Remembering Jeane Kirkpatrick

From the American Enterprise Institute website:

AEI senior fellow Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, who joined the Institute in 1978, died yesterday. As a young political scientist at Georgetown University, Kirkpatrick wrote the first major study of the role of women in modern politics, Political Woman (1974). It was an essay written for Commentary magazine in 1979, Dictatorships and Double Standards (later expanded into a full-length book), that launched her into the political limelight. In the article, Kirkpatrick chronicled the failures of the Carter administration's foreign policy and argued for a clearer understanding of the American national interest. Her essay matched Ronald Reagan's instincts and convictions, and when he became president, he appointed her to represent the United States at the United Nations. Ambassador Kirkpatrick was a member of the president's cabinet and the National Security Council. The United States has lost a great patriot and champion of freedom, and AEI mourns our beloved colleague.

Martin Kramer on the Iraq Study Group Report

From Martin Kramer's Sandstorm

Cogent arguments can be made for each of these three fixes, but only if you accept the core assumption: the receptivity of the Arab world to the democracy message. That is why I cannot regard these as true Plan Bs. Each of them is a Plan A, version 2.0. They build on the very same premise as Plan A: that we just have to find the right path to their open hearts.

And there's the rub. There is a growing suspicion that maybe the problem isn't us, it's them—it is some complex interaction of culture, history, and economy that is the obstacle to a successful democratic transformation.

I say "suspicion" deliberately. The idea of an Arab exception has always been anathema on the left and in Middle Eastern studies, for obvious reasons. But it has been anathema on the right as well. President Bush (following Ronald Reagan) has attacked "cultural condescension," and no one wants to be guilty of that. So we have to keep our suspicions to ourselves.

But let us be frank: there isn't a person in this room who, down in his gut, doesn't harbor such a suspicion. And no amount of historical analogy, social science theory, or stern gazes from Condi Rice can put this suspicion to rest, because too much of the front page of the paper seems to validate it.

There are also subversive texts that go far to substantiate it. One of them was published by The Washington Institute in 1992: Elie Kedourie'sDemocracy and Arab Political Culture. "There is nothing in the political traditions of the Arab world," he wrote, "which might make familiar, or indeed intelligible, the organizing ideas of constitutional and representative government. . . . Those who say that democracy is the only remedy for the Arab world disregard a long experience which clearly shows that democracy has been tried in many countries and uniformly failed."

These words now shock us in their lack of equivocation; a leading political scientist once denounced Kedourie (Baghdad-born and raised) for his "Eurocentric chauvinism." But if it is Eurocentric chauvinism we are out to pillory, might not our gaze fall upon democracy promotion itself? Upon the big-think social scientists and New York intellectuals who ran a few data sets or met a few dissidents and proclaimed the Arab world ready and eager? Upon the CPA appointees who flew into Baghdad loaded with books on the postwar reconstruction of Germany and Japan? One could go on in this vein, but you get the idea.

A Different Freedom

The only exit from our own self-centered chauvinism is to begin to think systematically about the way the Arab world is different, and then to formulate a true Plan B—a plan not fixated on elections, or even on democracy, but on the kind of freedoms whose suppression has been most resented in the region. Those freedoms are not the ones we necessarily value. They are collective, not individual; and they revolve around identity, not interests. There is a yearning for freedom—of a kind I call freedom of identity.

A Holiday Book Recommendation

Do you know someone who wants to understand the roots of today's conflict in the Middle East? There's no better introduction than Barbara Tuchman's Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour.

Tuchman published this book--her first--with NYU Press in 1956, dedicated to the memory of her parents Alma Morgenthau and Maurice Wertheim. I had not heard of it before it turned up in my Amazon search for a copy of her classic, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, which I had wanted to read again for perspective on the current Iraq crisis.

I can't say enough good things about this study, which is a careful examination of the role of Britain in the Middle East over the centuries, with special attention to the origins of the Balfour declaration. Tuchman writes with verve and gusto, bringing to life characters from Richard the Lion Hearted to Mark Sykes, T. E. Lawrence, Lord Balfour, and Chaim Weizmann. She's particularly good at describing the conflict in British Jewry between anti-Zionists like Montagu and Montefiores and Zionists like Nathaniel Rothschild. The Manchester Guardian and Winston Churchill come out looking good. Lloyd George is the villain of the piece (she basically calls him a liar).

For Anglophiles, as well as those interested in Zionism, Evangelical Christianity, or the Middle East--or those just wanting to read a brilliant history book...

You can buy the book from Amazon.com, here:

James Kurth on Crushing Iraq's Sunni Insurgency

From The New Republic (ht Foreign Policy Research Institute):

The Sunni Arabs of Iraq have much to answer for. Since they have
always made up a rather small minority--about 15 to 20 percent of
the country's total population--the regimes they created were
historically authoritarian ones. They compensated for their small
base by employing especially brutal methods against their Kurdish
and Shia neighbors. Successive Sunni governments became
steadily more repressive, leading eventually to the rule of the Baath
Party and culminating in the ferocious regime of Saddam Hussein.

Baathist Iraq was often compared to Nazi Germany: Saddam was
said to play the role of Adolf Hitler and the Baath Party that of the Nazi
Party. A more accurate comparison, however, would analogize the Baath
Party to the Waffen S.S., the Nazi Party's elite unit, and the Sunni Arab
community to the Nazi Party as a whole, which eventually made up as much
as 15 percent of Germany's population.

But, unlike their Nazi counterparts in Germany in 1945, the Sunni
Arabs in Iraq in 2003 were not totally defeated, devastated, and
demoralized by the time their government was toppled.
Consequently, they were soon able to initiate and support a vicious
insurgency. Even now, when Shia militias are taking their revenge
on the Sunni community and only the U.S. military stands in the
way of its decimation, opinion polls show that nearly 90 percent of
Sunnis approve of insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

Many commentators have suggested partitioning Iraq into three
states--Shia, Kurdish, and Sunni. This would be a good solution in
many respects (analogous to the partitioning of the former
Yugoslavia), except that any Sunni state would be dominated by
an Islamist regime created by the insurgents, who would claim that
they had defeated and driven out the U.S. military and would
continue to inflict murder and mayhem upon their Shia and Kurdish
neighbors. This is why the Sunnis have to be subordinated so that
they have no state at all. The result would be an Iraq partitioned
into two states--a Shia one in the center (including Baghdad) and
the south and a Kurdish one in the north.

Mark Steyn on the Baker-Hamilton Commission on Iraq

From The Chicago Sun-Times:

God, I can't go on. I'd rather watch Mia Farrow making out with Mickey Rooney to a Doobie Brothers LP. As its piece de resistance, the Baker Commission concluded its deliberations by inviting testimony from -- drumroll, please -- Sen. John F. Kerry. If you're one of those dummies who goofs off in school, you wind up in Iraq. But, if you're sophisticated and nuanced, you wind up on a commission about Iraq. Rounding it all out -- playing David Gest to Jim Baker's Liza -- is, inevitably, co-chairman Lee Hamilton, former congressman from Indiana. As you'll recall, he also co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in accordance with Article II Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Ye monopoly of wisdom on ye foreign policy, national security and other weighty affairs shall be vested in a retired Representative from the 9th District in Indiana, if he be sufficiently venerable of mien. In the event that he becomes incapacitated, his place shall be taken by Jill St. John." I would be calling for a blue-ribbon commission to look into whether we need all these blue-ribbon commissions, but they'd probably get Lee Hamilton to chair that, too.

Don't get me wrong, I like a Friars' Club Roast as much as the next guy and I'm sure Jim Baker kibitzing with John Kerry was the hottest ticket in town. But doesn't it strike you as just a tiny bit parochial? Aside from Senator Kerry, I wonder whether the commission thought to hear from anyone such as Goh Chok Tong, the former prime minister of Singapore. A couple of years back, on a visit to Washington just as the Democrat-media headless-chicken quagmire-frenzy was getting into gear, he summed it up beautifully:

''The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail.''

As I write in my new book, Singaporean Cabinet ministers apparently understand that more clearly than U.S. senators, congressmen and former secretaries of state. Or, as one Baker Commission grandee told the New York Times, ''We had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out.''

An ''exit strategy'' on those terms is the path out not just from Iraq but from a lot of other places, too -- including Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Russia, China, the South Sandwich Islands. For America would be revealed to the world as a fraud: a hyperpower that's all hype and no power -- or, at any rate, no will. According to the New York Sun, ''An expert adviser to the Baker-Hamilton commission expects the 10-person panel to recommend that the Bush administration pressure Israel to make concessions in a gambit to entice Syria and Iran to a regional conference . . .''

On the face of it, this sounds an admirably hard-headed confirmation of James Baker's most celebrated soundbite on the Middle East ''peace process'': ''F - - k the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway.'' His recommendations seem intended to f - - k the Jews well and truly by making them the designated fall guys for Iraq. But hang on: If Israel could be forced into giving up the Golan Heights and other land (as some fantasists suggest) in order to persuade the Syrians and Iranians to ease up on killing coalition forces in Iraq, our enemies would have learned an important lesson: The best way to weaken Israel is to kill Americans. I'm all for Bakerite cynicism, but this would seem to f - - k not just the Jews but the Americans, too.

It would, furthermore, be a particularly contemptible confirmation of a line I heard Bernard Lewis, our greatest Middle Eastern scholar, use the other day -- that ''America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.'' To punish your friends as a means of rewarding your enemies for killing your forces would seem to be an almost ludicrously parodic illustration of that dictum. In the end, America would be punishing itself. The world would understand that Vietnam is not the exception but the rule.

Why We Blog

From 2 Blowhards:

...I'd suggest, the pleasures of self-expression, connecting with other people, and perpetrating some completely-useless mischief. I won't speak for other blog-creatures, but when I write postings or cruise other blogs, I'm pitching in because it's fun and rewarding to meet interesting people and to take part in freewheeling conversations. (Part of the fun, I'd argue, comes from the fact that it's all so defiantly un-sensible in economic terms.) I suppose I like to think that I'm doing my little bit for opening the general culture-conversation up a bit and providing a place where culture-hounds can hang out and compare notes. But mainly I prowl the blog-world because I find it fun and rewarding. And I find it fun and rewarding because ... Well, I don't know really. It just is. So there.

Did Putin Do It?

(Illustration from the Sherlock Holmes Museum, London)

Someone I know, who has a family history of law enforcement (a descendant of county sheriffs and police chiefs) explained to me that it is possible to figure out whether Vladimir Putin is responsible for the radiation poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. It is a matter of deduction of the Sherlock Holmes kind in the story "Silver Blaze."

It is a matter of the dog-that-didn't-bark-in-the-night.

Since in principle official KGB (now FSB) killings are never solved, whether or not this particular case is solved will provide the answer.

If someone is arrested, tried, and convicted in Britain for poisoning Litvinenko, then Putin probably is innocent of the crime.

But if this crime remains forever unsolved, then, as Sherlock Holmes might have said: "Elementary, my dear Watson..."

You can read more about the case in today's Sunday Times (of London).

Taking a break...

I've got some deadlines in the next few weeks, so before the end of the year blogging will be light. Hope to get back up to speed by January, 2008...

Until then, Happy Holidays!

Computer Troubles...and Thanksgiving Wishes

I've been having some problems with my laptop lately, and may have to reboot and reformat the whole thing. So, the blog may be offline for a few days. Meanwhile, to all readers: Happy Thanksgiving!

China Takes Africa

From today's NY Times Magazine article by James Traub:

Angola is a very, very poor country, but it is also an extremely rich one, for immense deposits of oil lie under the South Atlantic Ocean within its territorial waters. Thanks to the growing appetites of several developing nations, China in particular, that need oil to sustain the furious expansion of their economies, last year Angola, which otherwise has almost no economy, had more than $10 billion to play with. And it has used that money to pay more advanced countries to rebuild its infrastructure. This vision — call it “Development by China” — looks like a catastrophic mistake to the Western experts and institutions that have scrutinized, invested in and at times despaired of Angola.

And yet Development by China looks more like Africa’s future than its past. Angola is not alone in having choices, for the high price of oil has begun to transform the prospects of African countries once viewed simply as basket cases. Earlier this month, Nigeria, the continent’s oil giant, signed an $8.3 billion agreement with China to build an 1,800-mile railway. Oil production in Africa is expected to double over the next 20 years while it stays flat or declines in much of the rest of the world. And China has already begun, in myriad ways, to serve the interests of these emerging clients, while the United States, preoccupied with terrorism, has seen its dominant status slip. Angola, once a cold-war pawn, can now serve as a kind of test case in the latest struggle to shape Africa’s destiny. Call it Chinese-style globalization.

Thomas Sowell on Milton Friedman

From Opinionjournal.com:

As one of those privileged to have studied under Friedman, I felt a special loss at his death but also a sense of good fortune to have learned from him, not only when I was at the University of Chicago but also in the years and decades since then. He was a tough, no-nonsense teacher in the classroom but a kind and generous human being outside.

Students were not allowed to walk into his classroom after his lecture had begun, distracting others. Once, I arrived at the door just minutes after Friedman began speaking and had to turn around and go back to the dormitory, wondering all the while whether what he taught that day would be on the next exam. After that, I was always in my seat when Friedman entered the classroom. He was also a tough grader. On one exam, there were only two B’s in the whole class--and no A’s.

The other side of Friedman was his generosity with his time to help students, and even former students. In later years, long after I had left the University of Chicago, he helped me with his criticisms and advice on my work--only when asked. When I was offered an appointment to the Federal Trade Commission in 1976, he was asked by the White House to urge me to accept but he declined to do so. It was the best non-advice I ever got. I would have been miserable at the FTC.
Although in recent years we were both members of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, we each lived miles away and neither of us was physically present there with any great frequency, so the chance that we would both be there on the same day was virtually nil. The last time I saw Friedman in person was in 2004, when we were jointly interviewed on television. Afterwards, he gave me a ride in his little sports car over to the Stanford faculty club, where we joined a group for lunch. Then he drove back to his home in San Francisco, 30 miles away, though he was at the time in his 90s.

More recently, I happened to chat briefly with Friedman on the phone a few days before his death, and found his mind to be as clear and sharp as ever. That will always be a special memory of a very special man, one of the giants of our time--intellectually, morally, and as a human being.

Add This Blog To Your Google Desktop!

Go to Google and open a personalized Google desktop. After clicking the "Add Stuff" link, type this URL:

http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com/atom.xml

You'll receive automatic updates every time a new post has been published.

Milton Friedman, 94

From MichelleMalkin.com:

Today, upon news of the death of Nobel Laureate economist Dr. Milton Friedman, Gordon St. Angelo, president and CEO of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, offered the following statement:

America has lost a true visionary and advocate for human freedom. And I have lost a great friend.

Milton’s passion for freedom and liberty has influenced more lives than he ever could possibly know. His writings and ideas have transformed the minds of U.S. Presidents, world leaders, entrepreneurs and freshmen economic majors alike. The loss of his passion, incisive mind and dedication to freedom are all national treasures that we mourn for today.

Milton never chose to slow down; even at 94 he kept fighting to bring educational equality to all of America’s children. And it’s this vision, this drive for educational liberty that the Friedman Foundation will continue to bring to families throughout America.

His impact on my life over the last 33 years was significant. His impact on the world was momentous. Without a doubt, few people have done more to advance civil and economic liberties throughout the world during their lifetime than Dr. Milton Friedman.

Here's an excerpt from a July, 2006 Wall Street Journal interview which included Mrs. Friedman:

Mr. Friedman here shifted focus. "What's really killed the Republican Party isn't spending, it's Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression." Mrs. Friedman--listening to her husband with an ear cocked--was now muttering darkly.

Milton: "Huh? What?" Rose: "This was not aggression!" Milton (exasperatedly): "It was aggression. Of course it was!" Rose: "You count it as aggression if it's against the people, not against the monster who's ruling them. We don't agree. This is the first thing to come along in our lives, of the deep things, that we don't agree on. We have disagreed on little things, obviously--such as, I don't want to go out to dinner, he wants to go out--but big issues, this is the first one!" Milton: "But, having said that, once we went in to Iraq, it seems to me very important that we make a success of it." Rose: "And we will!"

BTW, Milton Friedman had kind and generous soul. He helped with my book PBS: Behind the Screen-- the final chapter tells the story of how Friedman got Free to Choose on the air, over the opposition of PBS executives. It was based in part on a long on-the-record telephone interview with Friedman, who spoke frankly and at length to a total stranger. He later paid the ultimate compliment a writer can give, when he quoted from my work in his autobiography (co-written with Mrs. Friedman) Two Lucky People:

As Laurence Jarvik writes, "While Galbraith was seen as a moderate by PBS, Friedman, who called himself a liberal and who advocated laissez-faire free-market policies, was viewed as an extremist." He quotes Allen Wallis as saying "The public broadcasting people regarded Friedman as a fascist, an extreme right-winger. They didn't want to have anything to do with him." (p.474)

IMHO, Friedman was a real mensch, who left the world a better place than he found it...

Here's a link to the Free to Choose website. A new PBS show about Friedman is scheduled to air in January, produced by Bob Chitester of the original series. It is called The Power of Choice: The Life and Ideas of Milton Friedman.

Christopher Hitchens on Borat

From Slate:

Is it too literal-minded to point out what any viewer of the movie can see for himself—that the crowd at the rodeo stops cheering quite fast when it realizes that something is amiss; that the car salesman is extremely patient about everything from demands for pussy magnets to confessions of bankruptcy; and that the man in the gun shop won't sell the Kazakh a weapon? This is "compliance"? I have to say, I didn't like the look of the elderly couple running the Confederate-memorabilia store, but considering that Borat smashes hundreds of dollars worth of their stock, they bear up pretty well—icily correct even when declining to be paid with locks of pubic hair. The only people who are flat-out rude and patronizing to our curious foreigner are the stone-faced liberal Amazons of the Veteran Feminists of America—surely natural readers of the New Statesman. Perhaps that magazine's reviewer believes that Borat is genuinely shocked when he finds—by video viewing—that Pamela Anderson has not been faithful to him and he will thus not be the first to "make romance-explosion on her stomitch." (And either the love goddess agreed to stage the moment when Mr. Sagdiyev tries to stuff her into a "wedding bag," or she and her security team displayed a rare indulgence to the mustachioed interloper.)

The joke, in other words, may well be on the prankster. I thought the same about Da Ali G Show. As far as one can tell, most youth culture is as inarticulate and illiterate and mannerless as Sacha Baron Cohen made it out to be: The elderly dupes who did their best to respond (Gen. Brent Scowcroft on the anthrax/Tampax distinction being the most notable) were evidently resigned in advance to quite a low standard of questioning. You can see the same fixed expressions on the faces of politicians when they attend a "real" event, like Rock the Vote, where wry, likable smiles are obligatory, and the only dread is that of appearing uncool.

Having gone this far in a curmudgeonly direction, I may as well add that any act that depends too much on the scatological is in some kind of trouble. Borat—and Borat—rely on excremental humor from the very first frames. This isn't unfunny just because it's infantile and repetitive and doesn't know when to stop; it's unfunny because the revulsion produced by feces is universal and automatic and thus much too easy to exploit. This is especially true when, in a cheap knockoff of Luis Buñuel, our hero decides to introduce the unmentionable topic at the dinner table. (To be honest, I am still reeling at the relative composure of that Birmingham society lady. If I wasn't trying to change the subject, I would say that I admired her phlegm.)

Daniel Pipes on What Went Wrong in Iraq

From his article in The National Interest:

Alongside the easy and fast victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush Administration made a critical conceptual mistake—raising short-term expectations too high. Nomenclature alone required Operation Iraqi Freedom to quickly produce a vibrant, healthy, open, calm Iraq, with anything less constituting failure. Talk of a "free and prosperous" Iraq serving as a regional model foisted ambitions on Iraqis that they—just emerging from a thirty-year totalitarian nightmare, saddled with extremist ideologies, deep ethnic divisions and predatory neighbors—could not fulfill.

As Iraqis failed to play their appointed role, frustration grew in Washington. Deepening the trap of its own making, the administration forwarded these ambitions by bogging itself down in such domestic Iraqi minutiae as resolving inter-tribal conflict, getting electricity and water grids to work and involving itself in constitution writing.

Had the U.S.-led coalition pitched its ambitions lower, aspiring only to a decent government and economy while working much more slowly toward democracy, Iraq's progress over the past four years would be more apparent. The occupying forces should have sponsored a democratically-minded strongman to secure the country and eventually move it toward an open political process; and this approach would have the benefit of keeping Islamists out of power at a moment of their maximal popular and electoral appeal.

Kazakh President to Western Countries: "Don't Tell Us What To Do..."

In case you didn't understand what prime minister Feliks Kulov said in Kyrgyzstan, the president of Kazakhstan also expressed his frustration with foreign meddling, according to Pakistan's Daily Times:

ASTANA: Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev said on Friday his country had had enough of foreign advice and should not “blindly copy” Western models of democracy.

It was not clear what prompted his speech, although it comes in the week that neighbouring Kyrgyzstan changed its constitution to slash its president’s powers and ahead of a likely “no” to Kazakhstan’s chairing the OSCE, a democracy and rights body.

“We already have enough advisers from here and there, from the West and from across the ocean, telling us how to live and work,” Nazarbayev told a congress of the Civic Party, which supports him and is merging with his Otan (Fatherland) party. “Enough already,” he said. “Kazakhstan is not a state that can be ordered about and told what to do. We know what we need to do and do what we need.”

...The only hint that Kyrgyzstan may have been on Nazarbayev’s mind was a reference in his speech to trouble around the world, both “for distant and nearby neighbours”. As recently as September, Nazarbayev publicly repeated that he was still intent on chairing the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 2009, a role he sees as bringing international prestige. The 56-member organisation is due to announce a decision next month. Western states had offered support for his chairmanship in return for democratic progress. But, following Nazarbayev’s Soviet-style 91 percent margin of victory in last December’s election, that support has ebbed.

In his speech, Nazarbayev said: “We should not pull up our trousers and run after every foreign recommendation ... We should not blindly copy foreign schemes.” He said political reforms in Kazakhstan should instead be “balanced” and take into account the people’s will.

Nazarbayev last launched an attack against Western values in June 2005, saying his country could not subscribe to Western-style democracy as it had a different culture and needed to guard against instability in a volatile region.

Christopher Hitchens on the Fall of Donald Rumsfeld

From his Mirror (UK) article, The Man Who Would Not Listen:

Is it only five years since the society columns in Washington were describing Donald Rumsfeld as “hot”, and printing stories about how ladies of a certain age wanted his phone number?

The aplomb he displayed during the campaign in Afghanistan, and the way he seemed to enjoy his press conferences, were just the tonic that the country appeared to need after the humiliation and panic of 11 September.

It didn’t hurt that the Secretary of Defence had been seen in his shirt-sleeves, helping direct rescue operations after a plane ploughed into the Pentagon.

As the Taliban fled and Afghans greeted American soldiers as liberators, the escape of Osama bin-Laden was a detail that could be taken care of later, and “Rummy” seemed able to do no wrong.

By this month, it seemed not only that he could do nothing right, but that everything that had gone wrong was his fault.

President Bush's Veteran's Day Proclamation

From the Veteran's Administration Veteran's Day website:

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

Through the generations, America's men and women in uniform have defeated tyrants, liberated continents, and set a standard of courage and idealism for the entire world. On Veterans Day, our Nation pays tribute to those who have proudly served in our Armed Forces.

To protect the Nation they love, our veterans stepped forward when America needed them most. In conflicts around the world, their sacrifice and resolve helped destroy the enemies of freedom and saved millions from oppression. In answering history's call with honor, decency, and resolve, our veterans have shown the power of liberty and earned the respect and admiration of a grateful Nation.

All of America's veterans have placed our Nation's security before their own lives, creating a debt that we can never fully repay. Our veterans represent the best of America, and they deserve the best America can give them.

As we recall the service of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen, we are reminded that the defense of freedom comes with great loss and sacrifice. This Veterans Day, we give thanks to those who have served freedom's cause; we salute the members of our Armed Forces who are confronting our adversaries abroad; and we honor the men and women who left America's shores but did not live to be thanked as veterans. They will always be remembered by our country.

With respect for and in recognition of the contributions our service men and women have made to the cause of peace and freedom around the world, the Congress has provided (5 U.S.C. 6103(a)) that November 11 of each year shall be set aside as a legal public holiday to honor veterans.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim November 11, 2006, as Veterans Day and urge all Americans to observe November 5 through November 11, 2006, as National Veterans Awareness Week. I encourage all Americans to recognize the valor and sacrifice of our veterans through ceremonies and prayers. I call upon Federal, State, and local officials to display the flag of the United States and to support and participate in patriotic activities in their communities. I invite civic and fraternal organizations, places of worship, schools, businesses, unions, and the media to support this national observance with commemorative expressions and programs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Ann Coulter on the Democratic Victory

From Ann Coulter.com

So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.

Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb — I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.

Kyrgyzstan's Failed November Revolution

While the US elections were coming to a head, an attempted coup has been averted in the former Soviet Republic of Kyrgyzstan. Face-saving compromise language for the constitution provided a fig-leaf for protest organizers, who failed to force the resignation of Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev--their original demand, and impetus for a week of protests. Despite red tents and red flags, these November events did not become another red revolution.

Russian president Vladimir Putin reportedly played a key role in urging Bakiyev to hang on. Kommersant's Mikhail Zygar interviewed one of the leaders of mass protests in Bishkek held on the anniversary of the Russia's October Revolution (actually November 7-8 in the Western calendar). He admitted the coup attempt had failed:

I spoke with senior parliamentarian Dooronbek Sadyrbaev, known in Soviet times as a film director and dissident, in private in a yurt.

“I think we have lost. Yes. The opposition lost,” he said. “The young liberal leaders of our opposition made the same mistake Sartacus did. He didn't want to attack when he had 300,000 people, so he had to attack with 30,000. I tried to convince them that we had to do that as quickly as possible.”

“You were for a coup? For storming the presidential palace?”

“Of course! We had to neutralize Bakiev and Kulov in the first day and not miss the moment. We had to storm the presidential palace and turn them over to a court. Bakiev played for time and our young leaders did not make a decision. But that won't save Bakiev. He won't last to the end of is term.”

The Revolution and Counterrevolution Are One

The parliament waited all day for instructions from the president.

“At first we wanted new parliamentary and presidential elections three months and six months after the new constitution was passed,” parliament member Melis Eshimkanov recounted as he smoked nervously. “But they all wanted to serve out their terms – to 2010. The president and the administration. So we conceded to them. Let them serve their damn terms! Now we are waiting for the president to sign the order.”

A few hours later, the president declared new conditions. Besides the demands the opposition had already accepted, he wanted to be the coauthor of the new constitution, to have the right to approve ministers and appoint judges without consulting with the parliament. The parliament agreed to it. And still the president didn't sign the order.

“He spoke with Putin on the phone Tuesday evening and that gave him new strength,” they said around the parliament.

Olga Mikushina's report on the Central Asian website Ferghana.ru, features an interview with Kyrgyz political scientists Nur Omarov and Alexander Knyazev. Alexander Knyazev also called the events a coup attempt:

Establishment of the Constituent Assembly was illegitimate indeed. I accept it. It was nothing short of a coup d'etat... particularly without the parliamentary quorum.

The two experts go on to argue that the failure of the coup strengthened the current governing "tandem" of Bakiyev and prime minister Felix Kulov, and weakened the parliamentary opposition.

Nur Omarov: Crisis in the camp of the opposition leaders is undeniable nowadays. It should have been expected. Whenever a group is acting against something or someone, its members inevitably end up at each other's throats sooner or later. I'd like to add as well that all of that is happening as though in some other life, leaving society and the population absolutely unaffected. Social protest is what is absent. Neither side in the square included any socially active people. Some turned up because they had been paid to do it, others because they had been forced to (like budget sphere employees) but nobody was a genuine social protester.

Alexander Knyazev: Society is worn down. The population of Bishkek will only rise in response to something like that what happened last March - pogroms and all that. City dwellers will be better organized if it comes to that than residents of rural areas. After all, the former do have something to lose. It's like nomads and farmers. Whenever the former will leave to avoid trouble, the latter will remain and put up a fight to defend what is his.

Question: What turn will the events take now?

Alexander Knyazev: Bakiyev and Kulov need interaction and cooperation. Reinforcement of the executive branch of the government and security structures is what they need.

Nur Omarov: That's right. It is the executive branch of the government that handles the problems the population is facing. Properly or inadequately, regardless of whether it wants it or not. As I see it, an attempt to split the tandem is the worst mistake Bakiyev may make now. Left to their own devices, they are not even nearly as strong as when they operate together. Bakiyev won the November round. It's time Kulov solidified his position. The regime has emerged from the confrontation with the least damage to itself.

Why should Americans care about this?

Because many in Kyrgyzstan appear to believe that the opposition is supported by the European Union and the US government. As in Venezuela, where a failed coup attempt supported by the US strengthened the Chavez regime and increased anti-American sentiment throughout Latin America (Bush just lost Nicagaragua to Daniel Ortega, for example); perception of American and EU meddling in Kyrgyz politics (especially failed meddling) threatens to inflame anti-Americanism throughout Central Asia. Since the US air base in Manas, Kyrgyzstan supports the war in Afghanistan, and might be useful for any operation against Iran, it might be prudent to reconsider continuing any American (or EU) support for the Kyrgyz opposition. Especially given the comments of prime minister Felix Kulov in today's Washington Post:

"The adoption of a constitution within minutes deserves to be in the Guinness Records Book," Kulov said, referring to two quick votes late Wednesday after which parliament adopted the amendments. "We have to be wise to avoid groundless aggravation of the situation and prevalence of unsatisfied ambitions over reason."

Translation for Americans and EU readers: "Leave Kyrgyzstan alone..."