Torture Or No Torture?

This Associated Press story describes the findings of a Red Cross report on treatment of terrorists detained and interrogated by the CIA in secret prisons. The terrorists were interviewed by the The Red Cross and given the opportunity to describe their conditions of confinement and the interrogation techniques employed on them.

"The Red Cross said the techniques reported by the 14 prisoners, including sleep deprivation and the use of forced standing and other 'stress positions,' were particularly harsh when used together. The prisoners were transferred from CIA custody to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September.
The CIA's detention methods were designed to make detainees more likely to talk during interrogation. Human rights organizations say the CIA's extreme detention conditions and its coercive questioning techniques constitute torture.
The report is the first independent accounting of the detainees' allegations against the CIA since its detention and interrogation program began in 2002." (Here.)

Notice anything that the detainees did not describe about the treatment they received? That's right, no allegations of real torture techniques, specifically, waterboarding.

Not to worry, the reporter helpfully inserts a description of the technique near the end of the story in a paragraph that confuses more than clarifies.

"Widely reported interrogation practices included openhanded slapping, induced hypothermia, sleep deprivation and – perhaps most controversially – waterboarding. In that technique, a detainee is made to feel he is drowning."

It's impossible to tell from this paragraph whether the detainees claimed these techniques were used against them, or if they are simply techniques that have been widely reported in the media and included in this story as a smear.

-tdr

Technorati: War, Terrorism, Torture.

Look Out Satan, Here Comes Saddam!

According to Al Jazeera unconfirmed reports out of Iraq claim that Saddam Hussein has been executed. (Here.) Sweet! Congratulations to the Iraqi people on doing with their former dictator what a farcical UN tribunal was unable to do with Slobodan Milosevic: mete out swift and appropriate justice.

This has been a good week for America and our allies and a bad week for our enemies. Ethiopia routs the Islamists in Somalia and Iraq executes the Butcher of Baghdad. Maybe these are signs of hope for better times in 2007.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, war, terrorism.

How Far Should We Go In Fighting Islamism At Home?

Daniel Pipes recently blogged about a survey of the attitudes of some American Muslims who attended an Islamic conference. (Here.) The question below and its subparts elicited strong negative answers, as the numbers reveal.

It would be interesting to poll the Democratic Party's leadership for their answers.

15. Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America:

a. taking religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports?
Yes 37
No 258
Undecided 12

b. monitoring activities at American mosques?
Yes 43
No 255
Undecided 9

c. listening to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda?
Yes 64
No 232
Undecided 11

d. having an informer pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to attack American targets?
Yes 35
No 258
Undecided 14

e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?
Yes 52
No 242
Undecided 13

f. focusing Immigration & Customs Enforcement resources on deporting Muslim illegal aliens, who have not been convicted of terrorism, in the hopes of disrupting possible Al Qaeda attacks?
Yes 29
No 263
Undecided 15

g. allowing Muslim illegal aliens to stay in America if they agree to work as informants, monitoring the Muslim community for the government?
Yes 21
No 277
Undecided 9

h. torturing suspected Al Qaeda members to get information about possible planned attacks?
Yes 14
No 278
Undecided 15

I would answer "yes" to each subpart, except "h."

-tdr

Technorati: War on Terror, terrorism, islam.

War? What War?

The Democratic Party has a survey at DCCC.org that asks voters how they feel about the Dims' plans when they officially take over the Congress. (Here.) The survey has to be seen to be believed.

There are 9 questions and 8 are about domestic concerns such as the minimum wage, health care, oil prices, spending, education, etc., etc., ect. There is one question about the war that asks voters whether they agree with the Dims' plan to enact all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Here's what that priceless question says: "Ensuring the safety and security of America requires that we implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission. We will move quickly to implement the Commission’s recommendations."

I feel safer already. And more secure.

The survey has a space at the end for personal comments. Here's mine:

"Hey, how about supporting pro-active measures in fighting the war on Islamist Jihad. This 9/11 commission stuff is all about being defensive. The only way we can beat these guys is by keeping them off balance by being on the attack. Support aggressive actions in surveillance, in disrupting financing, in undermining regimes that support terrorsts, like Syria's and Iran's and others, support the classification of captured foreign terrorists as illegal enemy combatants triable in special military commissions, stop the focus on getting the troops out of Iraq and change the focus to supporting the mission of the troops and demanding that the administration do whatever it takes to achieve victory. In other words, get serious about fighting our enemy. Do all that, and I could care less what you do on the less important domestic issues."

Not holding my breath.

-tdr

Technorati: terrorism, war, politics, Democrats.

How Iraq Hurts The War On Islamist Jihad.

Opponents of the liberation of Iraq claim America's failure to catch Osama Bin Laden so far is proof that Iraq is a distraction. Not so.

The real problem with the unresolved conflict in Iraq is that it leaves the United States unable to combat Islamist insurgencies when they crop up elsewhere. Ethiopia shouldn't have to be leading the fight against the Islamists in Somalia. (Here.) We're fortunate that Ethiopia has the ability and the will to take on the fight for us.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, Terrorism, War on Terror.

The Best 9/11 Movie: The Hamburg Cell

The great flaw of the movie United 93 was that it merely chronicled the events of September 11th. By the end of the movie the audience understood nothing about the passengers who won America's only victory on that day. The artistic decisions to avoid even identifying the passengers and to tell a story of heroism without heroes resulted in a movie with a large hole at its center.

The Hamburg Cell, on the other hand, tells the story of the 9/11 hijackers in depth. The movie follows the lives of the primary hijackers, first in Germany and then in America, as they give their lives over to jihad. The plot focuses on the hijacker who will pilot United Flight 93. He changes from a clean-shaven, modern, lax Muslim with a live-in girlfriend into a bearded, true believer, who seeks to dominate his wife, and who ultimately lies to her about everything he is doing.

The dominant feeling elicited by United 93 was tension, which transformed into rage during the movie's last moments depicting the passengers' counter-attack. The Hamburg Cell creates horror by having us watch the transformation of ordinary Muslim men into cold killers. The movie is a psychological horror story of men giving themselves over to evil in a very matter of fact fashion. Throughout the movie the men remain very ordinary in appearance and outward behavior, illustrating Hannah Arendt's 20th Century insight about the banality of evil.

The Hamburg Cell is available on Netflix. It is directed by the gifted Antonia Bird, whose previous horror movie is Ravenous, which told a story of cannibalism in America's Old West.

-tdr

Technorati: United 93, The Hamburg Cell, film, Movies.

When "Jaw-Jaw" Is No Better Than "War-War."

When Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball talks about Iraq he likes to dredge up the 1954 statement from Winston Churchill about diplomacy being better than war. The quote goes something like "It is always better to jaw-jaw than to war-war" or "It is better to talk jaw to jaw than to have war." (Here.)

That the quote came from one of the greatest war-time leaders of the 20th Century, who spent his time before he became Prime Minister futilely warning the West about Hitler, appears to be lost on Matthews. If Churchill were alive today he might amend his quote to say, "It is better to talk jaw to jaw than to have war. Except when it's not."

Today America is being led to believe that we need to talk to Iran about achieving stability in Iraq. As if Iran can be a partner in peace. As if Iran even wants stability in Iraq.

"Iran's Revolutionary Guards are training hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters to carry out attacks against coalition forces throughout the Middle East. ...

"Al Qaeda fighters stay at guest houses on the outskirts of Tehran used by the Revolutionary Guards for conducting training in sophisticated terror techniques. Some of the training is carried out by the guards' elite Quds (Jerusalem) force, their main paramilitary unit. Apart from standard training in firearms and combat drill, the fighters all learn how to prepare car bombs.

"Many of those trained in Iran then travel to countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where they use their new skills to carry out attacks on coalition troops." (Here.)

Iran does not want stability in Iraq. Iran is using Iraq as a battlefield in its war against the United States. Rather than making a deal with Iran, America needs to recognize that defeating Iran is a necessary precondition to winning the war on Islamist Jihad.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, War, Iran.

The Real Meaning Of President Bush In Vietnam.

Much is being made of the President's visit to Vietnam. Apparently, Ted Koppel joked recently about Bush joining the National Guard to avoid Vietnam but now going there. Ha, ha, that is so funny, Ted. What a laugh riot. And what irony. What a shallow point of view.

The real significance of Bush's trip to Vietnam is much darker and not funny at all. Three decades ago America abandoned Vietnam and stood by while it was overrun by the Communists from North Vietnam. Today, America is once again poised to abandon a fight and leave allies to their fate. The Dims and the media are finally getting their Vietnam in Iraq.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, Politics, Bush, Vietnam.

Whither Iraq?

Now that the Democrats have taken the House and the Senate what will they do about the war? One thing that's not too promising is the statement by the Democrat's leader, Nancy Pelosi, the next Speaker of the House, that Iraq is not a war to be won, but a situation to be solved.

It's bad enough that so many Dims seem to think the war against terrorism is not a real war. Now apparently, their leader believes even the war in Iraq is not a war. Whatever. It's ironic evidence of the denial Dims are in about the current state of the world. For all the talk about the President being in a state of denial at least he recognizes that America is fighting a war.

So what is next for Iraq? Washington is waiting for the Iraq Study Group report to give everybody political cover to do something. If the report leads to a bipartisan consensus on how to achieve success in Iraq, it will be useful. But if the report just gives Washington cover for America to wash its hands of Iraq and fully withdraw from the country, it will be a tragic mistake and a repeat of the mistake we made in Vietnam.

The mistake of Vietnam was not getting involved. The mistake of Vietnam was abandoning our Vietnamese allies. That abandonment led to more violence in Southeast Asia in the immediate aftermath of South Vietnam's fall and to 30 years of oppression in Vietnam.

More important, Vietnam started a pattern of American conduct which has emboldened the Islamist Jihadists fighting us. In their view, they don't have to defeat us militarily. All they have to do to win is bloody America enough so that America withdraws on its own. Witness Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and now Iraq.

If America "redeploys" out of Iraq and leaves the Iraqis to their own devices, it will be trumpeted as a victory by the Islamist Jihadists, it will embolden them to fight us harder, and it will attract more followers to their cause. The risk to America is great at this time. The recent election of the anti-war Democrats reveals that America is losing its resolve and listening to its fears.

Despite this there is one hopeful sign in this article. Retreat disguised as redeployment may be giving way to a true redeployment strategy that will not abandon Iraq.

"In calling for a timeline for U.S. troop reductions, some Democrats have advocated a parallel increase in the number of U.S. military trainers to improve the quality of Iraqi security forces. Some have called for maintaining substantial numbers of U.S. ground forces in nearby Kuwait – or perhaps at major bases in parts of Iraq, such as the Kurdish-dominated north, that have lower levels of violence.

Under this scenario, the U.S. troops would generally be pulled out of harm's way in Iraq, but could act as a 'quick-reaction force' to reinforce Iraqi security personnel if overwhelmed by insurgent attacks." (Here.)

If we're going to redeploy it's better to keep troops in Iraq. If we redeploy all of them elsewhere, there's no way we'd ever send them back in again. We owe it to the Iraqis who relied on us, especially the Kurds, to stay. But especially we owe it to ourselves to stick this out. If we retreat from Iraq it will reinforce our enemy's perception that America is a paper tiger and embolden them to attack us elsewhere. You want more terrorism? Then abandon Iraq.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, War.

Rats Jumping Ship?

This Vanity Fair piece (here) about neocon recriminations over Iraq is disgusting. The piece runs quotes in which all the big neocons who supported the liberation of Iraq and the Bush Administration's war strategy to attack terrorism by pushing democratic regime change turn on the President. The story will be told in full in January's edition but the magazine has published a preview. Just in time for the November midterm election. What an odd coincidence.

The preview presents quote after quote from prominent neocons all turning on the President or his Iraq policy. It's a shameless display of rats seeking to protect their personal reputations. In their defense several of the neocons quoted in the piece claim that Vanity Fair is distorting their positions. (Here.) Let's hope so.

America is passing through one of the most difficult periods in its history. The threat from Islamist Jihadism is real yet many discount the threat. The President and his neocon supporters saw that threat more plainly than many and pushed an aggressive strategy to fight it.

This war is a contest of wills. The side that loses the will to fight first will be the side that loses. The Democrats have lacked the will for a long time now. Many Americans in the middle are losing the will. The midterm elections will show that. Now if even the architects of America's war policy lack the will to stick it out for the long haul, we've lost already and we might as well bring all of our soldiers home now. And God help the brave Iraqis - Kurds and Arabs alike, Afghans, and Kuwaitis who counted on us for help. The most dangerous thing to be in this world is an ally of the United States.

As Michael Rubin says in his own defense:

" ... I am a Republican, but whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power, Washington’s word must mean something. Leadership is about responsibility, not just politics. We cannot go around the world betraying our allies — in this case Iraqis who believed in us or allied with us — just because of short-term political expediency. This is not just about Iraq: If we abandon Iraq, we will not only prove correct all of Osama Bin Laden’s rhetoric about the US being a paper tiger, but we will also demonstrate — as James Baker and George H. W. Bush did in 1991 — that listening to the White House and alliance with the United States is a fool’s decision. We can expect no allies anywhere, be they in Asia, Africa, or Latin America, if we continue to sacrifice principles to short-term realist calculations. It’s not enough to have an attention span of two years, when the rest of the world thinks in decades if not centuries."

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, War, Bush, Terrorism, Neocons.

We Are The Battlefield

Daniel Pipes has an insightful column today about war in the modern world. (Here.) His basic point is that wars today are not won or lost on the battlefield but are won or lost in the area of public opinion.

"First, battling all-out for victory against conventional enemy forces has nearly disappeared, replaced by the more indirect challenge of guerrilla operations, insurgencies, intifadas, and terrorism. This new pattern applied to the French in Algeria, Americans in Vietnam, and Soviets in Afghanistan. It currently holds for Israelis versus Palestinians, coalition forces in Iraq, and in the war on terror. ...

"Second, the solidarity and consensus of old have unraveled. This process has been underway for just over a century now (starting with the British side of the Boer War in 1899-1902). As I wrote in 2005: 'The notion of loyalty has fundamentally changed. Traditionally, a person was assumed faithful to his natal community. A Spaniard or Swede was loyal to his monarch, a Frenchman to his republic, an American to his constitution. That assumption is now obsolete, replaced by a loyalty to one's political community – socialism, liberalism, conservatism, or Islamism, to name some options. Geographical and social ties matter much less than of old.'

"With loyalties now in play, wars are decided more on the Op Ed pages and less on the battlefield. Good arguments, eloquent rhetoric, subtle spin-doctoring, and strong poll numbers count more than taking a hill or crossing a river. Solidarity, morale, loyalty, and understanding are the new steel, rubber, oil, and ammunition. Opinion leaders are the new flag and general officers. Therefore, as I wrote in August, Western governments 'need to see public relations as part of their strategy.'"

Democracies are at a disadvantage in this kind of war. Democratic governments must respond to the popular will. The longer a war continues without resolution the more likely it is that opposition to the war will increase. This leaves a democratic government that hopes to win a modern war with limited options.

The first option is to fight an all out and brutal war to destroy the enemy in the shortest time possible and then get out. In the early stage of a war popular support tends to be at its highest. In addition, when a war is in its "major combat" phase the military is given greater leeway to kill the enemy and destroy its infrastructure.

If a short war is not possible, a democratic government fighting a long war absolutely must reach out to its political opponents and get a consensus on the goals and strategies in the war. Consensus across political lines first helps to insulate the war's goals and strategies from political attack. Consensus also helps to ensure that the prosecution of the war will not change much when voters decide to change governments.

The Bush Administration understands that the war we fight against Islamist terrorism is a long war that will require a generation to win. Judged by its action, what the Administration does not seem to understand is that winning the war requires reaching out to political opponents and forging a consensus. In the Administration's defense, its political opponents have never been in much of a mood for achieving consensus with this President. This country deserves better on both sides of the aisle.

-tdr

Battlestar Galactica Finds Earth.

Battlestar Galactica's two hour episode last night struck very close to home. After a year of occupation by their Cylon overlords the human insurgency is now resorting to suicide bombers, blowing up police graduation ceremonies, and targeting civilians. The Cylons are rounding up suspected insurgents, transporting the "detainees" in shackles and canvas hoods, and torturing them in prison while the human puppet president denies it happens.

Hmmmm. Does any of that sound familiar?

BSG, or the best show on TV, as we fans refer to it, has flirted with contemporary wartime events over the past two seasons. This was successful in the past because the writing hinted at current events more than paralelling them. With this new season it looks like the writers may have decided to tell stories "ripped from today's headlines" as those awful unoriginal shows on broadcast television do.

It's too soon to tell from one episode whether the show will turn preachy and convey an overt message about the war. To date the show has avoided that temptation and that's one reason it is so good. Good fiction doesn't preach. Good fiction tells stories that let the viewers or readers come to their own moral conclusions. Time will tell if the writers remain committed to producing good fiction or if they have decided to produce sermons.

-tdr

Technorati: Battlestar Galactica, Science Fiction, war.

Note: This post is duplicated on Tales of the Heliosphere, my blog on science fiction and present space policy.

Let's Hear It For The Aussies.

"AUSTRALIA'S Muslim leaders have been "read the riot act" over the need to denounce any links between Islam and terrorism." (Here.)

-tdr

Technorati: Islam, Terrorism.

Due Process For Gitmo Detainees

Due process is a flexible concept that essentially requires people to get the process due them given their circumstances. This story (here) reveals the due process given to every detainee that has ever gone to Guantanamo Bay.

"Every one of the other roughly 450 detainees at Guantanamo, who began arriving in 2002, have already undergone the tribunals. The tribunals for the 14 new arrivals will be held almost certainly using the same procedures, Waddingham said.

"The tribunals are conducted by a three-member military panel, which examines evidence against a detainee, can speak to witnesses, and determines if the detainee is an enemy combatant and should be held. The detainee is represented by U.S. military counsel.
"Those judged not to be enemy combatants are generally transferred out of Guantanamo to their home countries. Those determined to be enemy combatants stay locked up here. They then face annual Administrative Review Boards that examine whether they still pose a threat to the United States or have intelligence value.

"Congress and the Bush administration are currently working on guidelines on how detainees should be interrogated and put on trial. Ten Guantanamo detainees have been charged with crimes but their military trials were put on hold after the Supreme Court last June ruled that the tribunals were illegal — partly because the Bush administration had set them up without Congressional approval."

Those who claim the detainees are without due process are liars.

-tdr

Technorati: War, Terrorism, Bush,

Iranian President Adamant Jihad Calls For World To Convert To Monotheism.

The Iranian President "His Excellency Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nej ad" spoke to the UN today. The full text of his remarks is available on the UN's website here. Most of the speech attacks the United States for creating all the troubles of the world and even worse, "abusing" the UN Security Council for America's own ends. The most revealing part comes in the final paragraphs:

"The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.

"He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue
and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace
be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ
(peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called
humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

"I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just
and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect
righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and
who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

"0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."

There you have it. Monotheism and the return of the Shiite savior, the Hidden Imam, are apparently what is needed for world peace.

-tdr

Technorati: Iran, Islam, United Nations.

Is The Pope Mormon?

A small bomb exploded in a Salt Lake City library today. (Here.) Nobody was hurt and there was little damage.

-tdr

Technorati: Terrorism, Crime.

The Pope Was Talking About Reason Not Islam.

The internet is just better because source documents are usually available online. The full text of the Pope's speech that punctured the thin skins of Moslems worldwide can be read here.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. The Pope's speech was not about Islam at all. The story of the Byzantine Emperor and the Persian scholar was merely a jumping off point for a reflection on reason and faith. After speaking of the interplay between reason and faith in the West in history and today, the Pope concluded his talk by referring back to the Emperor's statement that "'Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God,...'" The Pope then invited dialogue between cultures "... to this great logos, to this breadth of reason ..." The angry denunciations from Moslems worldwide is probably not the reasoned dialogue he was hoping for.

Will he get a reasoned response to this?

"... The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

"The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them.

"We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

"Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.

"A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based.

"Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought -- to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding."

-tdr

Technorati: Islam, Pope, Science, Skepticism.

So, What Else Is New?

Moslems worldwide are reacting in anger to the Pope's criticism of using violence to spread religion. (Here.) The reaction is entirely predictable. Moslems will brook no criticism of their religion, especially when it strikes close to home. You can read excerpts of the Pope's remarks here.

The Pope's statement that has Moslems in a rage once again is a quote from a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said:

"'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

The Pope continues:

"The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.'"

There's nothing unreasonable about the Pope's remarks and they are especially relevant today. Just recently two Fox News reporters were coerced into "converting" to Islam at gunpoint by Islamist terrorists in the Palestinian territories.

There's another dark irony to this latest controversy about the violent history of Islam's relations with The West. The Byzantine Emperor's remarks were made in 1391. A little over 60 years later, in 1453, Moslem armies captured Constantinople, ended the Byzantine Empire, and made the city the capital of the Moslem Ottoman Empire.

-tdr

Technorati: Islam, jihad, Pope.

"Are We Safe" Is The Wrong Question

The Council on Foreign Relations' website hosts a special report that asks a number of experts "are we safe yet?" (Here, here, and here.) That's the wrong question. So long as the current crop of terrorists remain alive and active we can never be safe. It is impossible to protect a large free country from every terrorist attack.

"How do we win" is the question that should be asked because victory is the only guarantee of safety.

-tdr

Technorati: Terrorism, War.

The Real Shame Five Years After 9/11

Keith Olbermann used his platform as a news reader Monday night to deliver a partisan rant against the Bush Administration. (Here.) Its early paragraphs complained that five years after 9/11 there is no memorial or new building at the site of the former World Trade Center.

"Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful."

Actually, there's no shame in it at all. We are still fighting the war brought home to our country by the attacks on 9/11. The time for memorials will be after the war is over.

The real shame in our country is that five years after 9/11 there is no bipartisan consensus over how to fight this war, and what victory will look like. For that, the blame can be spread far and wide among both Republicans and Democrats.

-tdr

Technorati: Terrorism, War, Bush, Olbermann.