Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > War on Terror, Terrorism and International Crime

Pakistan: Friend or Foe?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:58:00 EDT

Halima Karzai and Delna Sepoy have a new piece on Pakistan's role in the war on terrorism. Among other things, they urge the U.S. to have stronger mechanisms for accountabilty in regards to aid sent to Pakistan.

Check out their article here.

Podcast Alert: Security in Afghanistan

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:36:00 EST

In the latest IWF podcast, Anne Trenolone and I discuss security issues in Afghanistan. Give it a listen here.

Spotlight on Afghan Women and Security

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:18:00 EST

Over at The Examiner, Rachel Blackmon Bryars writes about our recent event featuring prominent Afghan women. Bryars agrees with the notion that women's rights in the Middle East is a national security concern:

The United States has devoted extensive effort to supporting women's equality in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan through humanitarian assistance programs. What our policy-makers fail to recognize is that Muslim women's rights is more than a human rights concern. It is a national security issue with far-reaching implications for our future.
Muslim women's voices can help us win the war against terror by tempering their societies long-term. Many quasi-democracies of mostly male-participants are overly influenced by extremism and do not benefit from half the population's input.
In other words, the hand that rocks the cradle could also moderate the nation...

More here.

More on women and security in Afghanistan here.

Women and Security in Afghanistan

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:37:00 EST

In the latest IWF policy brief, Anne Trenolone addresses issues related to women and security in Afghanistan. Anne makes the case that:

Outside nations can debate troop levels and tactics, but the long-term solution is to train a sustainable domestic force among Afghans themselves.
Women's human rights contribute not only to civil society but to international security as well.
Afghanistan's security issues must be faced but policies must also be framed that keep long-term institution building in mind if the Afghan state is to be truly strengthened.
If progress is to be made and stability, security, and development achieved, Afghanistan must not be relegated to the back burner of international and development policy.

Read the whole report here.

The Path to Democracy and Stability in Pakistan

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:52:00 EST

Over at Townhall yesterday, IWF's Michelle Bernard proposed a new strategy for dealing with Pakistan:

It is critical to win the allegiance of the Pakistani people. The U.S. government must be more careful to ensure that the Pakistani people understand that it supports them, and not any particular government or politician. America cannot dictate the form of Pakistan's government or the speed with which it returns to democracy, but Washington should unequivocally support the right of the Pakistani people to choose their own leaders.
We also must ensure that our aid actually goes to help people in need. Military assistance will remain vital so long as the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain threats, but the U.S.-Pakistan relationship must not focus on security alone. Non-governmental organizations, including those which promote the full economic, political, and social advancement of Pakistani women, should take on a greater role, bypassing the Pakistani government and establishing a direct relationship with community and tribal leaders. As some Middle Eastern suffragettes have remarked, half a democracy is not a democracy. Finally, Washington must demonstrate that it has learned humility and is willing to listen to the Pakistani people even as it encourages them to remain on a democratic path.

Read the full article here.

The Path to Democracy and Stability in Pakistan

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:57:00 EST

Townhall.com

Who are we fighting in this War on Terror? For many Americans, the War on Terror remains a confusing concept. We are used to wars against countries, not against a group of people brought together by an ideology and hatred of the West. Our enemy is most easily defined by their acts: the attacks of September 11th exemplify the threat they pose. Now, with news that the CIA has concluded that members of al-Qaeda, in concert with allies of Baitullah Mehud, a Pakistani tribal leader, were responsible for the murder Benazir Bhutto, we are reminded that this War on Terror isn't just about the safety of the United States, but the fate of the world.

Another foreign nation is in crisis. Americans should appreciate yet again how fortunate we are to live in a country that is both free and stable. We do not worry about one killer turning our political system upside down.

The contrast today with Pakistan could not be greater. The murder of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was a tragedy on many levels. Her family has lost a wife and mother. Her party has lost its soul and inspiration. Her country has lost an intelligent, courageous woman prepared to lead in difficult times. The rest of us have lost one of the world's leading female politicians-living proof that a woman can run the government of an Islamic nation. Bhutto could have helped turn Pakistanis and Muslims elsewhere away from the failed politics of extremism and terrorism and towards the positive approach of global engagement and leadership.

Bhutto's death was a blow against people of goodwill all over the world. But we must not grow discouraged. To the contrary, the U.S. and its allies must redouble their efforts in the War on Terror and aid Pakistanis as they attempt to advance democracy in their nation.

All people are entitled to self-government. Throughout history, all people have sought self-government. Unfortunately, however, not all people are ready to build stable and free political systems. This is the ugly truth that we have learned in the Middle East. Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, and other Muslim states have suffered under autocracy. All have taken some moves toward democracy but still face enormous barriers to the practice of liberal democracy in their nations.

For democracy to work, government must be built on respect for the life and dignity of its citizens. People must be willing to work peacefully with other groups and accept defeat in elections. Private mediating institutions are necessary to link individuals and families to communities and the nation.

Washington has long worked with various governments in Islamabad. Since September 11th, the U.S. has provided the Musharraf regime with some $10 billion. For that money, America has won at times reluctant cooperation in the fight against both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, all of Pakistan has not been fully in the fight.

Many residents of the provinces bordering Afghanistan have welcomed America's enemies as guests. The Pakistani military has been unable--or unwilling--to clear out these safe havens. Even many secular Pakistanis are hostile to America, which they blame for supporting military dictatorships at home. Thus, we should consider a new strategy in Pakistan.

It is critical to win the allegiance of the Pakistani people. The U.S. government must be more careful to ensure that the Pakistani people understand that it supports them, and not any particular government or politician. America cannot dictate the form of Pakistan's government or the speed with which it returns to democracy, but Washington should unequivocally support the right of the Pakistani people to choose their own leaders.

We also must ensure that our aid actually goes to help people in need. Military assistance will remain vital so long as the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain threats, but the U.S.-Pakistan relationship must not focus on security alone. Non-governmental organizations, including those which promote the full economic, political, and social advancement of Pakistani women, should take on a greater role, bypassing the Pakistani government and establishing a direct relationship with community and tribal leaders. As some Middle Eastern suffragettes have remarked, half a democracy is not a democracy. Finally, Washington must demonstrate that it has learned humility and is willing to listen to the Pakistani people even as it encourages them to remain on a democratic path.

Benazir Bhutto won renown as one of the world's most noted female politicians. But, more important, she earned respect as one of her nation's most important leaders, irrespective of sex. The best way to honor her legacy and advance our interests in this War on Terror is for the American people to become true partners of the Pakistani people in order to encourage both democracy and prosperity in their nation. This approach will make us more secure. This commitment also represents America at its generous and democratic best.

Michelle D. Bernard, a lawyer by training, is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of the soon to be released Women's Progress, How Women are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before.

Charlotte's Christmas Shopping

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:15:00 EST

In her latest Charlotte's Web column, Charlotte Hays does her Christmas shopping (hint: a lot of people get lumps of coal).

Check out her article here.

"Terrorists are jokes until the bomb goes off."

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Sun, 13 May 2007 15:00:00 EDT

The media portrays terrorists captured before the act as bumbling small fry. Does that make them innocuous? Mark Steyn's answer:

Most terrorists seem like bumbling losers if they're caught before the act: That's certainly true of the Fort Dix jihadists who took their terrorist training DVD to the local audio store to be copied. It was also true of the Islamists arrested in Toronto last year for plotting to behead the prime minister, one of whose cell members had a bride who wanted him to sign a prenup committing him to jihad. The Heathrow plotters arrested while planning to blow up U.S.-bound airliners included a Muslim convert who'd started out as the son of a British Conservative Party official with a P. G. Wodehouse double-barreled name and a sister who was a Victoria's Secret model and ex-wife of tennis champ Yanick Noah.

"But then Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 gang would have seemed pretty funny if you'd run into them in that lap-dance club they went to before the big day where the girls remembered them only as very small tippers. Most terrorists are jokes until the bomb goes off."

Steyn has sobering thoughts for the Fortress America crowd (you know, the isolationists who want to hunker down in the U.S. and forget the enemy abroad):

"The [Fort Dix terrorists] were (if you'll forgive the expression) illegal immigrants. They're not meant to be here. Yet they graduated from a New Jersey high school and they operated two roofing companies and a pizzeria. Think of how often you have to produce your driver's license or Social Security number. But, five years after 9/11, this is still one of the easiest countries in the world in which to establish a functioning but fraudulent identity.

"Consider, for example, the post-9/11 ritual of airline security. You have to produce government-issued picture ID to the TSA official. Does that make you feel safer? On that Tuesday morning in September, four of the killers got on board by using picture ID they'd acquired through the 'undocumented worker' network in Falls Church, Va. Half the jurisdictions in the United States issue picture ID to people who shouldn't even be in the country, and they issue it as a matter of policy. The Fort Dix boys were pulled over for 19 traffic violations, but because they were in 'sanctuary cities,' any cop who suspected they were illegals was unable to report them to immigration authorities. Again, as a matter of policy.
"On one hand, America creates a vast federal security bureaucracy to prevent another 9/11. On the other hand, American politicians and bureaucrats create a parallel system of education and welfare and health care entitlements, main- taining and expanding a vast network of fraudulent identity that cor- rupts the integrity of almost all state databases. And though it played a part in the killing of 3,000 Americans, leaders of both parties insist nothing can be done to stop it. All we can do is give the Duka brothers 'a fast track to citizenship.'"

The Fort Dix Arrests

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 09 May 2007 12:55:00 EDT

National Review asked experts to extract three lessons from the arrests of the Fort Dix jihadists. I sensed a certain weariness in the responses�such as in this snippet from Victor Davis Hanson's:

"But, if just one time, one of these plots succeeds and reaches a magnitude of 9/11 then the media will revert to form-- suddenly dropping the 'Bush took away our civil liberties' for 'Bush didn't do enough to protect us.'"

April will be the cruelest month...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 09 May 2007 10:26:00 EDT

For those of us who still hope that the surge will work and that defeat will be averted, columnist Tony Blankley has some bleak thoughts:

"As I have been saying for months -- and as Sen. Trent Lott said publicly earlier this week -- September will be the month of reckoning. And that reckoning may wreck the world's chance to stave off a Middle East disaster that will probably follow a premature American exit from Iraq."

Read the whole column.

How do you get to be a prince in Iraq?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 09 May 2007 10:16:00 EDT

Eli Lake of the New York Sun sat in on an interrogation in Iraq. It's a good read, even though the guy turns out not to be the prince (a street name for a man who has beheaded somebody). No, it doesn't offer us any insights on torture (the man is treated well enough), but it is the kind of on the ground reporting we don't often get.

Why they won't leave Iraq...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 08 May 2007 10:00:00 EDT

Behind the poses and the rhetoric of the Democrats in Congress, Andrew McCarthy argues, George Bush has already won the debate on Iraq:

"That's because, (1) whether or not they actually believe it, top Democrats keep saying we should be fighting al Qaeda, and (2) al Qaeda, like it or not, is in Iraq -massed, determined and deadly. It is the enduring failure of the administration that it cannot seem to make Americans see these two stark realities.

"Iraq: The place where jihadists commit the latest atrocity hard on the last. Iraq: The 'capital of the Caliphate,' as Osama bin Laden has called it, further describing it as the center of the 'third world war...a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam.' Iraq: The site of the battle bin Laden aptly says will end either 'in victory and glory or misery and humiliation.'

"Americans, of course, do not want to be immiserated and humiliated by our enemies. Democrats know this- which is why they dare not end the war, as it is in their power to do, right this minute, by cutting off funding.

"They won't try that, no matter how furious this dereliction makes their rabid base. ...If we leave now, we lose. It's that simple."

Veto Power

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 02 May 2007 14:04:00 EDT

NRO has posted Bush’s remarks about why he vetoed the Iraq-war supplemental funding bill.

Check it out here.

If We Leave Iraq

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 02 May 2007 07:24:00 EDT

Speaker Pelosi was on the radio this morning saying that the president wants a "blank check" to pursue the war in Iraq. I think he simply realizes what the effect of failure would be. I hate to post an article that appeared yesterday today. But Dennis Prager got it right- even if you believe entering Iraq was a mistake, you should recognize that leaving would be a worse mistake.

"If we leave Iraq:

"It will be a great victory for the most dangerous ideology on earth today. The people running North Korea are presumably as evil as the Islamists. But there is no ideology emanating from North Korea that threatens mankind. We are fighting an ideology, supported by millions of people, that wishes to conquer the world and routinely engages in mass murder of the innocent -- especially the innocent -- to achieve its totalitarian goals.
"No one will trust America's commitment for the foreseeable future. Nations and forces aligned with America against freedom-hating enemies will conclude that it is actually quite easy to defeat the United States of America. Just kill relatively few of that country's soldiers, and the U.S.A. will soon abandon you.
"The very best Iraqis -- and members of their families -- will be slaughtered like animals."

It would also doom any hope for the rise of a more moderate Islam.

War & Public Opinion

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 01 May 2007 10:58:00 EDT

Owen West, a major in the Marine Reserves, has served two tours in Iraq. His last ended in February. He believes that Congress should support the surge:

"We're four years into a global conflict that will span generations, fighting virulent ideologues obsessed with expansion. It's time for those who are against the war in Iraq to consider the probable military consequences of withdrawal. But it is also time for supporters of the war to step back and recognize that public opinion in great part dictates our martial options.
"It's hard for a soldier like me to reconcile a political jab like Senator Harry Reid's 'this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything' when it's made in front of a banner that reads 'Support Our Troops.' But the politician's job is different from the soldier's. Mr. Reid's belief - that the best way to support the troops is by acknowledging defeat and pulling them out of Iraq- is likely shared by a large slice of the population, which gives it legitimacy.
"It seems oddly detached, however, from what's happening on the battlefield..."

Even David Broder Isn't Wild about Harry

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:57:00 EDT

Sorry to be putting this up late, but it's today's must-read: Joe Lieberman on why we can't just come home from Iraq:

"When politicians here declare that Iraq is �lost� in reaction to al-Qaeda�s terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent."

As for the politician who declared that the war is "lost," the usually mild-mannered David Broder, a reliable liberal, aka dean of the press corps, has a choice description: "continuing embarrassment."

Reid's remarks may have a profound impact. And disastrously so, writes Amir Tahari:

"WITHOUT meaning to do so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed the debate on Iraq in a new direction.
"Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated.
"The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, America and its Iraqi allies remain the only objective victors in this war...
"Convinced that the Americans will run away, mostly thanks to political maneuvers by Reid and his friends, Ahmadinejad has gone on the offensive in Iraq and throughout the region. By heightening his profile, he wants to make sure that Iran reaps the fruits of what Reid is sowing in Washington.
"But even then, it's unlikely that most Iraqis would acknowledge Ahmadinejad as winner and bow to his diktat. The Islamic Republic cannot act as victor solely because Reid says so.
"It's possible that Reid imagined that his analytical problems are over simply because he has identified the war's loser. The truth is that his troubles are only beginning. He must tell Americans to whom they wish their army to surrender in Iraq.
"That Reid is desperately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory isn't surprising. His party requires an American defeat in Iraq in order to win the congressional and presidential elections next year."

The News from Iraq

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:13:00 EDT

"The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy," writes Charles Krauthammer.

However, there is some good news about the surge. Read the column.

Rule Britannia, Britannia Waives the Rules!

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:44:00 EDT

It comes as no surprise that much of the mainstream press fails to see how devastating to the West was Tehran's latest adventure. Mark Steyn, however, is under no illusions:

"The Associated Press reported the story as follows: 'Analysis: Hope For More Iran Compromises.'

"Well, if by 'compromise' you mean Tehran didn't put them up for a show trial and behead them, you might have a point. With this encouraging development, we might persuade them to wipe only half of Israel off the map, or even nuke some sparsely occupied corner of the Yukon instead. With the momentum of this 'compromise' driving events, all manner of diplomatic triumphs are possible.

"Tony Blair was at pains to point out that the hostages were released 'without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature.' But he's missing (or artfully sidestepping) the point: Tehran didn't want a deal. It wanted the humbling of the Great Satan's principal ally. And it got it. Very easily. And it paid no price for it. And it has tested in useful ways the empty pretensions of the U.N., the EU and also NATO, whose second largest fleet is now a laughingstock in a part of the world where it helps to be taken seriously."

As Steyn points out, in terms of power, the Brits still have it - in a way - but they are no longer willing to use it:

"The most noticeable feature of the last two weeks has been the massive shrug by the British public. Some observers attributed this to the unpopularity of the Iraq war: Those nice mullahs wouldn't be pulling this stuff if Blair hadn't got mixed up with that crazy Texas moron. But it seems to me a more profound malaise has gripped them -- the enervating fatalism of too many people in what is still a semi-serious nation with one of the world's biggest militaries up against an insignificant basket-case. The traditional British position was deftly summed up in the chorus of an old music-hall song:

"We don't want to fight but, by jingo, if we do

We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too . . ."

"Or, to modify Elvis, they weren't looking for trouble but, if you looked right in their face, they'd give you some. In theory, they still have the ships, the men and the money, but something intangible has been lost. "Jingoism" is not merely a mindless swagger but a kind of assumed national confidence of which the fleet and the sailors and the cash are merely the tangible embodiment. Take away the confidence, and the ships and men and money avail you nought. You want a diplomatic solution? Fine. But, if you believe (as Europe and half America does) in 'soft power,' it's important to remember it depends on the world's belief that you're willing to use that power. Looking at the reaction to this incident by the United States, European Union, United Nations et al., Iran will conclude that the transnational consensus will never muster the will to constrain its nuclear ambitions."

What is justice for KSM?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:43:00 EDT

Do you REALLY care if they water-boarded this man? I know I don't.

Do we need more Spartan values?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:51:00 EDT

What is it with numerology and politically incorrect shows?

First, there was "24," the Fox show in which Kiefer Sutherland as agent Jack Bauer does unspeakable things to the bad guys, and now there is "300," in which three hundred Spartans take on thousands upon thousands of degenerate Persians in the battle of Thermopylae. I’m delighted to report that "300" has been "slaying them" at the box office.

I'm afraid that the movie was too much for the usually macho Washington Post film critic Stephen Hunter:

"The theory of Spartan greatness argues that the Spartans bought time with blood, and allowed the other Greek city-state armies to slip away and fight another day and eventually triumph. Thus this frail bloom we call Western civilization continued to survive in the rocky Attic soil. And thus we speak English, not Farsi, and trace our government back to a neighbor of Sparta's. The argument also dramatizes a continuing reality in democratic societies that, while it's nice to have Athenians around to invent government and theater and the sandal, every once in a while it's necessary to dig up some Spartans to get in real close and bayonet the bad guys right smack in the guts.

"'300,' alas and to its shame, makes no argument at all. It's entirely an overblown visual document with an IQ in the lower 20s. It doesn't even bother to mention the strategic context of the Battle of Thermopylae or to follow the story through to its end at Salamis, where the Athenians sent the Persian minions to meet Mr. Jones at the bottom of the Aegean, and drove the Persian Big Boy Xerxes back to his harem where he ultimately perished on an intriguer's knife. Meanwhile, the Greeks went on to invent the rest of history.

"Instead, we get a Spartan culture that seems notable primarily for one thing: the invention of the ab machine."

Well, I thought it was a terrific movie. It was, as Hunter noted in the review, "showy and stylized." The wolf the young Leonidas slays has yellow eyes. There is a narrator with a rather bombastic style. But it was a ripping good tale. It's unusual for Mr. Hunter not to like a war movie, and may I suggest some reasons (in addition to the movie's style) I think "300" might have failed to win his approval:

The movie is, as Hunter notes, a glorification of Sparta, the militaristic Greek town whose warlike ethos is often contrasted with Athens' more philosophical bent. Remember reading in school about the Spartan boy who died because a fox ate his entrails but he was too - well - Spartan to complain? Most of us grew up favoring Athens. But this movie makes a good point for Spartan values as occasionally necessary to preserve freedom. The Athenians in the movie, unfairly I think, are portrayed as wimps. The Spartans are the heroes - this is partly old-fashioned adventure and partly a commentary on what it took to have The Right Stuff in ancient Greece.

The parallels with our own situation vis a vis an Eastern foe are inescapable. Leonidas clearly perceives that, if the Greeks don't win, their civilization will be destroyed. He sees the battle with the Persians as the existential struggle it was. Okay, I did start thinking of Leonidas as a sort of George Bush figure - right down to the council, which is trying to avoid war with Persia at all costs. Leonidas goes to Thermopylae with only 300 men because the Democrats - oops! - Solons won't give him the army he needs. The Eastern foe, Xerxes, is different from the one we face - this is sort of an LGBT Xerxes - but just as determined to destroy the West.

Of course, the great thing about the saga is the heroism and sacrifice (which, in the end, did trigger the council to approve a surge- hope we are as lucky).

Islamism: Successor "Ism"

Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:31:00 EST

One of the more dangerous features of out times, as Herbert E. Meyer observes, is that so many argue before they bother to understand, even about topics so critical to Western survival as the true character of our Islamist enemies.

In a discerning essay in Human Events, Vasko Kohlmayer adds mightily to such an understanding, describing Islamism as the successor to fascism and communism:

Contrary to all appearances, radical Islam -- that militant form of Islamic fundamentalism -- is not a religious movement. That this is generally not recognized is not surprising given the movement's exploitation of religious rhetoric and symbols. But a closer look at its modus operandi shows that it is virtually indistinguishable from that of fascism and communism. The striking similarities should alert us to the fact that radical Islam is at bottom a political ideology along the lines of the great totalitarian ideologies of the past.

Mr. Murtha's latest polls

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:23:00 EST

To bolster his cynical slow bleed strategy, Rep. Murtha has been citing polls from Iraq. Candace De Russy has taken a closer look at the polls:

"Who are the meter-readers upon whom Murtha relies to validate his pitch? Herein a tangled tale:

"The survey Murtha quotes was published last September by the Center on Policy Attitudes, a small think tank affiliated with the University of Maryland, 'partnered' by the Brookings Institution's Saban Center.

...neither Brookings nor the University of Maryland actually did any polling. They contracted the job out to a U.S. firm, D3 Systems - which subcontracted it to KA Research. Matt Warshaw, a D3 spokesman, says KA Research is owned by Iraqis and Turks, but isn?t prepared to name them.

Chafets went on to critique the survey: It is based on dated statistics and on claims of interpersonal types of interviews difficult to imagine successfully conducting under the present circumstances in Iraq; also, there have been no real outside verification of KA's data.

Lieberman on our unreal Iraq debate; Steyn on looking back instead of forward...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:18:00 EST

Today's must-read is Senator Joe Lieberman's Opinion Journal op-ed comparing the surreal debate in Washington to the reality in Iraq:

"What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.

"Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

"If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security--meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.

"Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda's stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country's politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism.

"The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems..."

One of the most illuminating pieces on the current debate was this by Mark Steyn. Steyn compares the ingenuity of Americans now and in the 1880s. Using the assassination of Garfield, he contrasts the attempt to solve problems creatively and ability to look forward prevalent then with the ethos of today:

"You don't need a metal detector to see that in 1881 an extraordinary event galvanized a nation's finest minds. All was energy and inventiveness, in the private sector, the military, even the bureaucracy: If you're looking for 'root causes,' Charles Guiteau was said to have shot Garfield because he'd failed to receive a federal job handed out as patronage baubles by the Washington spoils system. The new president had already complained of being stalked by wannabe federal officials 'lying in wait . . . like vultures for a wounded bison.' Two years later, his successor signed the Pendleton Act creating the modern civil service...

"America is now five years on from an even more extraordinary event. How have the private and public sectors responded? With longer lines at the airport and the cutting-edge technological innovation of making you bend down and remove your shoes (and even your gel-filled bra) while bored officials wander up the line barking incomprehensible lists of prohibited fluids: that would be a state-of-the-art system for boarding the Mayflower. The government failures of 9/11? They've taken the Department of Bureaucratic Timeservers and renamed it the Agency of Homeland Patriotic Vigilance: same great service, new hat. The continuing torpor of State, the dysfunctions of the CIA are unthreatened by anything beyond the merest cosmetic reform. Minor border security changes such as requiring passports for travel to and from Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean take the best part of a decade to introduce; meaningful border security is scheduled for mid-century, though they won't say which one; as for support from the private sector, the Border Patrol's mission -- prevent the entry of terrorists and their weapons into the United States -- is so offensive that the NFL banned them from advertising in the Super Bowl program. "The ad that the department submitted was specific to Border Patrol, and it mentioned terrorism," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told the Washington Times. "We were not comfortable with that."

"When my book came out, arguing that the current conflict is about demographic decline, civilizational will and globalized pathologies, a lot of folks objected, as well they might: seeing off supple amorphous abstract nouns is not something advanced societies do well. You're looking at it the wrong way, I was told. Technocratic solutions, new inventions, the old can-do spirit: That's the American way, and that's what will see us through.

"Well, OK, so where is it? The glamor boys of the moment -- Obama, Edwards -- run on watery pabulum from the easy-listening oldies playlist. Five years after 9/11, we're not looking ahead, we're looking back -- in the legislature, in the courts, in the media: Bush's 'lies' about WMD, the Senate vote to authorize the 'use of force' against Iraq, Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, Joe Wilson's self-leaking of his mischaracterization of his trip to Niger . . . rear-view mirror stuff, all of it, endlessly. On the dark shapes looming in the windshield -- Iran, Sudan and much else -- we operate ineffectually through yesterday's institutions, like the U.N. and the EU. Two billion dollars from American taxpayers go to the government of Egypt and in return they give Hezbollah's TV network a slot on the state satellite system. At the gas pump, we fund Hugo Chavez and the Saudi radicalization of Muslim populations around the planet. The obvious transformative technology -- an alternative to the global economy's oil dependence -- is as far away as it was on Sept. 10, and the Alexander Graham Bells of our day are busy inventing the "self-repairing condom" -- a marvel of nanotechnology to be sure, but not one with much strategic use unless you can supersize it and unroll it down every Wahhabi mosque."

I can't help thinking that the global warming debate is quite similar. Why isn't somebody trying to figure out how to clean up the ozone? Instead, we focus on Al Gore and ethanol.

Lieberman: Does he hold the whole world in his hands?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:22:00 EST

When I saw Carrie's post on a "Democrat for commonsense," I instantly assumed she was talking about Senator Lieberman, who may hold the key to Iraq in his hands. She wasn't, so there are at least two commonsense Democrats.

Regarding Lieberman, the New York Sun (have you noticed how many great stories this little paper breaks?) reports:

"The only pro-war senator to caucus with the Democrats may become a Republican.

"That's what Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who was defeated in a Democratic primary last summer, is hinting he will do if his old party fiddles with a bill to pay for the troop surge in Iraq.

"Yesterday, Mr. Lieberman told the Web site Politico he had no "desire to switch parties," but "if that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

"That uncomfortable direction, according to the Politico, will concern the $99 billion supplemental military budget request the White House is expected to submit to Congress early next month. While the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a Democrat of Nevada, has ruled out any Vietnam-style decision to cut off funding for the war, Republicans are now expecting Democrats in the House to attach conditions to the spending bill, a move they decry as tantamount to micromanaging the war for Iraq."

In history, wars have been won or lost. There are victories and defeats. You surrender or accept the other army's surrender. The Democrats can't quite live with either of these alternatives (and I mean either - a victory would be bad for them now). They want to revoke the war. That is why it is essential for them to make the public accept their false claim that Bush lied.

They have come up with ways to end the war - but as Charles Krauthammer argues, these are not the right way to end the war.

Iraq: Why do they lie?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:08:00 EST

Democrats are determined to run from the consequences of a war they supported. Even if they have to say they did it because they were lied to - a lie. Victor Davis Hanson has a good piece on why they originally voted for the war - and why they no longer do:

"One, they rightly concurred with the president's post-9/11 conversion to the idea that removing a Middle Eastern mass-murdering regime and leaving a consensual government in its place could be a key component in winning the war against Islamic terrorism. And two, their party had always believed that the United States can sometimes make things better abroad by stopping tyrants and dictators.

"By the same token, why do many of these same initial supporters of the Iraq war four years later now promise either to withdraw troops or to cut off funds, and so often hedge on or renounce their past records?

"Partisan advantage explains much of the present posturing against an opposition president. But mostly, the rising Democratic furor comes as a reflection of public anger at the costs of the war -- and the sense that we are not winning.

"Unlike the invasion of Panama (1989), the Gulf war (1991), the Balkans war (1999) or even the Afghanistan conflict (2001-2007), Iraq has taken over 3,000 American lives. Had the reconstruction of Iraq gone as relatively smoothly as the three-week removal of Saddam, most Democratic candidates would now be heralding their past muscular support for democratic change in Iraq."