im painting a very dark picture, Im sorry, but the picture I see from where Im at is dark, extremely dark. Yes you see schools being rehabilitated, yes you see hospitals getting renovated , yes you see construction taking place, bridges, roads, airports, but what does all this mean if people cant enjoy what they see. What do newly painted schools mean, when children get kidnapped???

What does this whole reconstruction mean when you cant even go out and enjoy it. I look at peoples eyes and theres no lustre, its filled with sadness and hopelessness, even me, when I used to see that before, I would try to make them feel better by saying things will change, just give it time, now I dont even dare say these words, for I dont believe in them myself. And whoever says things will change is a dreamer. People are still living in dire circumstances. Electricity is barely there, do you know how that feels when you are in this scorching heat??? Water is not continious. Corruption is everywhere. What kind of a life is this??? Yet Im amazed at how Iraqis are so resilient, they really are survivors, they really have the spirit of Life.