The tragedy in Iraq today is well reported in the New York Times. I am sickened by the hatred of people who find pride and victory in parading and hanging the charred and dismembered corpses of those they call enemies. America is horrified by such base behavior, and rightly so, but we will not falter in our determination to free Iraq.
From the war’s beginning, the Democrat party and the anti-war movement have used derogatory language to describe contracting companies working in Iraq. The strategy has been to portray contracting as an arena for political favors, and contractors as price gauging corporate behemoths. In fact, the dead so horribly abused by Iraqis today, were contractors. They were working for money, but also for American national security and a better life for the Iraqi people. They paid the ultimate price, and more. The next time John Kerry thinks of deriding Bechtel or Halliburton or any other contracting company working in Iraq, he would do well to remember that those companies are represented on the ground in Iraq by Americans who, like our military, are subject to attack from hatred’s foot soldiers.
The horror in Falluja today underscores the importance of liberating Iraq. Falluja is a Baathist stronghold for people who would take power and rule in the manner of Saddam Hussein, a man who killed more Muslims than any other in history. Would you expect civilized behavior from his supporters? We were right going into Iraq to deliver a people from such monsters, and we are right to stay the course.
I received the following message this morning from a friend in the Marine Corps who is fighting the good fight in Iraq. God bless and God speed our soldiers!
"Well to all how are ya doing? Many of you I did not get to say goodbye to, I'm sorry for that but its bad luck to say goodbye to everyone. Well as for me... I’m just a kid in a candy store, and despite those who care all I can say is that I love the challenge over here. The war and the game of it really make you be at your best.
I'll give you my last two days: I gave stitches to a kid who had a nasty cut, and gave out pencils, food, water and paper to an elementary school. Real good stuff right, then these people blow my Hummer up.... it was real close (don’t know how but everyone is alright... thank God for ballistic plates), we get into a fire fight with some punk teenagers who are just trying to be cool and oppose the coalition, find 5 artillery shells wrapped in detonation cord under our vehicle ready to go off, (engineers blew it for them... it was big) watched the local Iraqi police time beat some thief almost to death, then cap the 40 hour op off with me sitting down with the local sheik (who's full of shit and is totally against us but lies to my face for a couple of hours... ah I needed a laugh) drinking tea and smoking some clove cigarettes.
I find one gets the full spectrum of feelings over here... and my job really needs for me to be objective and present compassion... something that I’m slowly loosing.... well anyway i only have so much time in the day... so to all I’ll just say see ya soon."
The Washington Post today reports that the Chinese government has issued a White Paper describing 2003 as, “... a year of great, landmark significance for progress in human rights in the country.” The White Paper is in response to a United States proposal for a resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemning Chinese disregard for human rights.
The Post writes that the White Paper draws attention to Chinese constitutional amendments “... offering specific guarantees that the state must respect human rights and legally obtained private property.” The Post adds that the White Paper accords great significance to the amendments as “... further confirming the prominent status of human rights protection in China's legal system."
The practical effect of that newly prominent status for human rights was captured today in an article in the New York Times: “At least three family members of people gunned down by the Chinese military during the crackdown on dissent in Beijing on June 4, 1989, have been detained, as the authorities seek to prevent protests connected with the 15th anniversary of the massacre, relatives said Monday.”
The arrests of citizens demanding accountability from their government for murdering students in Tiananmen Square would seem unnecessary in a country that gives prominent status to human rights, but the contradiction between word and deed is explained by the self-serving nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
That the White Paper trumpets protections for private property is not surprising at a time when the CCP has opened membership to capitalists. The CCP does not stand for communism (if it ever did) but rather for lining the pockets of party officials. Minus its long discredited communist mission, the CCP is a jack-boot in search of a willing foot. Drawing the upwardly mobile into their embrace allows party leaders to siphon profits from private enterprise while corrupting and controlling competent businessmen who might otherwise champion representative government.
According to the Post, Chinese leaders, “repeatedly have said conditions in China require slow, careful movement toward human rights standards as understood in the West.” The Post quotes Premier Wen Jiabao as saying, “Economic development and the need for stability for now must enjoy the highest priority.” This is doublespeak for policies that enrich party leaders, encourage corrupt business practices, and disenfranchise common people.
The Washington Post on March 26 reported that China has hinted that it will prevent the people of Hong Kong from electing all of their leadership in 2007 in spite of the Basic Law. Hong Kong may be the world’s most magnificent city. It has both the stability and the economic development that are supposedly Jiabao’s highest priority. Nonetheless, he and the Chinese government oppose free elections in Hong Kong.
Also noted in the Washington Post on March 26, China continues to threaten military action against Taiwan should that nation declare sovereignty. Taiwan, like Hong Kong, has both the stability and the economic development that Jiabao claims to prize. Still, he and the Chinese government maintain that the Taiwanese must be crushed like the students in Tiananmen Square if they declare themselves free.
Hong Kong and Taiwan prove that the Chinese people can combine freedom and prosperity in stable societies without need of the CCP. Their success in doing so is the strongest possible argument that the CCP is a problem, not a solution. Political freedoms and human rights are necessary preconditions for stability and prosperity in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and they are necessary for stability and prosperity in China. That the mainland has jack-boot stability but little and uneven prosperity is the inevitable result of a self-serving government that defines human rights in terms of its own interests.
Remember Tiananmen Square!
I am late to do so, but I want to challenge Colbert King’s silly rant in Saturday’s Washington Post. King connects three headline dominating stories relating to the liberation of Iraq- military casualties, Richard Clarke, and Iraqi ingratitude- to argue that our presence in Iraq is for nothing. In fact, it is King’s reasoning that amounts to nothing.
King begins with an emotional description of a young girl weeping on the coffin of Jason Ford, her uncle who was killed in action in Iraq. He notes that the, “… heartbreaking funeral service has been replicated more than 560 times across the country since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a year ago. There are thousands more members of the U.S. armed forces who must now live out their years with broken bodies. And America, because of Iraq, will soon be $100 billion poorer”. He quotes Irene Ford, the dead soldier's stepmother, "Why are our children dying? What is the reason for this young boy to lose his life?"
King then introduces Clarke, taking care to distance himself from the ego and self-promotion that he admits lace the pages of Clarke’s book. He nonetheless gives his imprimatur to Clarke’s argument that the liberation of Iraq was tangential, unnecessary and, “invigorated the radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide and also blew the chance to strike a deadly blow against al Qaeda.” King continues, “By that reckoning, Jason Ford and other American men and women in service to their country died in Iraq for no good reason." He asserts, "That damning judgment answers Irene Ford’s bitter questions.”
King writes, “What have we bought with the tremendous investment of American blood and treasure in Iraq? We have exchanged Hussein and his Baath Party thugs for today's identity politics being practiced by the Shiite Muslim majority, the minority Sunni Muslims and the Kurds. Even as our troops come under rocket attacks, we are busy sprucing up the Iraqi nation with jobs and public works projects that are the envy of America's cities.” As though to clinch the argument, King laments that American lives have been lost to liberate, “the likes of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, now the most important Shiite cleric in Iraq, who, despite our great sacrifices for his country, won't stoop to give American proconsul L. Paul Bremer or any other American a five-minute audience”.
Neither King nor Clarke, makes a compelling argument against the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq. If the Iraq front is tangential in the war against terrorism, why are Islamists filtering into that country and taking time to attack our troops with rockets? If the liberation of Iraq is unnecessary in the war against terrorism, why aren’t the Islamists directing all resources away from Iraq and into the necessary fronts in the war? That King and Clarke do not recognize the threat that a free Iraq poses to the Islamist agenda does mean that the threat doesn’t exist. A more telling indicator that we are on the right track is that Islamists resist our objectives in Iraq.
King expects of a democratic process in Iraq something different from our experience in America. Think about it, King is a liberal Deputy Editor of the Editorial Page of the liberal Washington Post, and he is complaining about identity politics. Would King dare argue that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, NOW and CAIR are unworthy of democratic freedom? Identity politics is nothing more than factionalism, a problem that was considered by the framers of the Constitution and addressed repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. That factionalism rears its ugly head in Iraq is neither a surprise, nor a good reason to deny the Iraqi people freedom.
Most absurdly, King expresses the belief that we are in Iraq for the sake of gratitude. That he uses the militant language of an Ayatollah to argue against liberation of the Iraqi people is as revealing of his thickheaded approach to that country as it is of his ignorance of Islam. The United States spends billions of dollars on social welfare programs, the recipients of which are statistically more likely than non-recipients to engage in criminal behavior. Has King ever argued that such ingratitude should result in an end to social welfare and democratic freedom? It is antithetical to the teaching of Islam that Christian intervention is necessary for the freedom and prosperity of an Islamic country. Muslim clerics are the last people from whom to expect expressions of credit or adulation directed toward the United States. Freedom’s trumpet sounds through the daily interaction of our soldiers with Iraqi civilians. Those civilians do have gratitude for our efforts, a gratitude born of hope.
The United States is liberating Iraq. The job is not complete and the work continues. Jason Ford did not die in vain, but for a just and important cause. More soldiers will be killed in Iraq and other fronts in the war against terrorism as Islamist’s seek to thwart any example of freedom in the Islamic world. The liberation of Iraq and the establishment of a representative government in that country will build momentum for governmental reform throughout the Middle East.
Before Colbert King questions the merits of Iraqi freedom or the price paid for such freedom by brave American soldiers, he should consider the 300,000 political prisoners executed by Hussein in his last ten years in power. Instead of sharing with his audience the venomous words of a Grand Ayatollah, he could share the grief and regret of Iraqis who survive Hussein's victims... that the United States did not act sooner.
From the New York Times, William Safire continues to work the Kofi-Gate story, pressing for a proper investigation of corrupt practices in the United Nations administered Oil For Food Program. Safire does a nice job explaining why the major powers are less than enthusiastic about such an investigation. The French and Russian governments are opposed because their own companies and people participated in the kick-backs and fraud. Sadly, the United States resists (or so Safire explains) to prevent the U.N. retaliating by refusing to recognize a future Iraqi government. Consider the previous sentence; after supporting Saddam Hussein and looting Iraq, the U.N. now threatens to withhold recognition if the new Iraqi government seeks justice. Why does the United States participate in the U.N.?
The Wall Street Journal has made available online, Fouad Ajami's insightful analysis of Muslim migration and assimilation problems in Europe. Ajami provides context for what is a continuation of the historical clash between Europe and the Arab world, and characterizes the current problem as "The Moor's Last Laugh". This, in reference to what history has referred to as the Moor's Last Sigh, issued by the Boabdil, the last Muslim king of Granada, as he left his domain for good. Ajami does not propose solutions, but gives a compelling outline of a deeply entrenched problem.
Richard Clarke continues to dominate the news. His kiss-and-tell book, timed to coincide with his testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (better known as the “9/11 Commission”) will continue to see use as campaign fuel by Democrat partisans who seek to discredit President Bush.
I have not read Clarke’s book, and I do not intend to- I have many more important books to read. I view with great skepticism any man who publicly turns on those with whom he has served. There is a time and a place for memoirs about public service- the time and place are always after the administration in which the writer served has left office. As well, there is a time and a place for whistle blowing, but Clarke is not blowing a whistle so much as arguing policy differences. His publication of a book that attacks former colleagues, the release of which was timed to maximize the commercial advantage of his public testimony is bad form.
I listened to Clarke’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission and could not help but regret that he chose the low road on his way out of the Bush administration. His depth and breadth of experience in multiple administrations could provide the country with valuable anti-terror insight- too bad he was overshadowed by a partisan storm of his own making.
Clarke made one objectionable statement, echoing a Democrat sentiment that is a cliché, “… the reason I am strident in my criticism of the President of the United States is because by invading Iraq -- something I was not asked about by the commission, it's something I chose write about a lot in the book -- by invading Iraq the President of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism.”
Democrats often assert that the liberation of Iraq has increased Arab hostility toward the United States and swelled the ranks of terrorist organizations. They reason that this is a setback in the war on terror. In fact, the liberation of Iraq, which is ongoing, is a necessary battle in the campaign for victory over Islamism. By freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, rebuilding their infrastructure, helping them to install a representative government, and then pulling back as they take first steps as a free people, the United States will demonstrate a commitment to freedom for all people. This demonstration of commitment will not go unnoticed by Muslims, most of who live under varying degrees of tyranny.
What I have just described will not happen without significant setbacks. Iraq is a volatile combination of Shiite, Sunni and Kurd with much enmity between these groups. The Islamists understand the high stakes in play in the Iraq front and exploit religious and ethnic hatred for recruiting and operations. Nonetheless, if the United States stays the course, stability and prosperity will begin to fill the political and economic vacuum that is public life in Iraq today. In so doing, the Iraqi people will see and seize upon the opportunity of a better life for their children.
Clarke’s assertion that the liberation of Iraq undermines the war against terrorism is premised on the idea that no one in the Islamic world will notice or care that the United States, in ending Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror, has saved the lives of approximately ten thousand Iraqi political prisoners each year going forward. In fact, when it becomes impossible for hatred’s foot soldiers to insist that the United States is a permanent occupier of Iraq and is stealing Iraqi oil (in other words, when sovereignty is fully in the hands of Iraqis) our liberation of Iraq will begin to drive a wedge between Islamists and moderate Muslims throughout the world.
In the long term, the liberation of Iraq will prove invaluable in the war against terrorism. If the United States stays the course, continued diplomatic, economic and military pressure on multiple fronts, covert and overt, will result in change as radical as that in Iraq, in countries including Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc. Each of these fronts will create circumstances that can be construed as setbacks in the war against terrorism, but war is about overcoming setbacks. Each of these fronts will benefit from the perception, held by ordinary Muslims as a result of our freeing Iraq, that the United States will act in their interests too.
From the nationalist movement that gave the world the "spiritual leadership" of Sheik Ahmad Yassin comes the latest terror bomber. As reported by the Guardian, "The Israeli army said yesterday that Hassam Mohammed Hufni Abdo, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy who tried to kill soldiers at a West Bank checkpoint with a belt of explosives strapped to his body, would have been the youngest Palestinian suicide bomber." Consider the perversion of one's human nature necessary for one to intimidate a 14 year old boy into an act of suicide and murder. Would you negotiate with such people?
A couple of weeks ago I noted an editorial in the Boston Globe about the abysmal rate of graduation amongst college basketball players, especially amongst black basketball players. Thanks to William for bringing to my attention another article on the subject in the Cincinnati Enquirer, which reports, "... that 10 of the schools in this week's round of 16 have failed to graduate even half of their players in recent years." A snapshot of graduation rates at major NCAA basketball programs can be seen here, the story it tells is not nice.
The Enquirer quotes the author of the study, Richard Lapchick, on the opportunity that the graduation scandal provides for Myles Brand, President of the NCAA, "I think he's got a moment in time, where there have been enough scandals happening, to try to mobilize college presidents to say this is an embarrassment to us as a group. We have this window here, let's use it to do something real."
Brand apparently hopes to "... reward or punish schools by tying the number of scholarships to graduation rates." But Lapchick warns, "The challenge is that there are going to be a lot of powerful coaches who will argue that this would deny opportunities, particularly to African-American students who wouldn't be able to come to their schools under a system like that."
I recall John Thompson, when he was basketball coach at Georgetown, making the same argument in favor of athletic scholarships for black students. Then as now this argument is fallacious. To do away with athletic scholarships does not mean that the money saved may not be applied in the form of academic scholarships for black students. It does mean that athletic ability will not drive the award of scholarships.
Allen Iverson attended Georgetown on an athletic scholarship and left college to join the NBA before graduating. Would Thompson or any other coach really argue that developing Iverson's NBA potential was a good use of scholarship money. Could not Georgetown have found an academically gifted, or even a struggling but academically motivated black student who would have graduated into a better life with scholarship assistance?
The ability to make three point shots does not correlate with the ability to maintain a 3.0 grade average. In fact, the statistics behind the scandal point to the opposite conclusion, that athletic scholarships are usually given to students with little academic inclination, and that those students are not pushed by coaches, teachers or administrators to complete school.
Students competing for public scholarships should have confidence that the overiding factor in their award is academic inclination. More importantly, society should have confidence that dollars invested in scholarships (by the public as a whole, or by individuals) will be used to educate future doctors, writers, thinkers, and businessmen- not to exploit would be athletes.
The New York Times this morning ran a predictably slanted discussion of Israel's execution yesterday of Sheik Ahmed Yassin under the title, "Wave of Anger Rolls Across Arab World". No surprise there- a wave of anger rolls across the Arab world whenever Israel asserts its right of soveriegnty and security.
The Times wrote about regional leaders "... criticizing Israel for ratcheting up the violence at a time when the first tentative steps toward peace were being taken in almost four years." Never mind that the last set of tentative steps toward peace (following the Dayton Accords) were shattered by an intifada that was engineered by Yassin and his fellow bigots. The Times prefers the delusion that Yassin would reverse course on a lifetime of bigotry and support peace and coexistence with Israel.
The Times also wrote that "...the heads of important Islamic institutions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere deplored the Israeli slaying of one of their own, and gave their approval for acts of revenge. None failed to point out that Sheik Yassin was a crippled man confined to a wheelchair who was killed just as he finished the dawn prayers." The Times did not add that ALL failed to point out that Yassin was a mass murderer responsible for planning and exhorting the death and injury of countless Israeli civilians.
In fact, the whole of the Times article betrays both anti-Israel bias and gross ignorance of Middle East affairs. For example, the Times writes, "... no Arab leader is likely to have shared any great affinity with the sheik's extremist Hamas movement..." No explanation is forthcoming from the Times as to why the Arab leaders it claims have no affinity with Hamas, have in fact funded Hamas through the years. The closing paragraph of the article quotes Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's "most important Shiite cleric" as chastising Israel and calling for "...Arab and Islamic unity and "liberation of the usurped land."" One wishes the Times would take a moment to compare Sistani's statement with the Hamas Charter, note that both call for the destruction of Israel on behalf of Islam, and then dare report that no Arab leaders have an affinity with Hamas.
Finally, the Times writes, "Analysts suggested that by killing Sheik Yassin, Israel risks pushing Hamas into becoming an even more radical organization and diminishing what is already weak support for any peace negotiations." Hamas exists to destroy Israel. With this in mind, one wonders what the so-called analysts have in mind when they predict increased radicalism- perhaps an amendment to the Hamas Charter demanding the destruction of Israel, not once but twice.
Sheikh Ahmad Yassin is dead, and the world is better without him. The so-called “Spiritual Leader” of the hate brigade, Hamas, was eviscerated this morning by missiles launched from Israeli helicopters. In response, Arabs took to the streets of the Middle East threatening to open the gates of hell against Israel. As if Israel is not already under siege by forces of bigotry and racism.
Pity the Palestinian people. Not for the death of Yassin, but for their lack of leaders, spiritual or otherwise, capable of bringing about peaceful coexistence with Israel. The gist of Yassin’s leadership is found in the decidedly unspiritual words of the Hamas Covenant of 1988, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” This language and the leadership that brings it to life use Palestinians and the cause of Palestinian nationalism as a means to an end in the larger game of Islamic triumphalism.
Yassin and his foul ilk would, through Jihad, force upon the Jews of Israel choices consistent with Sharia and Islamic history: death; conversion to Islam; or dhimmitude. For the closed minded Islamist, this sort of choice represents not a step down from representative democracy, but a step up to divine justice. For thinking human beings everywhere, however, the choice proffered by Hamas is a step toward slavery.
Israel has a moral obligation to negotiate a peace that involves living side-by-side with a Palestinian state. In reaching for this objective, however, Israel is not obligated to coddle mass murderers who would do all in their power to prevent a two state solution. Palestinians too, have a moral obligation to negotiate a peace that involves living side-by-side with Israel. The death of Yassin is little more than the clearing of a piece of human excrement from the path to meaningful negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians.
Thank you to Elizabeth for calling my attention to "KidsPost", a special section of the Washington Post published for young readers. On Wednesday that section featured a lengthy article on the subject of gay marriage written in what no doubt was intended to be fair and balanced terms. I don't know what age group is targeted by KidsPost, but the article interviewed a ten year old boy living happily with his "moms". I suspect the target audience was children of a similar age.
Not surprisingly, the boy doesn't understand the fuss around gay marriage and thinks things are fine at home. I trust he is a good boy in a happy home, but I don't believe that he or any other ten year old has the emotional and intellectual maturity to discern comparative advantages and disadvantages between children in gay and straight marriages. More to the point, if I am right about the age of the target audience, they are equally unprepared to make such distinctions.
A sidebar to the article notes that a number of religions and social movements oppose gay marriage, and that others support gay marriage. This, I suppose, is intended to provide perspective to the "balanced report" on the subject. All very good for the kids, but for one missing detail. If there is to be balance, where is the interview with a child whose experience in a gay family is not ideal? Obviously, such reporting would not make good copy for young readers, and would be politically incorrect to boot.
That the Post cannot present a truly balanced discussion of a controversial subject in a report intended for young readers because the requirements of such balance are beyond the maturity of those readers is reason enough not have broached the subject in KidsPost in the first place. It also was reason enough for Elizabeth to cancel her subscription.
While looking for Internet citations on Yasir Arafat's comparison of the Oslo Accords with the Treaty of Hudaibiya for use in my discussion of Islamist Expedience, I came across an interesting controversy involving Congressman Jim Saxton and the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Saxton made reference to Islamic expediency and the Treaty of Hudaibiya in a 1998 internet article. CAIR responded with outrage and initiated a campaign to force an apology. The CAIR press release is interesting for it's scrubbed-for-Western-consumption interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the Treaty of Hudaibiya and the conquest of Mecca. Read the CAIR materials but keep in mind that Bernard Lewis, the preeminent living scholar of the Middle East, holds that an oft used doctrine of expediency grew out of the traditional (i.e. not-scrubbed-for-Western-consumption) Islamic understanding of the Treaty of Hudaibiya.
Perhaps more revealing of the truth, is CAIR's failure to demand an apology from Yasir Arafat for his reference to Islamic expediency and the Treaty of Hudaibiya.
On Wednesday, an Islamist group claiming links to Al Qaeda released a letter instructing terrorists in Spain to stop operations. The letter was received and published by the London based Arab news daily, al-Hayat, and is referenced in an online report by Reuters.
Citing the recent Spanish vote for a change of government, and the campaign promise of the incoming Socialist party to withdraw Spanish troops from the Iraqi front, the letter states that, “… the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq." The letter also urges, “… all the brigades present in European lands: Stop all operations."
The letter has been much analyzed by the media in the context of Spanish and European politics and the dilemma posed by Spanish participation in the liberation of Iraq. To withdraw troops in the aftermath of the March 11 train bombings may be construed as rewarding terror. On the other hand, the incoming Socialist party campaigned on exactly that promise for months before the Madrid attacks and is understandably reluctant to stand down from it. This dilemma reveals the shrewdness of Islamist planners in manipulating the anti-war position of opposition political parties in those countries counted amongst the “Coalition of the Willing”.
The media has not, to my knowledge, analyzed the language used by the Islamists in the letter, specifically, the reference to the “Spanish territories” and the offer of a “truce.” There is no proof of a connection between the authors of the letter and the sponsors of the train bombings; however, the language in the letter is every bit as purposeful as the planning that went into the bombing.
Referring to Spain as a territory is a subtle reference to Islamic doctrine, which divides the world into two parts, Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War). Dar al-Islam refers to the land of the Muslims under the historical Caliphate and is defined in the most expansive terms. Any land that has been ruled by Muslims is considered an irrevocable part of Dar al-Islam. Spain, for example, is considered Dar al-Islam, as are Portugal, India and Israel. Describing Spain as a “territory” carries the semantic implication that Islam has a claim to governance over Spanish people and lands.
The concept of “truce” also has specific meaning in Islamic history and doctrine. A story central to the Koran and the life of Muhammad involves his entering into a truce with the tribes of Mecca in 628 AD. In the Treaty of Hudaibiya, Muhammad agreed that he would refrain from attacking Mecca in exchange for pilgrimage access to holy sites in the city. He later broke the truce and conquered the city, establishing a precedent that was used by the Caliphs to justify entering into and breaking treaties according to the needs of Islam.
One might think understanding Islamist language and the history from which it is derived a waste of time, but such an understanding is critical in the war against terror. Islam is both a religion of conquest and a highly codified religion. Islamist leaders today are well versed in the details of their faith. They understand the roots and doctrine of Islam and are faithful in pressing their interpretation of both in the active service of Jihad.
For example, the Western media often mention the first demand of the early fatwahs issued by Osama bin Laden- that the American military presence be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia. Rarely mentioned are the other demands contained in the fatwahs, namely, that Muslims reconquer Dar al-Islam and that they then engage in Jihad to Islamicize the whole of the world. When bin Laden issued his early fatwahs he lacked the international notoriety that followed with the World Trade Center attack on 11 September 2001. We now know he will not recoil from murder, but do we take seriously his stated objectives.
In another example, documented by Commentary Magazine (subsciption necessary), Yasir Arafat, in a private meeting with South African Muslim leaders, defended entering into the Oslo Accords as an act of expediency comparable to the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Arafat’s response demonstrates that he and other Muslim leaders understand the precedent established in the Treaty of Hudaibiya and believe it valid even today. In hindsight, the incitement and manipulation of the second Intifadah is predictable from a man who entered the Oslo Accords out of Islamic expediency.
The West must understand the language and history of Islam in order to appreciate Islamist objectives and anticipate Islamist tactics. Perhaps of greater importance, to accept Islamic semantics without argument is the beginning of dhimmitude.
The internationalists who infest the Democrat party and the governments of Old Europe, China and Russia have long argued against United States intervention in Iraq. Throughout the past year's liberation of that country, they have insisted that only the United Nations has the moral authority to guide the direction of Iraq. It is predictable, therefore, that they are silent about evidence of massive corruption in the United Nation's oversight of the so called "Oil For Food" program.
Building on a story by Claudia Rosett in National Review, William Safire draws attention to the scandal in the New York Times this morning- a $2.3 billion scandal that involves Kojo Annan, son of the U.N. Secretary General, and Benon Sevan, the man personally selected by the Secretary General to oversee the Oil For Food program. Safire opines,
"Under the U.N. bureaucracy's nose- and I suspect, in some cases, with its collusion- nearly three-quarters of the suppliers jacked up their prices to pay the 10 percent kickback. These included European manufacturers, Arab trade brokers, Russian factories and Chinese state-owned companies. Corruption's take- out of the mouths of hungry Iraqi children- was estimated... at $2.3 billion."
Kojo Annan is associated with a Swiss consultancy that was, coincidentally of course, awarded the Oil For Food administrative contract. No word from the consultancy as to whether the younger Annan received compensation for the contract award, and of course our moral superiors at the U.N. insist the award was merit based. Safire notes that the Wall Street Journal has obtained, "a document in Arabic that suggests Sevan received an allocation of 1.8 million barrels of oil." This, after Sevan denied receiving oil or oil related monies.
The people of Iraq wait for an honest audit of the whole proceeding- I hope they aren't holding their collective breath. In the meantime, the U.N. refuses to list the companies that benefited from the Oil For Food program. I expect that they are domiciled in exactly those countries whose sanctimonious leaders are so angered by the liberation of Iraq, a liberation they vehemently opposed.
The 2004 NCAA Basketball Tournament begins on Thursday, showcasing what is in athletic terms, a sporting institution, but what is in academic terms nothing short of a debacle.
In a timely bit of reporting, the Boston Globe today noted that the NCAA has decided not to divulge the graduation rates of basketball players at NCAA institutions. This decision results from an interpretation of federal law that would suppress, "information on any category containing only one or two students". The thinking seems to be that if only one or two students on a basketball team actually graduate, the result can be suppressed.
The Globe writes that, "Because of the new rules, 37 of the 65 men's teams in this year's tournament did not publish graduation rates of their African-American players. Sixteen schools published no graduation rates at all." Looking at graduation rates reported in previous years, the Globe article highlights more than a handful of major public universities with a zero percent rate of graduation for black students, and an appalling low (from 10 to 33 percent) overall graduation rates. One school actually reported a zero percent overall graduation rate.
I enjoy college sport as much as the next fellow, but I have never been able to rationalize the subsidy of academics on the basis of athletic ability. I appreciate the ideal of the student-athlete, but in public education that ideal is dead. Compounding the problem, when college sport becomes a national distraction it eclipses and degrades the academic purpose of colleges and universities. Zero percent graduation rates prove this point.
The Globe article values this year's tournament at close $10 billion. With such a market at stake, is there any doubt that private enterprise could create a league of young players, properly compensated for their efforts, and having nothing to do with colleges and universities.
If one has the mind for it, one should pursue a rigorous college education. If one has the body and inclination for competitive athletics, one should pursue paid sport. The two should not, and need not be entangled.
Now... off the soapbox and Go Wildcats!
The train bombings in Madrid demonstrate anew the rotten fruit of Islamism. Not that further demonstration was needed- God fearing people the world over have seen enough of the death and destruction that result from Islamist teachings to know that Satan fills terrorist hearts.
The Spanish people, lead by Jose Maria Aznar, have been brothers-in-arms in the war on terror. We in America thank them for their bravery and perseverance. We honor the Spanish soldiers serving in Iraq, and we mourn the Spanish dead in Madrid. God rest their souls.
There is some evidence that the outgoing Popular Party manipulated facts relating to the bombing in an attempt to pin early blame on the Basque separatist movement, and thereby gain votes. To be clear, there is no excuse for politicizing tragedy. If true, such conduct merits a change in government. When Bill Clinton disgraced the Presidency by lying and obstructing justice, no amount of good that might result from his continuing in office could overcome the damage he had done to the United States. Despite the assertions of his supporters, and his managing to survive impeachment proceedings, a thriving stock market was no penance for his perfidy. Some political acts are so base that a change in office is required. This was true with Clinton, and if the allegations of spin and manipulation bear out, it also true with the Spanish Popular party.
The Spanish people found themselves grappling with much more than domestic politics and policy direction, however, and the war on terror is the worse for their decision. From the Islamist perspective, the incoming Socialist government with its promise to withdraw troop support from the Iraq front is the exact result sought from the train bombings. The lesson that resonates is that terror can manipulate Western elections to the benefit of Islamists.
It is an old lesson. Osama bin Laden believed the West incapable of sustained military response when faced with body counts, a belief he came to by watching America’s muted reaction to terrorism, for example: withdrawing from Lebanon in 1983 after 243 marines were murdered in a barracks bombing, and withdrawing from Somalia after 18 soldiers were killed in Mogadishu. Al Qaeda planned and executed two attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. America’s response to the first attack in 1993, which killed 6 people but failed to destroy the building, was negligible. This reinforced the Islamist belief that America was weak and vulnerable.
The temerity of the West in responding to terrorism also reinforced the Islamist belief that Allah sanctions their depravity. Muslims take seriously the Koran’s claims to be a literal dictation from Allah. Islamists approach recent history by emphasizing the theological triumphalism that pervades the Koran. In the Koran, Allah tells Mohammed that his military victories result from doing Allah’s work. In other words, one finds the voice and approval of Allah in military victory. Islamists argue that the current ascendancy of dar al-Harb (the House of War) over dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) indicates that Muslims, in seeking coexistence with the West, have ceased to do Allah’s will. Islamists reason that dar al-Islam will again be ascendant when Muslims take seriously the obligation to Jihad. Islamists view Western temerity as a Koranic proof, reasoning that that unavenged or under avenged terrorist strikes demonstrate Allah’s approval of Jihad.
Should the incoming Socialist government make good on its promise and withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, Islamists will have further reason to conclude as with previous terrorist attacks, that the West is weak and vulnerable, and that Allah favors Jihad.
Speaking on Meet The Press this morning, Howard Dean bore witness to his moral blindness. In lashing out against the war that liberated Iraq, Dean characterized Saddam Hussein as, "...a pathetic old man who we'd been containing for 12 years by overflights". Dean added, "We had sanctions on him that were paralyzing him."
What Dean failed to explain is how a supposedly pathetic old man, contained by overflights and paralyzed by sanctions, could be responsible for what Human Rights Watch characterized in a 2002 policy paper as, "... a vast number of crimes that constitute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity." Human Rights Watch continued, "The victims of such crimes include up to 290,000 persons who have been 'disappeared' since the late 1970s, many of whom are believed to have been killed."
If Saddam Hussein seems pathetic in photographs that emerged from his capture, it is because President Bush led the liberation of Iraq that forced Hussein to hide in "spider holes" for months on end. The moral vision of Bush makes possible the moral blindness of Dean, John Kerry (the candidate for whom Dean was campaigning on Meet the Press) and the Democrat party.
Dean also failed to explain how Uday and Qusay, the sadistic sons of Saddam Hussein and the presumed heirs to his reign of terror, fit into his theory of a pathetic and paralyzed Iraq from which we had no worries.
Dean's remarks reveal an ignorance of international affairs and a callousness toward the hundreds of thousands who have died at the hands of a mass murderer. Needless to say, were either Dean or Kerry occupant of the White House at the time of the World Trade Center attack, Hussein would still be in the business of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity and no one would be calling him pathetic, old or paralyzed.
Dean's mouth lost him the Democrat party nomination, it now ends his hope of being seen as a serious person.