Putin and the Wolf

Don't forget Peter and the Wolf by Sergei Prokofiev. You can read the Wikipedia entry here.

Who is Comrade Wolf?

From Konstantin's Russian blog, this explanation of Putin's citation of "Comrade Wolf."

Some information for those who are mystified by Putin’s “Comrade Wolf” metaphor. Comrade Wolf comes from an old Soviet joke.

Rabinovich and his pet sheep are walking in the woods. Suddenly they fall into a deep pit. A minute later a wolf also falls into the same pit. The scared sheep starts bleating. “What do you mean – baa, baa, baa?” – says Rabinovich, “Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat”.

Apparently, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack doesn't read Konstantin's Russian Blog:

QUESTION: What about the speech today from President Putin, his state-of-the-nation speech, where he compared the United States to a voracious wolf and said, "We are aware of what is going on in the world. Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat, it eats without listening and it's clearly not going to listen to anyone." What does that say about the state of Russia-U.S. relations and the prospects for bringing them along on this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Secretary Rice has talked about this. We have, in many areas, a strong partnership with Russia. As for differences, you've heard about them in public over the past several months, Secretary Rice has talked about them, President Bush has talked about them, Vice President Cheney has talked about them. But we do have the kind of relationship where, if we do have differences, we'll speak about them frankly. And there are a lot of different issues on the table between the United States and Russia and we're going to try to push forward on those areas where we can. And where we have differences, we're going to try to work through them.

QUESTION: But can you specific for me on this "comrade wolf," the "voracious wolf" comment?

MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't seen it, Jonathan, honestly. I haven't seen it before you just mentioned it.

QUESTION: You didn't see the wolf or the comment?

MR. MCCORMACK: I had not heard the comment before Jonathan brought it up. So in fairness, I'd like to take a look at it before I offer a specific response. I'm not commenting that you are not giving me the entire quote, but I'd like to take a look at the whole thing.

Here's the conclusion of another version of a Russian wolf story from Sister Alyonuskha's Russian Folk Tales website, about a wolf and some baby goats he plans to eat:

The Wolf did as the Fox told him and made straight for the smithy. He came up to the Blacksmith and said:

"Please, Blacksmith, forge me a new throat, for I want to bleat like a goat."

"What will I get in return?"

"I don't know what you want. We animals have no money, but I can make you a gift of some kind."

"Well, then, Wolf, bring me a pair of geese, live ones, mind, and then I'll forge you a new throat."

The Wolf went to the river bank and began crawling through the rushes there, and he was soon muddy and wet up to his ears. But he finally

managed to catch two geese, and, holding them by their wings, carriec them to the Blacksmith. He felt very cross, for he would have liked to eat the geese himself, but this he could not do as he had to keep his promise. He brought the geese to the Blacksmith and said:

"I have brought you what you asked for, Blacksmith, so now be quick and forge me a new throat."

"Very well, Wolf, it's time to get to work," the Blacksmith replied "Move up closer to the anvil, stick out your tongue as far as it will go and close your eyes, and I will be quick and do the rest."

The Wolf moved up close to the anvil, he stuck out his tongue and closed his eyes, and he stood there as if frozen to the spot. And the Blacksmith at once seized his biggest hammer and he struck the Wolf with it over the head! The Wolf dropped dead on the spot, and the Blacksmith skinned him and sold the skiji at the market for ten silver pieces. And he kept the geese for himself to be eaten when he had a mind to.

And as for the Kids, they remained alive and well.

Putin's Speech

It took a while for the English translation of Putin's speech, but the full text is finally up on the Kremlin's website. A few things I didn't see discussed in media accounts, which focused on demographic issues and his response to Cheney.

1. A coded message that the US is sponsoring Islamist extremist terrorism in Chechnya and other republics in order to weaken Russia, and that Russia will respond forcefully:

The terrorist threat remains very real. Local conflicts remain a fertile breeding ground for terrorists, a source of their arms and a field upon which they can test their strength in practice. These conflicts often arise on ethnic grounds, often with inter-religious conflict thrown in, which is artificially fomented and manipulated by extremists of all shades.

I know that there are those out there who would like to see Russia become so mired in these problems that it will not be able to resolve its own problems and achieve full development.

2. Russia will stick to its policy of involvement in the "near abroad" and considers the European Union--not the US or China--to be its primary partner:

I repeat that our relations with our closest neighbours were and remain a most important part of the Russian Federation’s foreign policy.

I would like to say a few words briefly about our cooperation with our other partners.

Our biggest partner is the European Union. Our ongoing dialogue with the EU creates favourable conditions for mutually beneficial economic ties and for developing scientific, cultural, educational and other exchanges. Our joint work on implementing the concept of the common spaces is an important part of the development of Europe as a whole.

3.Russia ranks relations with the US on a level with China and India, and prefers to work to strengthen rather than weaken the UN framework, in opposition to the Bush administration policy of unilateralism:

Of great importance for us and for the entire international system are our relations with the United States of America, with the People’s Republic of China, with India, and also with the fast-growing countries of the Asia-Pacific Region, Latin America and Africa. We are willing to take new steps to expand the areas and framework of our cooperation with these countries, increase cooperation in ensuring global and regional security, develop mutual trade and investment and expand cultural and educational ties.

I wish to stress that at this time of globalisation when a new international architecture is in the process of formation, the role of the United Nations Organisation has taken on new importance. This is the most representative and universal international forum and it remains the backbone of the modern world order. It is clear that the foundations of this global organisation were laid during an entirely different era and that reform is indisputably necessary.

Russia, which is taking an active part in this work, sees two points of being of principle importance.

First, reform should make the UN’s work more effective. Second, reform should have the broad support of a maximum number of the UN’s member states. Without consensus in the UN it will be very difficult to ensure harmony in the world. The UN system should be the regulator that enables us to work together to draw up a new code of behaviour in the international arena, a code of behaviour that meets the challenges of our times and that we are so in need of today in this globalising world.

Putin is attempting to put Russia back to work with the mission of "balancing" the USA, without directly opposing America or restarting the Cold War. Sort of a "loyal opposition" vision for international relations, not a threat, rather a dissenting and independent power.

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network

While visiting a friend in the hospital with pancreatic cancer, his surgeon mentioned this website for the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. He said that pancreatic cancer was a bigger threat to public health than HIV/AIDS, but didn't get the publicity or funding...

John McCain v. Freedom of Speech

In his latest column, George F. Will explains why it is significant that Senator John McCain not only co-sponsored the troubling McCain-Feingold campaign law, but also said that he's opposed to the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

Presidents swear to "protect and defend the Constitution." The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." On April 28, on Don Imus's radio program, discussing the charge that the McCain-Feingold law abridges freedom of speech by regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech, John McCain did not really reject the charge:

"I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

Will suggests that McCain might be a dangerous to the US Constitution, and his views may be a threat to democracy itself:

Which highlights the stark contradiction in McCain's doctrine and the media's applause of it. He and they assume, simultaneously, the following two propositions:

Proof that incumbent politicians are highly susceptible to corruption is the fact that the government they control is shot through with it. Yet that government should be regarded as a disinterested arbiter, untainted by politics and therefore qualified to regulate the content, quantity and timing of speech in campaigns that determine who controls the government. In the language of McCain's Imus appearance, the government is very much not "clean," but it is so clean it can be trusted to regulate speech about itself.

McCain hopes that in 2008 pro-life Republicans will remember his pro-life record. But they will know that, regarding presidents and abortion, what matters are Supreme Court nominees. McCain favors judges who think the Constitution is so radically elastic that government regulation of speech about itself is compatible with the First Amendment. So Republican primary voters will wonder: Can President McCain be counted on to nominate justices who would correct such constitutional elasticities as the court's discovery of a virtually unlimited right -- one unnoticed between 1787 and 1973 -- to abortion?

McCain told Imus that he would, if necessary, sacrifice "quote First Amendment rights" to achieve "clean" government. If on Jan. 20, 2009, he were to swear to defend the Constitution, would he be thinking that the oath refers only to "the quote Constitution"? And what would that mean?

Harry Potter and the War on Terror

Writing in The American Thinker, Bookworm says J.K. Rowling's story has a message for adults in a post-9/11 world:

I don’t pretend to know what J.K. Rowling was thinking when she wrote Order of the Phoenix, but I can’t help but see in this post-9/11 book a perfect analogy to the situation the West faces today, in the real world, in its War against Islamofascism. Some of us, like Harry, know that we have seen evil, acknowledge its existence, and are prepared to fight it. But just as Harry must deal with a government Ministry bound and determined to explain away or ignore the evil in its midst, we too face an anti-War movement that endlessly ignores, explains away, and excuses the most vile acts of terror and human degradation. I have to believe, however, that there are at least some young people who experienced the Twin Towers falling as the formative event of their youth, and who will find guidance and inspiration in Harry’s struggle to wage overcome both evil itself and a cultural indifference to that same evil.

Konstantin on the New Cold War

Konstantin's Russian Blog reacts to Dick Cheney's declaration of a new Cold War in Vilnius:

What do we learn from such verbal maneuvers? First, that America does not really give a damn about freedom and democracy. They are nothing but empty words. When any country does not agree with the US international politics it immediately becomes undemocratic. When any dictatorship does what America wants its democracy status raises to incredible heights. This is a very powerful and meaningful signal. It means that even if Putin gives complete freedom to ORT and RTV, even if he resigns, even if he stops bothering Ukraine and Georgia, he would still be treated as very undemocratic. But the moment he, for example, agrees to punish Iran the US-way, he could immediately double gas prices for the US tiny Eastern European liegemen fearing no political consequences. It only takes some arithmetical calculations: we loose X if we stop building nuclear power stations in Iran and we gain Y if we introduce market prices for the Baltics, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. If X is very close to Y then we have every chance to improve our freedom status and American limitrophes will shut up (or will not be heard by American corporate media, what is the same).

Second, we learn that America is not that strong as it used to be. “Zeus, you are angered. That means you are wrong.” In the 20th century diplomats used to say, “Speak softly but carry a stick in your hand”. Nowadays, as one wise man said, America prefers another saying, “Yell at the top of your lungs and hope that others won’t notice that your stick is broken.”

Third, we learn that America is very myopic. So myopic that winning in some minor internal quarrels means more than loosing global international partners. I don’t talk about allies as in the last three years America alienated all of them (parasites don’t count as allies). Dick definitely gained some points with right-wing Republicans at home for being “hard with Russia”. The fact that the level of anti-Americanism among Russians rose 8% doesn’t bother him at all. Russia is not a democratic country, so Russians will not be given a chance to vote for an anti-American president, won’t they? Iranians voted for an anti-American president although a much more liberal candidate had every chance to win just because Iranians are stupid (or brainwashed). The fact that the US became double hostile towards Iran before the presidential elections doesn’t have anything to do with the outcome.

American political system was based on the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment. Two hundred years ago educated public sincerely believed that power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the system of check and balances was introduced. Nowadays America is the only super power. Its power is absolute and no matter how sympathetic I am towards Americans I do realize that the Founding Fathers were right in the long run. American absolute global power makes America absolutely corrupt in the world where no checks and balances exist for this rich, hypocritical, greedy and war-mongering hulk.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Speaks!

Here's an account of her Harvard talk, via Little Green Footballs:

Her voice broke at one point when she reflected on her relationship with Theo Van Gogh. When she was discussing her ideas for Submission Part One with Theo, she had wanted to use puppets, or placards. Theo said, “No, It is better if you put this idea in a film. I want to do this for you.” His main problem with the project was not the danger, it was the utter lack of humor. “Maybe I’ll save the humor for Parts Three and Four?” he joked.

“We thought everything was good after we finished filming. We could start Parts Two and Three. And then one morning, I got a phone call. Theo was,” her voice faltered just a bit “...killed.”

“So now I have to live with the fact that Theo Van Gogh is dead. Though I did not kill him, I have to live with the fact that he is dead. I had protection before Theo Van Gogh was killed. I have to do what these gentlemen tell me to do. I have to comply. I comply with things I am told by the authorities. The emphasis on security... it has made me more radical. I cannot be complacent. Let others do it, it will go away - I can’t do that anymore.”

Iran's Third Way

Daniel Pipes arguest that bombing Iran may be too risky, but so is doing nothing. He suggests a third way to deter Iran:

But is there a third, more palatable option? Finding it is the goal of every analyst who addresses the topic, including this one. That third option necessarily involves a mechanism to dissuade the Iranian regime from developing and militarizing its atomic capabilities. Does such a deterrence exist?

Yes, and it even has a chance of success. Iran, fortunately, is not an absolute dictatorship where a single person makes all key decisions, but an oligarchy with multiple power centers and with debate on many issues. The political leadership itself is divided, with important elements dubious about the wisdom of proceeding with nukes, fearful of the international isolation that will follow, not to speak of air strikes. Other influential sectors of society – religious, military, and economic in particular – also worry about the headlong rush.

A campaign by Iranians to avoid confrontation could well prevail, as Iran does not itself face an atomic threat. Going nuclear remains a voluntary decision, one Tehran can refrain from making. Arguably, Iranian security would benefit by staying non-nuclear.

Forces opposed to nuclearization need to be motivated and unified, and that is made more likely by strong external pressure. Were Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Middle Easterners, and others to act in sync with Washington, it would help mobilize opposition elements in Iran. Indeed, those states have their own reasons to dread both a nuclear Tehran and the bad precedent this sets for other potential atomic powers, such as Brazil and South Africa.

That international cooperation, however, is not materializing, as can be seen at the United Nations. The Security Council meanders on the Iran issue and an Iranian official has been elected to, of all things, the UN's disarmament commission (which is tasked with achieving nuclear disarmament).

Deterring Tehran requires sustained, consistent external pressure on the Iranian body politic. That implies, ironically, that those most adverse to U.S.-led air strikes must (1) stand tight with Washington and (2) convince Iranians of the terrible repercussions for them of defying the international consensus.

HONOR A History by James Bowman

Yesterday, I went to the book party for James Bowman's new book, HONOR: A History. It certainly was honorable of Jim, who I have not seen for years and years, to invite me. I was honored to be there.

The event took place at the American Enterprise Institute, and so I found myself sitting between former Presidential speechwriter David Frum (George W. Bush) and former Presidential speechwriter Ben Wattenberg (Lyndon Baines Johnson). Irving Kristol and Bea Himmelfarb sat at the next table. So you might say that Jim had invited me to an A-list neoconservative party. And I don't know that they all liked what he had to say.

Because in his talk, Bowman put forward the theory that the war in Iraq was about nothing more or less than the ancient notion of Honor. In our case, "National Honor." In the case of Islamist terrorists, personal and religious honor. A clash of honor systems, if not a clash of civilizations.

This--not the Israel Lobby, not the Oil Lobby, not Halliburton--explained why America could not afford to lose. Because Saddam Hussein has definitely been linked to Al Qaeda after the American attack, it was honorable and right to fight him. Since the attack on 9/11, the honor of our nation is at stake.

But, said Bowman, Iraq is like Vietnam in that appeals to honor ring politically incorrect, and the President therefore cannot make them. The last President to invoke National Honor was Richard Nixon--"peace with honor."

And we all know how that ended...

Something to think about.

Hookergate?

That's what they're calling scandal swirling around Porter Goss's departure from the CIA, Down Under. From The Australian:

ALL the ingredients for a spy thriller involving prostitutes, poker, a congressman called Randy and parties at the legendary Watergate complex may lie behind the sudden resignation of Porter Goss as director of the CIA.

The saga has already been named "Hookergate", and the CIA is buzzing with rumours there is more to Mr Goss's departure than meets the eye.

The timing is certainly curious, coming hard on the heels of the CIA's confirmation last week that Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the No3 in the nation's spy agency, who was hand-picked by Mr Goss, had attended poker games at the Watergate and Westin Grand hotels in Washington with Brent Wilkes, a defence contractor and close boyhood friend.

Mr Wilkes is under investigation for allegedly providing Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a disgraced Republican congressman, with prostitutes, limousines and free hotel suites.

The net is also closing in on Mr Foggo, who is being investigated by the FBI for awarding Mr Wilkes a $US2.4million ($3.1 million) contract. Although Mr Foggo has admitted playing poker with Mr Wilkes, he insists no prostitutes were present.

A former senior CIA official said this weekend he had been told by a trusted source inside the agency that Mr Goss, 67, had attended one of the poker games. The CIA has denied it. "Goss has repeatedly denied being there, so if it were to come out he was, he is finished," the ex-official said.

Aleksandr Solzhenytsin On Russia's Future

Interviewed by Vitaly Tretyakov of the Moscow News, via Johnson's Russia List. Some excerpts:

Vitaly Tretyakov: Aleksandr Isayevich, what is your general impression of Russia's present development under President Vladimir Putin as compared with the Yeltsin and Gorbachev era?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: Under Gorbachev, the concept and perception of statehood per se was discarded. (Hence his numerous acts of capitulation and unconditional concessions in foreign policy which won him kudos in the West.)

On Yeltsin's watch, that line was essentially continued, but it was further
aggravated by the uncontrolled plundering of Russia, its property and
national legacy, as well as by inaction and collusion in the face of a
countrywide crisis. Under Putin, efforts were made, although not
immediately, to reverse the trend and save Russia's statehood. At first,
however, some of those attempts were rather cosmetic, but then they became
more focused. Considering our condition and our potentialities, the
country's foreign policy today is sensible and increasingly pragmatic.
Russia, however, has yet much to do to overcome the heavy burden of the
past. The overall condition of the people's life is still difficult and
there is much chaos.

VT: In the past several months there has been a flurry of political and other
activity around the so-called national priority projects, including reform
of the education and healthcare system, the housing and utilities sector,
and agriculture. What do you think about these projects? Were they
correctly prioritized?

AS: When a boat has 99 holes in its hull, with the best of intentions, it is
impossible to fix all of them at once. All of these projects have a right
to be "national priority projects." All of them are vitally important. As
for agriculture and the moribund countryside (a problem that was recently
highlighted by Moscow Mayor Yu. M. Luzhkov in rather forceful terms) - a
countryside that has been abandoned to its fate and degrading for decades
now it is really a pressing need: We are not only becoming dependent on
food supplies [from abroad] but losing valuable lands.

***

VT: I, for one, believe that unless the three principal subjects of
Euro-Atlantic (Christian) civilization - specifically, the North American
Union, the (Western) European Union, and the East European (Russian) Union
- form a strategic alliance (with supra-state bodies), our civilization
will disappear sooner or later. Where do you think salvation for the
Euro-Atlantic civilization lies?

AS: Unfortunately, the global political process is not moving in the direction
that you have just outlined. The United States has been deploying its
occupation troops in one country after another. This has been the case in
Bosnia for the past nine years, in Kosovo and Afghanistan for the past five
years, and in Iraq for the past three years. And it is bound to continue
for a very long time yet. There is no substantial difference between NATO
and U.S. actions. Seeing that Russia today poses no threat to it, NATO is
systematically, persistently expanding its military apparatus - to eastern
Europe and to the south of Russia. This includes open financial and
ideological support for "color" revolutions and the absurd imposition of
North-Atlantic interests on Central Asia. All of this leaves no doubt that
Russia is being encircled with a view to destroying its sovereignty.
Russia's accession to the Euro-Atlantic alliance, which is now forcibly
imposing Western democratic values in various parts of the world, would
result not in the expansion but the decline of Christian civilization.

VT: Do you agree with the view that the world is rapidly moving toward
neo-authoritarianism (probably as a reaction to total liberalism)?

AS: "Total liberalism," as you have aptly put it, has certainly had its day in
the world and is now more or less a spent force. It will be replaced by
some other forms of public and state consciousness, but I would not dare
predict their essence or the forms that they will actually assume.

VT: What is your perspective on the situation in Ukraine? In this context, what
do you think about the problem of the division of the Russian nation (the
largest divided nation in modern Europe)? Should Russia - if not
politically, at least intellectually - ponder the possibility of
reunification of ethnic Russians and Russian lands if Ukraine joins the EU
and especially NATO?

AS: I am pained by what has been going on in Ukraine - ever since the 1991
referendum. The fanatical suppression and persecution of the Russian
language (which, according to previous polls, was used as the main language
by over 60 percent of Ukraine's population) is simply an act of atrocity
that is aimed against Ukraine's own cultural heritage. Vast tracts of land,
which have never been part of historical Ukraine, e.g., Novorossia, the
Crimea and the entire southeastern region, have been forcibly incorporated
into the modern Ukrainian state and into its policy of acquiring NATO
membership at any cost. Throughout Yeltsin's term in office, not a single
meeting that he had with any of the Ukrainian presidents had gone without
capitulation and concessions to them. Pushing the Black Sea Fleet out of
Sevastopol (the city was never ceded to Ukraine, not even under Khrushchev)
is an outrageous humiliation of the entire 19th- and 20th-century Russian
history.

Under these conditions, Russia must not cast Ukraine's multimillion Russian
population to the whims of fate, abandoning it, and cutting off all links
with it.

VT: Is it your view that Russian language and Russian literature are dying - in
the sense that they will never again attain, let alone surpass, 19th and
20th century models?

AS: Despite its uncontrolled contamination with jargon and Anglo-Americanisms
(I am talking not about the natural use of technical terminology but
slavish, fashion-driven borrowings), the Russian language will not degrade,
will not let itself be irretrievably polluted as long as there are Russian
people.

The same is true for Russian literature. Despite all the garbage, it has
preserved its lucid and conscientious core that will yet produce excellent
works supporting our spirit, our morale, and our consciousness.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali To Speak

At Harvard University, on May 9th. (ht LGF)

US Welcomes Burmese Refugees

Accordning to a report in the Navhind Times, some 9,000 ethnic Karen refugees from camps on the Thai-Burmese border may soon be on their way to the United States. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waived anti-terrorism provisions of the Patriot Act that had prevented some families associated with Karen National Liberation Army guerrillas from coming to America. The Department of Homeland Security has decided that non-combatant Karens pose no threat to the United States.

The refugee camps have been an long-term irritant in Thai-Burmese relations, accused of serving as bases for attacks by Burma, and resented by Thailand due to violent incidents at Karen protests.

Thailand's Karen refugees camps have been in operation for 16 years.

UPDATE: More on the Karen at Wikipedia.

CIA Failures Led to Goss Ouster

According to the not always reliable Debka Report, more than poker parties at the Watergate are involved:

Indeed, DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources note the CIA is on its uppers in three vital spheres:

1.US forces are not getting to grips with either of the two segments of the Iraqi guerrilla insurgency: the mostly secular Baathists and the extremist Islamist Iraqi groups and al Qaeda. The continuous upsurge of violence in Iraq means the CIA has failed by and large to penetrate the most dangerous insurgent groups.

2. While the Taliban-al Qaeda rebellion rages in Afghanistan, Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s Iraq wing - far from being crushed - has in the last six months opened up new terror fronts in Sinai, Egypt, Palestinian territories and Algeria.

3. On Iran, the CIA comes up short on two interconnected issues: derailing Iran’s nuclear program with the help of local surrogates which, given the millions of expatriate Iranian exiles who detest the clerical regime, should pose fewer difficulties than penetrating al Qaeda. Secondly, American operatives should have been able to head off the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and intelligence agents who have permeated every corner of Iraqi politics and whose influence in Baghdad often prevails over the word from Washington - despite the presence of 135,000 US troops.

Henry Allen: Winning is Everything

In today's Washington Post, a staff writer takes a look at American strategy in Iraq:

"In war, we have to win," said Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap.

This was on television about 20 years ago, a PBS series about the war in Vietnam. Giap was sitting behind a desk, as I recall, a picture of lethal ease. He seemed amused to think he knew something that the Americans still hadn't figured out. He added: "Absolutely have to win."

For me, a former Marine corporal who'd heard some Viet Cong rounds go past at Chu Lai, Giap spoke and the heavens opened -- a truth seizure, eureka. I finally had a useful, practical explanation for why we had lost after the best and brightest promised we were going to win. And nowadays, thanks to Giap, I have a theory, no more than that, about why winning is so elusive in Iraq...

Allen believes that the Bush administration doesn't know how to win, and concludes:

This war is not working out the way our leaders thought it would. We could lose. If we lose, we'll be humiliated, we'll be the schoolyard hotshot who picked a fight and then got whipped. I'm tired of our leaders putting me and my country in this position.

I'm not saying I want to fight no wars, or even saying I want to win more wars -- I'm just saying that I want us to win the wars that we fight. And I'm worried that Iraq was never one of them because it was started by people who knew everything except how to win -- who have yet to learn that in war we absolutely have to win.

Afghan Pop Music VJ Killed By Islamists

While driving in the car yesterday, I heard a fascinating interview with Shakeb Issar, Shaima Rezayee's VJ co-host on Tolo TV, who now in hiding in Sweden--after the British embassy refused to grant asylum for diplomatic reasons--on BBC World News. Issar said he lived in the TV studio after Shaima Rezayee, 24, was killed by a single shot to the head on May 18th, 2005 following a denunciation of her music television program as un-Islamic.

Her appearance on television shocked many Afghans with her western-style of dressing and the barest of headscarves, as the only female presenter on the daily TV music show ‘Hop’. Conservative clerics hated her. Young women admired her. 24-year-old Shaima Rezayee stood out, and she had to pay a heavy price for this. First she was fired from her job. Now she has been killed.

This quote about the killing, from the US-government-funded NGO Internews on Jaghury.com makes me want to throw up:

But Aunohita Mojumdar, a media analyst at Internews, says the wrath Tolo incurs needs to be viewed in the context of Afghanistan's recent history. "In a country where all images were banned until the collapse of the Taliban, any TV station in existence would have drawn fire."

Your US tax dollars at work...

UPDATE: Here's a link to the BBC Outlook program interview by Heather Payton, and the BBC summary:

TOLO TV
An Afghan TV host has left his home country and moved to Sweden because he is in fear of his life. 22 year old Shakeb Issar is 22 and he used to host a music show called Hop on Afghan television; he's now living in one room, on state benefits, in Sweden. A year ago he was riding high, wearing trendy western clothes and introducing music videos from all over the world on independent Tolo TV, many of them featuring scantily clad women. Then his co-host, Shaima Rezayee was found dead, beaten up and with a bullet through her head. Shakeb too was getting death threats and he decided it was time to flee the country. He tells Outlook presenter Heather Payton the reasons for his decision.

So far, I have not seen this story reported in the American media--even on MTV news.

UPDATE: Wikipedia entry here.

Cheney Answers Questions About Russia

In Astana, Kazakhstan:

Q Yes, Matt Spetalnick, with Reuters. Mr. Vice President, the Kremlin has dismissed your criticism of Russia's record of democracy and its energy policy as "incomprehensible." Can you respond to that and explain how are you going to get this message across if they don't want to hear it? And what this could bode for the G8 Summit?

And for Mr. President, what do you think of the rising tensions between these two major powers?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't had an opportunity to -- excuse me.

MODERATOR: Excuse me -- which superpowers you were talking about, sir? United States and Russia?

Q United States and Russia. (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't had an opportunity to study the response out of Moscow. The speech was very carefully crafted. It made the point that we don't look upon Russia as an enemy by any means, that we want them as a strong friend and ally. But I also made it clear that we had some concerns with respect to the extent to which they seem to resist the development of strong democracies, if you will, in those areas represented by the governments that were represented at the conference in Vilnius in Lithuania.

And I expressed the concern that I heard repeated by many of the people I interacted with at the conference that Russia is using its control over energy resources to gain political leverage of various kinds on those governments that were represented at the conference.

I expect the G8 conference will go forward as scheduled in Petersburg, and that we'll all benefit from a free, open, and honest exchange of views at that conference.

PRESIDENT NAZARBAYEV: (As translated) Well, first of all, I think that there is no such thing as confrontation between United States and Russia. We think that there is a friendly exchange of opinions and views. And we all have to know that every country has their own way of solving their own problems, and that is called politics. And we have to respect politics of every country. But every country also has a right to voice their opinion of what is happening in another country. And if that would be done in a friendly manner, I think we will just benefit from that.

Laura Rozen on CIA Chief's Resignation

War and Piece has a lot of information and theories about Porter Goss's sudden departure from the CIA. IMHO, it looks clumsy from the outside, and doesn't increase one's confidence in the Bush administration...

Ari Halberstam, Rashid Baz, Andrea Elliott & The New York Times

From a very interesting post at Winds of Change:

Joe's posts about white guilt and shame brought to mind several instances of contact between Americans and Muslims which illustrate his theme.

The first two concern young female New York Times journalists whose credulity and callousness derive - I think - from being ashamed of Western culture in the way Joe describes. (This is exactly the kind of person who would be hired and groomed by the Times, which then perpetuates this shame through the approach its reporters take to their stories.) In the contrasting examples Muslims upbraid white Westerners for being ashamed of Western values.

First, Andrea Elliott:
In 1994, three weeks before Passover, Ari Halberstam, 16, was riding in a van over the Brooklyn Bridge when Rashid Baz, in a nearby car, shot a bullet into Halberstam’s brain. . . . On March 5, exactly 12 years to the day Ari died, The New York Times began a three-part series on Imam Reda Shata and the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge. [Ari's mother Devorah] remembered that at the murder trial, witnesses testified that Baz attended a raging anti-Semitic sermon at that very same place. Jews were “racist and fascist, as bad as the Nazis” said a speaker there (not Shata), shortly before Baz got into his car with a Glock semiautomatic pistol and a Cobray machine gun, hunting for Jews.

Keep reading for Mrs. Halberstam's encounter with the author of the series.

But the article, by Andrea Elliot, never mentioned Baz nor his victim. The article, if anything, depicted the mosque as more moderate than not. Elliot did report that the imam praised Hamas and a suicide bomber, even as he “forged friendships with rabbis in New York.”

Devorah Halberstam says she called Elliot and asked if the reporter ever heard of Ari Halberstam. According to Halberstam, Elliot answered, “Who?” She never heard of the murder either, adds Halberstam.

“When I told her the story,” says Halberstam, “she just said, ‘That’s a long time ago.’ I said, ‘Excuse me?’ First of all, it’s hardly a long time ago; second, to say that to a mother is disgusting; and third, terror like that is very pertinent to this day and age, after 9-ll.”

I have no idea how old Andrea Elliott is, but I'm picturing her rolling her eyes, cracking gum and playing with her split ends while talking to Mrs Halberstam on her cell, with her feet up on her desk. The imam was a representative of an exotic culture, and one that she had been taught at her (probably) Ivy League school was treated badly by the West. Mrs. Halberstam was just some Jewish mother, Orthodox yet, nagging her. It was clear to her who deserved respect and who deserved a brush-off.

There's more interesting stuff here about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ron Chernow, Philip Gourevitch and the PEN International Center...

UPDATE: Winds of Change guessed right about Elliott's Ivy League background--according to the ASNE website, she graduated first in her class from Columbia University's graduate school of journalism.