The Daily Demarche

Don't Call it a Comeback (sorry, couldn't resist).

2008-04-29T20:13:00.009-04:00

Thanks for the kind notes, everyone. It is good to be back, but I do want to say upfront that I am not committing to any kind of regular schedule this time. I'll post things as I can and look forward to your comments and e-mails.

Today's topic- two articles that caught my attention recently. The first, "No Coyote Needed- U.S. Visas Still an Easy Ticket in Developing Countries" by David Seminara, has been kicking up a bit of a storm in the halls of the Foreign Service lately. The second article is from Foreign Policy magazine and is entitled "Meet the New Face of Al Qaeda" (no author listed). This article has not, to my knowledge caused much of a stir and no one in the FS (or anywhere else in the U.S. government that I am aware of) seems to be connecting the two pieces.

Seminara's article deals with the fact that while most Americans think of illegal immigrants as "desperate migrants sneaking across the Mexican border... a 2006 Pew Hispanic Center study [found] nearly half of the 12 million-plus illegal aliens in America arrived legally with temporary, non-immigrant visas." The Foreign Policy piece details four "new faces" of al Qaeda- at least one of whom was a so-called "'clean-skin' operative" due to the fact that he had never been identified as a terror threat and never had an encounter with law enforcement. To me the connection leaped off the pages: it appears that way too many people are getting visas who probably should not and that al Qaeda is now deploying people we don't know about who very well might "qualify" for visas under the best of circumstances- which Seminara makes clear do not exist in the field.

Oh, and least two of the four could have made it into the U.S. on the visa waiver program. The woman detailed was Belgian and one of the men was British. What is with the past tense in these cases? Three of the four have already carried out suicide missions, and one is in custody after attempting to do so, which is the only reason we know about them. Here are some excerpts from the FP article:

Shehzad Tanweer -British-Suicide bombing in London - epitomizes the threat of “clean-skin” operatives, authorities say. He was an A-student and a gifted athlete with many friends. Tanweer had no history of violence or run-ins with police. His family described him as “proud to be British.”

Muriel Degauque- Belgian, born Catholic-suicide bombing in Baquba, Iraq-Terrorism experts believe Degauque was the first European Muslim woman to execute a suicide attack. European women who marry Muslim men are now the largest source of religious conversions in Europe, and European counter terrorism officials are increasingly concerned that female converts represent a small but potentially deadly element of the terrorist threat in Europe.

Ahmed Said Ahmed al-Ghamdi- Saudi Arabian (son of a Saudi diplomat)- Suicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq - Ghamdi’s radicalization is notable because he was smart, well-connected in Riyadh, and had excellent career prospects. Raised within the Saudi upper class, he represents the higher end of the intelligence scale among Middle Eastern youth, a group not traditionally thought of as a hotbed for terrorist recruiting.

Kafeel Ahmed- Indian- Attempted suicide bombing in Scotland- Ahmed’s case shows how new technologies are helping to recruit the next generation of terrorists. Authorities believe he was radicalized in Islamist chatrooms, where he followed events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine closely. He was fond of downloading speeches delivered by Osama bin Laden, yet he showed little interest in Islamist causes in India. It was also on jihadist Internet sites that Ahmed downloaded hundreds of bomb designs.

In his piece Seminara draws on an impressive collection of data and his own experiences working on the visa line in Macedonia and Bulgaria to explain why he feels that there are serious problems in the visitor visa adjudication process. While some of what he recalls is no longer 100% accurate (things have changed a bit since he left) the errors are minor and in no way reflect the overall impact of the piece- for example there have been fee increases, and supervisors do now review some visa issuances (but not all). Seminara offers a laundry list of the reasons he believes are behind this problem, here are a few of my favorites:

• Foreign service officers tend to have a diplomatic rather than a law enforcement mindset.

• Developing countries place great importance on visas in bilateral discussions.

• There is a lack of accountability and emphasis on adherence to the law as a promotion criterion.

• Consular officers’ tend to value applicants’ purpose of travel over their legal qualifications for the visa.

• DHS has failed to implement meaningful exit controls or to share entry/exit data with consular officials overseas, leaving officers without adequate information on visa renewal applicants.

• The lack of feedback to consular officers on visa overstays leads many to underestimate how serious the overstay problem is.

• Officers evaluate how well-off visa candidates are by the standards of their home country, rather than by U.S. standards, and often fail to understand how a school teacher in Romania might prefer to be a cab driver in Chicago, or why a nurse from Ecuador would wash dishes at a restaurant in New York.

• Refused applicants, their relatives, and members of Congress place pressure on consular officials to overturn visa refusals, and sometimes manage to “wear down” consular officers.

• The simple reality that it is far easier to say “yes” to applicants than to shatter their dreams by telling them that they don’t qualify to come to America.

This is not the whole list, but you get the idea. I remember well looking out of my visa window and seeing the more than 2,000 cases we averaged per day (I spent my first 2 years as an FSO in a "visa mill") as well as the pressure to go faster and the seemingly never ending faxes/letters/calls/e-mails from Congressional offices wondering why some constituents cousin/friend/lover/co-worker had been denied a visa. I have very little doubt that had any of the four individuals profiled in FP appeared at my window they most likely would have gotten a visa from me, and that if they had applied recently to come to the U.S. the decision would have been the same.

Seminara does an excellent job describing the "culture of issuance" that pervades many consular sections, and describes in detail why visa interviewing is an "art, not a science" and the simple fact that it is quite hard to look another person in the face and say "no" to their visa request. I am not quite convinced that he has arrived at the correct conclusions, however- his number one recommendation is to take visa issuance away from State and give it to DHS. It is my understanding that DHS ever so briefly considered this when the agency was formed and that they basically said "no, thank you." He also calls for supervisors to review "all" issuances, which I don't think is even remotely realistic. Even if they had the time, they would not have the totality of the interview to review- primarily the applicant would be gone, so what would they be checking? Two points I agree with wholeheartedly, however, are:

• Refocus visa adjudication away from giving applicants the “benefit of the doubt” and toward strict adherence to the law.

• Allow consular officers access to entry/exit data to increase the quality of decision-making by preventing chronic visa abusers from renewing their visas.

Of course for the second point we'd actually have to have an idea who is leaving the country.

The reality is that we don't seem to be moving in that direction, and in fact may be regressing by offering visa free travel to South Korea, Czech Republic and more EU countries. Foreign born terrorists are not the only threat to national security, to be sure. But stopping them should at least be a pillar of our national security strategy. Hamstringing our officers in the field by not collecting valid data (entry/exit) and not sharing what data we do collect while expanding the visa waiver program strikes me as a recipe for trouble. I highly reccomend reading the entire Seminara piece, it is well worth the time.

Now if only I could a few folks at Foggy Bottom and on the Hill to read these two articles together...

Is anyone still reading this thing?

2008-04-27T16:19:00.001-04:00

I am kicking around the idea of starting up again, having finally found a few spare minutes in the day, and feeling inspired by the return of The Diplomad. I guess the only question is: is anybody out there?

Change of Address

2005-11-25T20:22:00.000-05:00

Friends:

It is with very mixed emotions that I sit down to write this post. This will be my last posting at The Daily Demarche, as I move into semi-retirement from blogging. Recent life events and work, and a few other factors, have not allowed me to dedicate the time and attention to this blog that it and you deserve. I have not been able to meet the "daily" portion of the title for some time, and do not see that changing anytime soon.

I am not, however, throwing in the towel completely. I plan to continue to write and post, but no longer on this blog. As the title of this post suggests I am relocating- I will primarily be blogging at American Future with Marc Schulman, who has generously agreed to allow me to hang my shingle with his, at one of the best blogs on the 'net. My plan is to post there at least once a week, more frequently as time allows- or as world events inspire me to forgo sleep in order to post. I am sure that nearly all of you are familiar with Marc's outstanding blog, and know for a fact that many of you visit here from there. From time to time I will also post at The Intelligence Summit Blog, although I would not venture to guess with what frequency. Consul at Arms now bears the burden of being the last of the Foreign Service blogs, although I imagine New Sisyphus will still have something to say about foreign policy from time to time.

The reaction to this blog has wildly exceeded my expectations, with an average of well over a thousand hits per day in the last year, thanks in part to several "instalaunches" from the likes of Instapundit, Austin Bay and Michelle Malkin, but even more so the readers who have spread our name by word of mouth, and an established group of commenters who have kept me on my toes with excellent debate and ruthless spell and fact checking. I hope that you will check in frequently at American Future; if at all possible I will try to establish a regular day to post there- although once you start to read Marc's posts you might forget all about looking for me! I owe a debt of gratitude to many people and blogs, and hope I can remember to mention them all here- I apologize in advance if I leave anyone out.

First I have to thank Mrs. Dr. D who tolerated all the time I spent in front of the keyboard and the occasional late night outburst as I surfed the net news. I can only hope that all of you have or find a mate like her. Next comes The Diplomad who inspired me to start this blog- and who nine months after his last posting still generates traffic for The Daily Demarche- if you are out there reading this, we miss you, and thanks. I also have to thank Smiley, who believed in the project early on and wrote some of the best posts on this blog-including this one. I've missed him here but can't say I fault him in the least for not being around as much.

I also want to thank A Guy in Pajamas who helped to spread the word early on about us, as did Toni from Bear Creek Ledger (formerly The View From Tonka) and my all time favorite member of the loyal opposition Eric Martin at Total Information Awareness. Blogs like Expat Yank and Barcepundit kept me informed on events in far away places, and The Atlantic Review restored (somewhat) my faith in our public diplomacy efforts.

Every blogger who participated in our "What if We Never Invaded Iraq" and "China Syndrome" blog projects reinforced my belief that the finest minds in policy analysis and imaginative thinking are not necessarily to be found in the press, or think tanks or the government. Every blog on the blogroll to the right- and many that I am ashamed to say I never got around to adding- played a part in the happiness I found writing this blog, as did every person who ever left a comment or sent me an e-mail (even the hate mail!), and all of you contributed to my sense that our democracy is alive, well, and in good hands.

I will continue to use the same e-mail address dr.demarche AT gmail.com, and look forward to reading your comments at American Future. If all goes well I hope to have my first post ready for Marc to publish by Tuesday, at the latest. And so, it is not farewell, but see you later.

Thanks again to all of you,

Dr. Demarche

(End of post.)

Happy Thanksgiving.

2005-11-24T08:49:00.000-05:00

There are two holidays that mean more to me when I am far from home, the first, July 4th, probably goes without saying. The second is Thanksgiving. I was surprised at how forcefully my first Thanksgiving in a foreign country struck me. At home the day had always meant football, turkey, mom's pumpkin roll, family and friends- to be sure those are all things to be missed, and I still do miss them every year. But none of them accounted for the deep rooted sense of missing America on that last Thursday in November. Gradually, however, it came to me that in addition to the food and family, the football and friends, what I was missing was the sense of tradition. America, writ large, is not a land bound by many traditions, and these two holidays are in a large part what define our common cause for celebration.

So today, though I am far from home and not likely to see any football, I am thankful for the friends and family I have with me here. I am thankful for the efforts that we all will make today as we gather together here, in an effort to have a traditional thanksgiving (I've been hoarding a few cans of whole cranberries for months just for today!).

Beyond that I am thankful for the accident of birth that allows me to call myself an American. I am thankful for the brave men and women in our armed services, for those among us that struggle to protect us all from those who would do us harm. I am thankful for our allies in this struggle against our enemies, no matter how the left and MSM belittle them. I am thankful for purple stained fingers proudly thrust in front of the media's cameras.

I am thankful for you, for reading this, and hope that you too can celebrate this American holiday with thanks, wherever you are.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Dr. Demarche

(end of post)

Is he, or isn't he?

2005-11-21T18:40:00.000-05:00

As I write this, speculation abounds as to whether or not Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is still alive. Iraqi and U.S. forces took a house in Mosul on Saturday, and some of the occupants blew themselves up to avoid capture. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari earlier today stated:

"In my view, I would say there must have been some key leaders of the insurgency, especially the fundamentalists -- al Qaeda type of people -- so I would not be surprised if he could be one of those who blew himself up."

"We know that American and Iraqi forces ... surrounded a house where there was fierce resistance and when the American and Iraqi forces jointly tried to storm the building the occupants blew themselves up, they committed suicide," Zebari added.

"They believe there must have been some key leaders from the terrorists, from the fundamentalists who committed suicide instead of handing themselves up."

Now I am not certain that I agree with that sentiment- a great many non-key members of al Qaeda have blown themselves up, and let us not forget how Saddam himself, a key leader if there ever was one, was dragged from a hole in the ground with no fight whatsoever. Reports from within our government indicate scepticism that al-Zarqawi was in the house, although we may be closing in on him. Of course allied forces will continue to check to see if he was killed in the raid, but-I have to ask, does it really matter if al-Zarqawi is dead? (Although, if he really is, I'll gladly eat 72 raisins to mark his passing.)

Al-Zarqawi has recently become a bit of a pariah in the middle east, or at least in parts of it, after his group claimed responsibility for three bombings in Jordan (several good video clips embedded in that piece). One of these bombings targeted a wedding party- killing the fathers of both the bride and groom, and several other relatives and party guests. His killing of, or sponsorship of the killing of, non-Muslims was not enough to invoke the ire of the "religion of peace", but this time by striking close to home, he may have gone too far. Having crossed the line, he may be more valuable to al-Qaeda dead than alive.

One of the constant problems with the "war on terror" is the very nature of the enemy- amorphous, difficult to pinpoint or identify. While "men" such as Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi put a face to the enemy, it is the ideology, not these men, who we fight. It is the ability of such men to convince others to strap on explosive belts and decimate a wedding, or to fly airliners into skyscrapers that makes them dangerous, but it is the continuing supply of willing volunteers that ensures the battle will continue.

We have seen proof that volunteers exist from all walks of life and all parts of the world; and it is no secret that Terror, Inc. makes great use of the internet. Now MEMRI reports that

"Until December 13, 2005, supporters can sign an oath of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Mullah Muhammad Omar, and Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi online".

The oath reads, in part, as follows:

"I invite you to the first day of the month of the great swearing of an oath of loyalty to the commander of the Muslim armies, Sheikh Osama bin Laden, and to the commanders of the global jihad: Sheikh Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Emir of the Believers Mullah Muhammad Omar, and Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, and to all the jihad fighters.

"Oh God, you need this oath of loyalty, the oath of death for Allah that will terrorize the infidels and earn the jihad fighters in particular, and the Muslims in general, reward in the world to come...

"Moreover, for this oath of loyalty to death it is not necessary for you to die now - but in the near future, the very near future, Allah willing, we must all join this blessed convoy, particularly since we have sworn an oath of loyalty.

"This [signing of this] oath of loyalty will continue for one month, and will be posted in all the forums so that the number of oath-takers will be [as] great [as possible], and so that Osama bin Laden will have an army in Afghanistan, an army in Iraq, and a massive army in the waiting list on the Internet pages.

"This is the Internet that Allah operates in the service of jihad and of the mujahedoun, and that has become [a tool in service of] your interest - such that half the mujahedoun's battle is waged on the pages of the Internet, which is the only outlet for passing announcements to the mujahedoun.

"Anyone who has already sworn an oath of loyalty is asked not to do so again, because at the end of the month there will be a count of all those who took the oath..."

"We swear loyalty to Sheikh Osama bin Laden, may Allah preserve him, and to the commanders of the global jihad, Sheikh Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Emir of the Believers Mullah Muhammad Omar, and Sheikh Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, and all the Jihad fighters. [This is] an oath of death for Allah.

Al-Zarqawi was elevated to the unholy pantheon of al-Qaeda with the beheading of Nicholas Berg. His death, at his own hands to avoid capture, would only ensure his place there. We should not get overly excited if really is dead. The men and women who brought about his death, if indeed they have, deserve a "well done", but for the time being we can be sure that there is another scoundrel prepared, to take his place, and if there isn't you can bet that OBL is running his own version of The Apprentice to find the next one- only his unsuccessful contestants aren't fired, they are handed an explosive belt and sent out to wreak havoc. Web sites such as the above indicate there is no shortage of willing participants.

This is a war of attrition, plain and simple. There will be no Paris accords this time (just ask Paris), no dividing of a country at some arbitrary parallel. We- the non-Muslim (and incresingly non-jihadist version of Islam) will either win this war by stamping out all of the "al-Zarqawis" out there, or we will lose it and Islamofascism will win the day.

To answer my own question, then, it doesn't really matter if he is dead, because the ideology that spawned him is not, and those who chose to follow him will carry on. The death of one man, al-Zarqawi or even bin-Laden, will not end this epic struggle. It would, and should, boost morale for us and our allies, but the fight is far from over. So let us not focus entirely on al-Zarqawi. He is a small piece of a large problem, the face of the enemy, but not the hands that pull the trigger. We will not mourn his passing when that day comes, but neither will we celebrate to the point that we lose focus. Al-Qaeda and Islamofascism predate al-Zarqawi, and they will continue to be a threat once he is gone. Let us not elevate his importance any further by celebrating his death. Once less murdering thug plotting to kill innocent people is a good thing, but there is no need for us to reinforce his myth.

Save the celebrations for the day the war is over.

This is it.

2005-11-18T21:29:00.000-05:00

There is no better ideology on Earth than democratic, small "L" liberalism- and there are no better people on the planet than those in our armed forces- and I am claiming all the forces of all countries who love freedom here.

Need proof? Watch this from our British allies (click "orignal size" in "View Size" drop down box for best resolution). Turn on the speakers, work safe.

I mean, compare that to this.

Okay, couldn't resist that. Here is the real deal. Seriously chilling stuff.

Mug tip to Cathy for the first clip- God bless your son and his comrades in arms.

OBL Inc., take note- love of freedom and a sense of humor cannot be defeated.

Dr. D

(end of post)

Venezuelans to take long way to el norte?

2005-11-16T20:40:00.000-05:00

Apparently while the rest of Latin America was busy protesting the presence and policies of President Bush in Argentina a few weeks ago, President Vincente Fox of Mexico and President Fidel Castro, er, Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela were working themselves up to see who is the big enchilada.

Chavez has set out to derail the Free Trade Area of the Americas, primarily because Castro's Cuba would not be included, and when Fox backed the plan Chavez called him a "puppy" of the United States, and it just went downhill from there.

For the most part the U.S. has stayed out of this, it really is none of our business, but United States Ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield did make a brief statement today, as reported by the excelent blog Venezuela News And Views, self described as "...the diary of Venezuela slow decent into authoritarianism, the slow erosion of our liberties, the takeover of the country by a military caste, the surrendering of our soul to the Cuban dictator... ( Note: the comments in brackets in the following quote are by the host of that blog, I am assuming he also made the translation as the comments were in Spanish):

[The US has been accused of being behind] of the presidential assassination attempt, coup d’etat, promoting Venezuelan voter abstention, internal divisions within Chavez party, campaign of the opposition, Vargas floods [in February because Bush did not sign Kyoto] bombs in the CNE office of Carabobo, killing a prosecutor [CIA involvement in the Anderson case, at least not alone there], complot to terrorize Venezuelan kids at Halloween, Colombia’s DAS declarations, decreasing PDVSA production, the International Trasnparency campaign [where Venezuela was revealed as one of the most corrupt countries], international negative media campaign, campaign against the Aves island [a tiny island in the Northern Caribbean that some island state would like to take away from Venezuela, something totally unfounded for this blogger who would suggest to trade it for the Guyana portion stolen from Venezuela by the Brits, but I digress]

How can I sleep with so many conspiracies and intrigues? The truth is that in this world there are some things that have nothing to do with the US, and this is one of them [the Venezuela Mexico spat]

It is not often that you get to hear a U.S. Ambassador say something like that!

The spat between the two leaders has escalted, and both countries have recalled their Ambassadors (although to be fair Fox threatended to declare the Venezuelan Ambo persona non-grata if Chavez did not apologize). The Guardian reported yesterday that Chavez sent Fox a message when he recalled his Ambo: "Don't mess with me."

I haven't seen Fox's reply yet, but with Venezuela poised to become a Castro-ite satellite state I would bet that a good number of the Venezuelan population hopes things cool off betwen the two leaders soon- after all the may have to cross Mexico to get to the border of the U.S.

(End of post)

"IN THE TRENCHES DOING DOG'S WORK."

2005-11-15T22:20:00.000-05:00

Former Ambassador J. Anthony Holmes, head of the American Foreign Service Association (our "union") set off a firestorm last week when he described Consular work, specifically non-immigrant visa interviewing, as "dog's work." Several readers e-mailed me after the interview came out to express a range of emotions- some were clearly outraged by Holmes' words, others thought it was about time that someone on the seventh floor (executive level) of the State Department spoke the truth when it comes to the visa work done primarily by entry level officers.

The timing on this, for me, was amazing. While on my travels last week I read two books pertaining to immigration in the United States. The first was On the Line: Inside the U.S. Border Patrol by Erich Krauss and the second was Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores by Michelle Malkin (travel, like Internet service and everything else involving electricity and/or a motor here can be trying, so I always travel well prepared for delays).

"On the Line" covers a lot of ground in a short read, ranging from the earliest days of the Border Patrol (the first BP agent was commissioned to stop Chinese coming in from Mexico) to the amazing armed incursions into America- with shots fired- made in the last decade by the Mexican army. The author details the rigorous training Border Patrolmen go though and takes the reader into the world of BP special ops from Elian Gonzales to road blocks in Bolivia in the war on drugs. When he writes about how open the northern border is, and how little political will there is to stop illegal immigration or to pursue illegal aliens already in the U.S. it is enough to make your blood boil and give you the chills at the same time.

"Invasion" takes this theme a step further and provides vivid details about crimes that have been committed by illegal aliens in the U.S. , such as Angel Maturino Resendez, "The Railroad Killer" and Edward Nathaniel Bell who shot and killed Sgt. Ricky Timbrook of Winchester, Va. Both Resendez and Bell had multiple contacts with INS, and yet they were able to either remain in or to re-enter the United States. (Click here to read the NRO review of this book, and to learn more about the failures of our immigration system.) I wish I had read this book when it first came out. While much has changed since then, at least cosmetically, much still remains terribly the same.

Whereas the Border Patrol is charged with protecting "the line" of our nation's borders, there is another "line" of defense against those who would not only break our immigration laws, but also do us intentional and massive harm. This is the "visa line", the first contact many would-be visitors and immigrants have with the government of the United States. The State Department took a lot of heat over the "Visa Express" program that allowed many of the September 11th hijackers to breeze through the visa system, and as result many things have changed, such as more and better shared information from law enforcement, and increased use of technology to catch impostors and criminals.

One thing, though, has not changed. The officers charged with manning the line are almost entirely entry level, and most are not Consular officers. The State Department, in order to meet the demand for visa services, mandates that all entry level officers spend at least one of their first four years on a visa line, and most spend at least two years doing Consular work. Training for these officers, while better in recent years, is by no means intensive, and the convoluted immigration laws and policies of the U.S. don't help. Neither does attempting to apply these laws in a foreign language. In a "visa mill", a post that exists largely to feed the visa beast, such as Manila or Bogota, officers may "interview" over 100 applicants a day. This is down somewhat from the pre-9/11 days, I can clearly remember "interviewing" upwards of 250 a day on my first tour at one of the top 5 visa mills' but it is still too many. At the most an officer will have 4 minutes with each applicant, but processing of the cases and administrative work cuts that down to more like two minutes per case.

So when Holmes says the following in regards to entry level officer and "transformational diplomacy" he is not at all off the mark:

"probably 80 percent of them go for their first assignment to a visa mill, where they interview 50 to 75 to 100 visa applicants every day. And that isn't transformational. I mean, that is -- you're in the trenches doing dog's work."

Unfortunately, Holmes has been forced to backpeddle from his statement:

The point I was making is that working on the NIV line at many posts is particularly challenging and stressful, full of pressure and stress, and sometimes thankless. These new officers are truly "in the trenches," on US diplomacy's front lines, and this tough duty is the bread and butter of the Foreign Service.

[snip]

As this work is what most new officers do before they get assignments doing "transformational diplomacy," I was trying to convey that it will take time before the bulk of the DRI new hires start doing what the focus of the NPR piece was all about. My broader point was the need to get the resources necessary to do the job.

This release by AFSA was followed by an "all hands" e-mail from Asst. Secretary of State Maura Harty sharing a copy of a letter she sent to Holmes and AFSA, that read in part:

Foreign Service Officers embarking on their initial tours are engaged in activities that are both critical to our nation's security and central to our government's sacred responsibility to protect American citizens abroad. Our officers serve on the front lines of the global war on terror and put their own names on the line every single time they decide whether a foreign national is eligible to visit the United States. They must exercise good judgment and have a mastery of complex substantive material - namely U.S. immigration law and consular regulations - to protect the United States and its citizens. Their first Foreign Service tours give them an invaluable opportunity to develop language and interpersonal skills and management ability, while acquiring a sophisticated understanding of the societies in which they live - all to the benefit of the Foreign Service.

The real problem in all of this is that both Holmes and Harty are right- it is dog's work and it is critical to our national security. My question, then, is why is this work left to our most junior officers who in most cases are merely marking time and "paying their dues" on a visa line. Why do we not have a corps of professional visa adjudicators, well versed in law and policy who speak the local language at a high level? To borrow an example from the military, why are we staffing the front lines with lieutenants right from OCS, who are replaced every year or two? Where are the NCO's with twenty years experience? Frankly, I don't want the people in the visa section in my Embassy to be developing language and interpersonal skills and gaining management experience. I want them to be implementing the law and making informed decisions on who is, and is not, to be granted the privilege of visiting the United States. I want them to be holding the line further from the border.

Holmes deserves to be praised for his honest assesment of the facts in the "new" State Department, and those in the trenches deserve our thanks. Beyond that, though, we should be aiming at making our borders ever more secure, and perhaps making the trenches a little less trench like.

Internet Access in the 3rd World

2005-11-14T17:47:00.000-05:00

Like everything else here, access to the Internet is spotty at best- I had a good run there for a while, but now have no access at home. For obvious reasons I can't post at work.

I'm dashing this off at a "cafe" on the way home- hopefully I'll have access tomorrow, which is what they told me yesterday. Of course, here "tomorrow" just means some point in the future.

In the meantime please visit our frinds in the blogroll, or post a comment about your current favorite international affairs event.

Stay tuned, hope to be back soon.

Cheers,
Dr. D

(End of post)

Happy Birthday, USMC!

2005-11-09T21:48:00.000-05:00

Every morning, as I make my way in to work, the first American I see is the Marine Security Guard on Post One (or "in the box"). These men, and increasingly, women who watch over our diplomatic missions abroad not only greet and protect me and my colleagues everyday- they also make a statement. Visitors to the Embassy are always visibly impressed by the sight of the Marine on duty. They clearly get the message (perhaps an unintentional one) that despite the polite diplomatic phrasing of whatever meeting is about to take place, there is an iron fist in the velvet glove. After all, there are not many people who do not know the storied history of the United States Marine Corps. The famous Marine Corps Hymn offers a glimpse of that history:

From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli,
We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea.
First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title of United States Marine.

Tomorrow marks the 230th anniversary of the founding of the Marine Corps. Perhaps most famous for the "island hopping" defeat of the Japanese Imperial Army , Marines have fought in every major conflict in the nation's history. They continue to serve with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan (I HIGHLY recommend reading 25 Lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan on this site), and they continue to protect our embassies.

Duty at an embassy is not all greeting striped pants diplo-wheenies like me and intimidating visitors, though. Earlier this year I detailed how the Marine Security Guards at the Consulate in Jeddah repelled a terrorist attack and saved countless American and Saudi lives. If you have not read it, you may find it here. Here is an excerpt:

Ambassador Oberwetter: ...the marines were performing heroically just as you would expect them to do. There are many other stories of heroism about the events of yesterday. Heroism by our locally employed staff. Heroism by the marines, and by other American citizens, and heroism by the Saudis who were guarding our gates and took casualties in doing so.

Another loud explosion occurred and over the radio in the Safehaven, we heard Post One say, "Three at the front!" The terrorists let out a spray of bullets against the glass doors, yet unable to get in, they tried to attach an explosive. Post One came back on the radio "terrorist are attaching device to the front door permission to GAS!" The RSO yelled, "GAS, GAS, GAS NOW!" over the radio. Post One activated the gas and the C/S fell right on top of the terrorists who then ran from the front doors. They ran around the chancery shooting into our office windows making it appear they were INSIDE and moving down the hall towards us! At that point, I was ordered to secure the vault door.

The acting commander of the small force of Marines that repelled the attack on our Consulate was awarded a Bronze Star:

Staff Sgt. Michael L. Young, an EA-6B Prowler mechanic staff noncommissioned officer-in-charge with Marine Electronic Warfare Squadron 1, was awarded the Bronze Star with combat distinguishing device, Nov. 1, at Al Asad, Iraq, for his actions Dec. 6, 2004, when he and the three Marines under his command defended the consulate and killed al-Qaeda terrorists.

So, as Marines around the world celebrate the birthday of the Corps tomorrow, please spare a moment to think of them. If you know a Marine, still serving today or long retired, please give him or her my thanks; and should you be so inclined, please include our men and women serving in the Marines (and all of our armed forces) in your prayers this evening.

If you are a Marine, thank you. We might not always acknowledge it, but I damn glad to have you "in the box" when I come in every morning.

Happy Birthday, USMC. Semper Fi.

(Note: I'll be away for the next few days, duty calls. Should be able to post over the weekend. Dr. D)

The Day America Quit

2005-11-07T23:10:00.000-05:00

Note: This is my response to my own blog project/challenge. Responses from other bloggers can be found in the post below this one.

From the 2025 edition of Encyclopedia Online, entered under "The New Caliphate"

The September 11th al Quaeda attacks on The United States were widely hailed as world changing events in their immediate aftermath, but with the distance provided by nearly a quarter century of internecine warfare between the Western, liberal societies and the jihadists bent on establishment of a new Caliphate those attacks are now viewed as part of a larger history.

Most historians agree that war was declared with the taking of the US Embassy in Tehran, in 1979, and that the war escalated with the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut, the suicide bombing of Marine Barracks in Beirut, and the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, all in 1983. The weak response of the United States and the rest of the Western world to these events allowed the Muslim leaders to grow rapidly in power and influence, unmolested.

The 1980's saw a rapid increase in Islamic terrorism: the bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex near Beirut, the hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221 and of TWA Flight 847, and the hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro. This last event led to the murder of Leon Klinghofer, a 69-year-old disabled American tourist. It is believed that the footage of his murder, shown repeatedly, sparked the Islamic jihadist love affair with the media, and vice versa. The bombings continued with the Rome and Vienna airports and the La Belle Discotheque in Berlin. Note for the first time the U.S retaliated after the Berlin bombing, targeting Libya and her leader Muammar el-Qadaffi. As a result of this counter-attack terrorists affiliated with Abu Nidal murdered three American University of Beirut professors.

Such activities continued in the 1990's with al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden moving to the forefront of the terrorist ranks. Major Al-Qaeda attacks began with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. In 1996 Osama bin Laden formally declared war on America and the West, and al Qaeda bombed a U.S. housing complex in Saudi Arabia. This was followed by the 1998 African Embassy bombings, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Then came the 2001 September 11th attacks on U.S. soil. These were followed by the 2002 attacks in Bali and Kenya, among others, and in 2003 attacks in Casablanca and Istanbul. Al Qaeda struck in Madrid in 2004, as well as attacking the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah that same year. In 2005 London became the latest target for OBL and his minions (to view a Flash presentation of al-Qaeda attacks click here).

Throughout much of the time after September 11th U.S. and allied forces pursued al-Qaeda, killing or capturing many of the top echelon leaders, but never managing to capture or verify the death of bin Laden. As a result of having harbored bin Laden and his followers the Islamofascist Taliban government of Afghanistan was toppled and democracy took root in the devastated country, but the War on Terror seemed destined to be long and difficult.

On another front, the US invasion of Iraq, viewed by many as a distraction in the War On Terror, undoubtedly consumed resources that could have been used to hunt bin Laden. The startling swiftness with which Saddam Hussein was toppled after years of taunting the world and flaunting the U.N. sanctions against him, and his ignominious capture, however, boosted the idea that democracy could take hold in the Middle East. This joy was to prove short lived, though. Shortly after Husseins capture the rise of the jihadist insurgency in Iraq, now known to be fueled by Syria and Iran, severely dampened the optimism many Americans felt for the future of Iraq. Anti-war coverage dominated Western media at the time; elections and the subsequent adoption of a Constitution in Iraq were not seen as the marks of progress that they are now recognized to be. The anti-war movement in the United States, driven by the far left but attracting adherents from across the spectrum of American society, fueled by the intensely anti-George Bush media and fronted by various demagogues, was relentless in it's call to "bring the troops home."

As President Bush entered the middle of his second term, political pressure to do just that mounted drastically and the President was forced by members of both political parties, especially a powerful few in his own party seeking to boost their profile in an election year, to do just that. On Christmas Day, 2005 the President announced that the "coalition of the willing" would immediately begin to withdraw from Iraq, with full turnover to be completed by Easter 2006, despite protestations from the Iraqi government that they were not yet strong enough to defend their democracy against Islamic jihad. While many on the American Right and several allies, including Australia, agreed that Iraq was not yet safe from the threat posed by the terrorist insurgents the American Left and the media were ecstatic in their "victory" over the President. Several high ranking military leaders and at least two mid-ranking diplomats resigned over the withdrawal, but the plan was put into action immediately.

These events took place against the backdrop of the Muslim uprising in Europe, which began in France and spread across the EU as Fall turned into Winter in 2005. At the time these uprising, termed "riots" were not recognized for what they were- a clear indication that Islam was on the march in Europe again, after having been defeated over seven centuries before.

With U.S. troops no longer in Iraq al-Qaeda was able to use the relatively open society of the still fragile democracy to infiltrate more would be jihadis, reestablishing training camps, targeting police and elected officials for assassination, and freeing trained terrorists for their next move- the envelopment of Europe.

Turkey, having long been rejected by the EU, experienced a sudden, massively violent return to militant Islam. Many young Turks, stung by failure of the EU to accept their nation and encouraged by the lack or response to the "riots" in France, Denmark, Belgium and other countries, flocked to the Islamofascist crescent, and the land in which the last Caliphate met it's end became the cradle of the next. The Turkish Republic was destroyed, and a new Islamic Republic declared, this time on Continental Europe. Many moderate or Westernized Turkish Muslims were imprisoned, tortured or simply executed as the radical progeny of the Taliban took control of the nation. A lucky few were able to flee, ironically to Israel as no Muslim nation would accept them.

Muslims across Europe were called to arms once again, and the "riots" of 2005 paled by comparison to the wave of terrorism that swept Europe in mid 2006. European nations declared martial law in rapid succession, but it was too late. The Muslim insurgents were already to well embedded into the fabric of the EU nations, and generations of gun control law left the citizenry of every nation apart from Switzerland (where the insurgency was rapidly crushed) unarmed and unable to defend itself.

European leaders turned to the U.N. and the United States for military aid, but the United States, still stung by the tragic failure of Iraq after coming so close to bringing freedom to the Iraqi people, deferred to the U.N. A resolution to send peace keeping troops into the EU was vetoed by permanent security council member China, supported by Argentina.

While there are still flare ups of violence along the tense borders of the Muslim city-states that now exist within Europe, peace has once again settled over the EU. France is reported to have shipped al of her nuclear weapons to Quebec, Canada for safekeeping, although Muslim unrest in that nation and the recent adoption of Sharia principles into public law lead many to believe that the weapons will not be safe for long, if indeed they are there.

Former President George W. Bush has remarked, publicly, that the early withdrawal from Iraq was the catalyst for the events that have transpired in Europe, and the Middle East, and that he views the Christmas decision the greatest failure of his Presidency. A former Secretary of State is rumored to have referred to Christmas 2005 as "the day America quit."

The New Caliphate, now based in Baghdad, has continued to issue veiled threats to the existence of Israel, all the while maintaining that Islam truly is the religion of peace.

Bring the troops home now!

2005-11-07T18:52:00.000-05:00

How many times have you heard that refrain? Probably more than I have- being outside the U.S. does have certain advantages at times, and being far from Moonbat Central is one of them. What if President Bush decided, tomorrow, to give those who oppose the war exactly what they wanted, and he ordered our troops out of Iraq tomorrow. What would happen, what would be the consequences? That is the question I asked in my blogiversary project/challenge, and while I may have fallen behind in preparing my own answer (I'm going to try to post it later tonight) the same cannot be said of those who I invited to take up the question.

- Toni, over at The View From Tonka was the first to answer the call- she starts off strong and keeps on going- don't miss this one:

We've all seen what has been occurring in France over the last 12 days. Doesn't look pretty does it. Did France's anti-war stance help them at all with the Muslim citizens of it's country? I don't think so, pandering to a specific ethnic group accomplishes nothing for a politician.

This is what the anti-war left wants, to pander to Islamic Facists under the the guise of being either anti-war or their other mantra is to support the troops by bringing them home. Knowing that the anti-war left is mostly comprised of Socialist and Communist party members this slogan is absurd. What the anti-war left does support are murdering dictators and totalitarian regimes. The protesting of Code-Pink outside of Walter Reed Hospital demonstrates the shameful behavior of this group. All these groups want to do is use our Troops to advance their own causes.

- Marc Schulman at American Future has once again hit one out of the park with Iraq: Thrill of Victory, Agony of Defeat in which he envisions the President announcing our withdrawal in the State of the Union Address. The course he plots is chilling for the ease with whixh it could come to pass:

Faced with this clamor and fearful of losing control of Congress, Bush used his January 2006 State of the Union address to announce a change of course:

We have achieved our goals in Iraq. Last month, more than ten million Iraqis refused to be intimidated by the terrorists. Because of their bravery, Iraq now has a democratically-elected permanent government that will serve as a beacon of light for the oppressed peoples of the Middle East.

We have always said that our military would not stay in Iraq a day longer than necessary. With the establishment of a permanent government, that day has arrived. Before entering this Chamber, I signed an Executive Order establishing September 30 of this year as the last day that the United States will have military forces in Iraq.

(Standing ovation)

- We have a new entrant into this project- Gollios (a frequent contributor of e-mail info for me) who has sent me the following to be posted. Like Toni he draws a Vietnam comparison, but in contrast to Marc he predicts more casualties, not fewer, if we announce a withdrawal, and he expands the circle of nations influenced by a coalition withdrawal to include China. This is a long post, so I am hosting it at My Blog is Your Blog. Here is a great excerpt (please leave comments on this blog, not MBIB :

...Despite good-faith efforts by elements of the coalition-trained Iraqi army & central government, the regions would start to unravel. The Kurds, knowing that they can neither count on our support or respect restraints imposed by the US, would accelerate ethnic cleansing efforts aimed at eventual secession. Iran would be emboldened to act in the South, which possibly could lead to a Shia-Shia schism, making that area of the country progressively less governable. Some like to think of the Shia as monolithic--however the Arab/Persian divide would once again be thrust to the forefront, as would divisions between Sadrist and Al-Sistani backed militias. The big losers in some ways would be the Sunni. Without engagement by the U.S., Shia and Kurdish forces would not have to act with restraint...and quickly the Sunni-nationalists would find themselves overrun--and often slaughtered by their erstwhile Jihadist 'allies.'

- There is more to come on this topic, including a post by yours truly. Feel free to offer up your scenario, on your own blog, at My Blog is Your Blog or by e-mail to me- and don't forget the comments! All you readers of the Beltway Traffic Jam- I'm talking to you!

Dr. D

(End of post, for now.)

"It's like Baghdad here! It's the Apocalypse!"

2005-11-06T18:04:00.000-05:00

I was going to post my "What If We Withdrew From Iraq Today" essay this afternoon, but in light of the continuing situation in France I am still working on that particular post. While not directly related, I can see some parallels between the two, and am still trying to tease them out, so hopefully that post will come tomorrow. I am not the only one making these connections, either- at least some of the rioters in France are fully aware of the similarities.

Despite my cheap shot at the French government (below), this is no laughing matter. After how many days does rioting become civil war? At what point do the French people say "enough is enough" and either demand action from the government in the form of reactive violence, or simply take to the streets themselves in search of justice? Mark Steyn (see the link above) has, as usual captured the essence of this situation perfectly:

Battles are very straightforward: Side A wins, Side B loses. But the French government is way beyond anything so clarifying. Today, a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman. They're in Brussels, where Belgian police officers are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan, and in Malmo, where Swedish ambulance drivers will not go without police escort. It's way too late to rerun the Battle of Poitiers. In the no-go suburbs, even before these current riots, 9,000 police cars had been stoned by ''French youths'' since the beginning of the year; some three dozen cars are set alight even on a quiet night. ''There's a civil war under way in Clichy-sous-Bois at the moment,'' said Michel Thooris of the gendarmes' trade union Action Police CFTC. ''We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.''

The response of the French government, lead by Jacques Chirac has been weak, at best. Finally, after 11 days, Chirac has made a public statement:

"The law must have the last word," Chirac said in his first public address on the violence. Those sowing "violence or fear" will be "arrested, judged and punished."

What Chirac seems to have failed to understand is that it is too late to make threats of arrest and punishment. The liberal left, the appeasers on both sides and the media have all been careful to tread lightly around this situation, but the discovery of a bomb factory and the spread of violence into rural France seems to indicate that the "angry youths" have no intention of ending their rampage anytime soon.

What are we to take away from this? France has done much to ingratiate itself to Muslims- they opposed the Iraq invasion, and have largely distanced themselves from the war on terror. Large numbers of immigrants have been welcomed into the country- many of them Muslim (France is home to the largest Muslim population in Europe), and yet clearly the French are not immune to Muslim rage. I am not claiming that 100% of the rioters are Muslim, but consider the reports of rioters shouting "God is Great" in Arabic and that 80% of the population of Clichy, where the riots began, is Muslim.

Until today the riots had largely been about the destruction of property and symbols of the state, with the notable exception of a woman on crutches who was doused with gasoline and set afire. French news is now reporting, however, that 30 police officers in Grigny have been injured in clashes with rioters, including two with serious gunshot wounds. How long will it be before these clashes become more frequent, or before the disaffected gangs turn their ire towards the French people themselves? How long before one torched building is found to be full of bodies? And when this does happen, what will the reaction be?

Faced with these questions I have to ask myself, what do the rioters want, really? Is this really about racism, or unemployment? Why is it that these same folks, recent immigrants to a large extent, did not rise up in their home lands? Why did they not agitate for change in the places they fled? This pattern of flee from a homeland without promise to a liberal Western land, and then demand that this land accept you and your ways without compromise, has repeated itself across Europe in recent decades.

Francis Fukuyama touched on this last week in his op-ed A Year of Living Dangerously: Remember Theo van Gogh, and shudder for the future:

The real challenge for democracy lies in Europe, where the problem is an internal one of integrating large numbers of angry young Muslims and doing so in a way that does not provoke an even angrier backlash from right-wing populists. Two things need to happen: First, countries like Holland and Britain need to reverse the counterproductive multiculturalist policies that sheltered radicalism, and crack down on extremists. But second, they also need to reformulate their definitions of national identity to be more accepting of people from non-Western backgrounds.

I find this passage profoundly disturbing. Who in their right mind wants to integrate "large numbers of angry young Muslims" into their community? To what end? Fukuyama fears a backlash from the right, but does not fear "large numbers of angry young Muslims"? I see no reason why any nation should alter its sense of national identity to accommodate recent immigrants. Equal treatment under the law for all is a given. From that base it is up to each society to choose what to adopt and what to marginalize. Any culture that chooses to transplant itself into the center of another must prove that what it has to offer is worthwhile, if it wishes to be accepted by the greater majority. The simple fact is that all cultures are not equal. Just because something is considered to have cultural value in one place does not mean it is valid in another.

If there really is a vast silent majority of peaceful Muslims in Europe then it is time for them to rise up as well. It is time for those who have "integrated" to drown out the violence and the voices of those who refuse to do so. It is time for France and the rest of the E.U. to worry less about the threat posed to their cultures by Hollywood and for them to worry more about the threat posed by their own policies, and the radical elements within their borders.

These riots may yet be put down without serious loss of life, but they are a glimpse of the future that awaits Europe. The youth who shouted out the phrase that is the title of this piece is sorely mistaken. Baghdad is on its way to recovery- Europe is on the slippery path to suicide by appeasement.

My blogiversary project.

2005-11-04T19:36:00.000-05:00

It is almost our one year blogiversary here at The Daily Demarche, and I figured what better way to celebrate than with another group blog project. You may recall that we first organized one on the topic of "What if We Had Never Invaded Iraq" and then another called "The China Syndrome: 2015 and beyond" (that one ran to several editions).

Well, it is time to put on your speculating caps again, ladies and gentlemen. This time I propose another Iraq related topic: what if we brought the troops home tomorrow, as those who oppose the war clamor for? What would the future of Iraq, the Middle East and the United States look like?

I sent invites out to those bloggers who have participated in the past (those I have good e-mail addresses for, anyway), and any others who send us e-mail and are now on "the list." I am now tossing it out to all of you, too. I'll be glad to host guest pieces for the non-bloggers who want to contribute, and My Blog is Your Blog (a project of mine that never really took off) is always at your disposal.

I am aiming for a Sunday/Monday post date for my offering, to allow time to work on it and to coordinate with any others who are interested, but any post any time after Sunday is welcome. Feel free to twist or run with the theme- the more variations the better. Let me know if you are interested, and if you do post on this theme be sure to send me an e-mail or a trackback so I can link to you.

Cheers, Dr. D

Oh, to be a fly on the wall.

2005-11-04T19:10:00.000-05:00

This might be wrong, but man can I just hear this in my head:

Ring, ring, ring.

Good evening, White House switch board.

(insert French accent) 'ello? Kin I spek wit Jeorge?

I am sorry sir, who are you trying to reach?

Jeorge, Jeorge Bush! The President.

I am sorry sir, he is not available, would like you like to leave a message?

This is Jacques Chirac, I am the President of la Republique Francaise, and I demand to spek to the President!

Um, sir, he really is not available- he is in Argentina.

Sacre bleu! Hokay, I will spek wit Sheney.

Please hold, sir.

(pleasant music)

Um, sir, he said he has nothing to say to you.

But, but, ee must spek wit me! I want eem to send the soldjers, again. Paree, she is burning.

Please hold, sir.

(pleasant music)

Sir, he told me to tell you that you will have to get the UN's permission to send troops in, and that you are exaggerating- Paris is not burning, the suburbs of Paris are burning, and the United States will not commit troops based on your faulty information.

But, but, ...

Thank you for calling the White House, sir. Good Night.

Click.

(end of my Ally McBeal moment)

"The City of Lights"- did they mean burning cars?

2005-11-03T22:12:00.000-05:00

Foks, I had a bad day today. That means I need to let off some steam. Lucky for me, we'll always have Paris. The phrase "the city of lights" has taken on a new meaning as riots in the heavily immigrant populated suburbs of Paris continue this week- burning cars expose the truth behind the reality of immigration in Europe. Now, I know this supposedly started with the tragic deaths of two young men, and my heart goes out to their families. But seven, seven! days of riots? One would hope, at least, that there is a lesson in all of this.

Of course there is: Muslims are discriminated against. The Beeb has a nice piece out titled French Muslims face job discrimination. Here is my favorite part:

Sadek recently quit his job delivering groceries near Saint-Denis, just north of Paris. He was tired of climbing stairs with heavy bags.

Sadek, 31, has a secondary school education and aspires to something better. But he knows his options are limited: "With a name like mine, I can't have a sales job."

Okay- he had a job. It was hard. He didn't like it. He quit. Now he is unemployed. No, now he is unemployed- and we should feel sorry for him. I am going to type this next part slowly so that everyone can follow along:

He had a job. He quit. Now he is unemployed.

That is not discrimination. It is stupidity, it is laziness, it is weak and shallow. He is playing the race card, period. Lots of people have tough jobs. Work, save, learn and get a better job. That is the fundamental key around the world to success. The article complains about integration and what it means to be French. I almost hate to do this- it seems to easy, but here it is:

Sadek has learned how to be French. He is the perfect Frenchman. The path ahead is tough- and he quit. Fight the Nazis? Non, too hard. Carry groceries up stairs? Merde! J'ai stoppé!

Even better- later in the same article the Beep waxes philosphic regarding access to education:

Of course, youths from poor suburbs need more than an education - they need jobs.

Um, Sadek had a job. He quit, remember?

More from the Beeb: Headscarf defeat riles French Muslims . Now, I think the whole headscarf ban in asinine, but again, it's the French. I grew up in an area with early summer temperatures in the high 90's and humidity to match. Girls could wear skirts or skorts to school- boys had to wear long pants. Why? Beats me, to this day. We were pissed, I can tell you! It was really unfair. So we rioted for 7 days and burned 177 cars. Actually, two guys wore skirts to school, got three Saturday detentions and the rest us just sweat into our Levis. But as our British journalist pals put it:

French Muslims marched against a move that many condemned as intolerant.

You might recall that thousands of of French Muslims condemned September 11th, packingthe Champs Elysee. Or that they thronged to the Eifel Tower when the Bali bombings occured. Or maybe you remember the moving footage of the tiny paper lanterns the Muslims of France floated down the River Seine after the Madrid bombings. Oh, you don't recall that? Sorry, I forgot- those things never happened. See, they only want to be tolerated, not to tolerate others.

So what is the French government going to do about it? I'll give you three guesses.

Ministers are hoping that a mix of factors - worsening weather, the return to classes after half term and the end of Ramadan - will combine soon to bring the wave of copy-cat riots to a halt, but there is deep pessimism about the future. The banlieues have been the scene of regular outbreaks of riots for more than 15 years now - and though each peters out eventually, the next round is always worse.

Right! They are going to hope it rains and that classes start again soon and the kids will get bored, besides a week of rioting with nothing to eat during the day really takes a toll on one. That oughtta work.

But take heart, there are some cool heads out there- this might be the best quote I have seen regarding immigration and the riots:

...local human rights organizations - rather than condemning the rioters as autonomous individuals who made bad choices - instead blame the French government for the riots, saying that an official's rhetoric about ridding the suburbs of crime "provoked" them. (Such explanations are never offered when white people engage in violence, quite rightly).

The unmistakable implication is that political rhetoric can easily provoke violence and mayhem from immigrants. If true, that seems an argument for ending immigration, not for accommodating every whim of a group that might erupt into violence otherwise. In fact, however, even outraged immigrants are perfectly capable of reining in their emotions and using their logic to formulate a civilized response even to legitimate injustices.

Of course in the days that follow we will be bombarded with talk of the "root causes" of the riots, the Interior Minister will be blamed, it will all be because France did not integrate its immigrant population. But rest assured, it won't have anything to do with "The "M" Word."

Meanwhile, the EU will have to brace to ask itself the tough question: is The future of Europe: Islamophobia? Funny, I always thought a phobia was some sort of baseless or irrational fear. Just keep telling yourselves, Europe, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Oh, and Muslim extremism.

RoP Linkfest.

2005-11-02T19:30:00.000-05:00

Our readers frequently send us a "heads up" on some of the breaking news out there, for which we are very thankful. There is so much going on in hte world, however, that we simply can't cover it all- family, work and other demands on our time restrict the amount of news we can cover. So I asked on of our regulars, Ron, if he would put together a linkfest on a topic that he covers very well- the so-called "Religion of Peace." Here is what he came up with on short notice, plus a few others that he has sent in lately- and her promised more to come.

1. When a kid gets caught stealing bread, the Glory of Shari'a is invoked. (Note: the text is in German and the photos are a bit disturbing, no blood, but it ain't pretty.)

2. The Religion of Peace, Tolerance & Diversity loves its children so much, they strap bombs to 10 year-olds.

3. None dare 'insult' Islam.

4. Royal airhead to plead Islam's cause to Dubya: (and explain how 7/7 was just a figment of everyone's imagination?).

5. G'day, mate! We must respect wife-beating and 'honor' killings.

6. Church-state debate revived by call for mosque funding.

7. Dutch Liberals block ban on glorifying terror.

8. Saudi bonus for former Gitmo inmates.

9. Terror groupstarget SharonQassam rockets aimed at ranch,'every Jew' must leave 'Palestine'.

10. Palestinian TV: Jews murder Arab brides in cold blood.

11. War in France, War in Denmark.

12. Jews and Freemasons controlled war on Iraq, says No 10 adviser.

and to make it a bakerss dozen:

13. Piggy banks 'offend UK Muslims'

Thanks for keeping us up to date, Ron, and for taking the time to put this together.

Got a topic that you are passionate about, and that we haven't covered, or that we missed an angle on? Send us a linkfest!

(End of post.)

Iraq is a quagmire, Kosovo is messy?

2005-11-01T21:52:00.000-05:00

Sorry one and all for that brief unannounced absence, last minute travel is occasionally part of the gig. Here are a few things that I did not have a chance to post on:

First, I am very disheartened to write about the apparent demise of New Sisyphus. It appears that the evil insurgents of the internet, spammers, have rendered his site inoperable. I say "apparent demise" because a few tech options have been offered to him, and he is of course always welcome to post with us. Let's hope this works out for the best, I'd hate to see him go.

The "Paper of Record", late last week, ran an editorial entitled "Kosovo, Still Messy After All These Years" lamenting the failure of the U.N. efforts there to produce a lasting peace with real results. What I love about this piece is that when the U.N. is involved and six years have passed and there is nothing to show for it the results are "messy." When George Bush frees Iraq, successful elections are held and a constitution is overwhelmingly approved (and underwhelmigly reported) in a fraction of that time, the result is a "quagmire." Just for giggles I searched for "quagmire+Iraq" on the times web site and got 271 hits. "Kosovo+quagmire" returned 42 hits, at least seven of which also contained the word Iraq. I stopped counting after that. Why beat a dead horse?

It's not all bad news from that region, though- in Macedonia's Journey Vlado Buckovski, prime minister of that country, one finds words that are few and far apart these days:

While Macedonians deserve the credit for the difficult reforms we have undertaken, we would not have come so far or so fast were it not for the support of the United States. In our part of Europe, we know first hand the value of American leadership and the necessity of backing diplomacy with military power. We appreciate American support for our process of reconciliation and reform.

The Prime Minister also says:

We are proud to stand side by side with America and its coalition partners in Iraq and with NATO in Afghanistan as part of our commitment to face the new threats of the 21st century with our allies.

To which I say: we are proud to have you stand beside us, sir. May your country and it's brave people continue to prosper.

Speaking of good news, National Review Online opens the month with Progress Reports: Balancing some of the Iraq-news scales. One rarely hears any good news from Iraq, such is the MSM fetish with all things negative. I had access to the Armed Forces Network, the military satellite TV system. This group of channels has no paid advertising, and features many "soldiers on the spot" type reports. Our family and friends who visited were always astonished to see footage of soldiers and Marines handing out toys, aiding women and children, building schools and hospitals or just speaking with Iraqis who did not cower in fear or try to kill the hated Americans on site. They simply had no idea that for most troops, most of the time, violence was a rare thing. NRO plans to continue reporting the good news all week. I say, why stop then? Why aren't we demanding the truth from our media, or at least some semblance thereof? As Capt. Todd Lindner put it in response to the question "are we getting it right" (the media coverage) when he appeared on CNN:

LINDNER: ..we did watch the news when we were back in Baghdad, and we had AFN, and we were able to watch CNN, but I don't know that they always had it right, and I don't know that it's anybody's fault, but for us, we understood our purpose for being there, and we just wanted to make a difference and have an impact, and we definitely did that. But it is kind of disheartening sometimes to see everything focused on just the, the death and destruction and the IED strikes and not focused on how well the U.S. and coalition forces are doing building up the Iraqi police services and the Iraqi army. It really is a tremendous effort being put into that infrastructure and building a self-sufficient government over there. And they're absolutely making progress.

For more on Captain Lindner see here, and to see why the feminist left ought to love him for this quote "Capt. Todd Lindner, who commands the 617th Military Police Company, which includes Raven 42, said Hester and Pullen "shouldn't be held up as showpieces for why there should be women in combat. They should be held up as examples of why it's irrelevant." see here (some, at least, have noticed).

Captain Lindner, thank you. Fear not, for your efforts have not gone unnoticed, just unreported by the MSM. Even in the heart of the liberal left, people know. As evidence I offer you this quote, from the Colorado State student newspaper:

Other fronts in the war on terror include the ever-controversial Operation Iraqi Freedom. Whether or not they were linked to 9/11, Iraq had been involved with terrorist organizations and the creation of weapons of mass destruction for decades. If you don't believe me, I have some more people you can ask, like the 5,000 or so Kurds and countless Kuwaitis who were killed by Saddam using poison gas in 1988. According to MSNBC.com Saddam showed great remorse when he referred to these Kuwaitis as "dogs" just last week in court. Oh, and if poisonous gas does not count as a weapon of mass destruction, then I don't know what does.

Outside of the removal of an evil dictator from power, Operation Iraqi Freedom has also seen the vast improvement of Iraq's infrastructure including water and electrical systems, roads, and schools. The health care budget has been increased from $16 million in 2002 under Saddam to $950 million today. Another change that has been made in Iraq, that I'm sure is dear to the heart of every employee here at the Collegian, is the establishment of free press, which had been banned for decades.

Just two weeks ago, Iraqis also voted on a new constitution, proving to the world yet again that a peaceful democratic Iraq is not too lofty of a goal. Iraq, along with Afghanistan will set an example for the rest of the tumultuous Middle East in the years to come.

Iraq and Afghanistan will set an example, as Macedonia already has, and in it's own sad way has Kosovo. And it will be thanks to men like Captain Lindner and the men and women he commanded and served with, along with the brave people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Macedonia. I only hope that the efforts of the people who fought and died in Kosovo, and who continue to struggle against the inept efforts of the occupying U.N. meet with equal success.

The old one, two combo.

2005-10-27T20:56:00.000-04:00

I feel pretty safe in saying that Americans in general tend be fairly isolationist in their thinking, that is, we just don't think about the rest of the world on a regular basis. Part of that is physical isolation- America is a huge country, and for most residents of the U.S. another country is pretty darned far away. A second reason is largely emotional- our experiences with the world have been less than ideal, as a nation. The first time massive numbers of Americans went out into the world was World War I, the second was World War II. Perhaps for a while after the second World War we thought we had made some friends out there, you know the countries we had bled and died for twice in less than thirty years, but I guess we learned the hard way not to count on those "friends in need, friends indeed."

For all that we don't get out much, however, we (as individuals) are pretty much always ready to welcome the rest of the world to visit- every bad teenage movie has a "foreign exchange student", and the idea of someone visiting from a faraway place and then taking a positive image of America home with them is an enduring one. The Fulbright Program, sponsored by the Department of State, is one of the most successful of these exchange programs:

The Fulbright U.S. Student Program is now the largest U.S. exchange program offering opportunities for students, and young professionals to undertake international graduate study, advanced research, university teaching, and teaching in elementary and secondary schools worldwide. The U.S. Student Program currently awards approximately 1,100 grants annually in all fields of study, and operates in more than 140 countries worldwide.

The foreign students who participate in the Fulbright program get an up-close and personal look at the U.S., they experience first hand the everyday "cultural diplomacy" that is only possible by complete immersion. Then they go home, and some of them apply what they have learned in America- namely, don't be shy and tell us what you really think. For an excellent example, see the group of Fulbright alum over at Atlantic Review, one of my favorite blogs from Old Europe:

...we believe that our website contributes to mutual understanding by informing our German readers of ongoing debates in the US that are not sufficiently covered in the German media and vice versa. The information in the Atlantic Review can help our readers not only to stay well informed about German, EU- and US foreign policies and transatlantic relations, but also to confront anti-American sentiments in Germany as well as Anti-German/Anti-European sentiments in the US. The Atlantic Review lays the ground for deeper understanding and insightful discussion.

Recently Joerg and Sitzpinkeln and Warmduscher (I am not sure which two they are) have been haunting the comment section on this blog, and today Sitzpinkeln threw down the gauntlet, both in the comments and in the trackbacks. He certainly knows his target audience- in one post he tracked back to he leads with this quote:

There's no serious disagreement that two major crises of our time are terrorism and global warming. And there's no disputing that America's oil consumption fosters both. Oil profits that flow to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries finance both terrorist acts and the spread of dangerously fanatical forms of Islam. The burning of fossil fuels creates greenhouse emissions that provoke climate change. All the while, oil dependency increases the likelihood of further military entanglements, and threatens the economy with inflation, high interest rates and risky foreign indebtedness.

Umm, I am pretty certain there is a lot of serious disagreement on those two issues, and I would think anyone reading this page would interpret "America's oil consumption fosters both" as "so there, you had it coming." Oh, that quote, by the way, if from the NY Times owned International Herald Tribune.

While the above passage seems fine tuned in order to drive folks who think like me nuts, the second trackback finds common ground- the threat posed by Saudi funded Wahhabism. He even goes so far as to drag our friend Marc Schulman over at American Future into it:

dozens of mosques in major cities across America are distributing documents, bearing the seal of the government of Saudi Arabia, that incite Muslims to acts of violence and promote hatred of Jews and Christians.

This post on Atlantic Review is one of the best I have read when it comes to policy issues, oil dependence and terrorism, linking to a wide array of greatly varied sources.

Now Sitzpinkeln wants some feedback from the readers of The Daily Demarche. If I know anything about the frequent commenters here, it is this: no one ever backs down from a great debate, even when it gets a little heated. So go ahead and give them your best shot, after the one-two they delivered here today, I hope some of you will take them up on the challenge. If you do please paste your comments in here too, so that we can all keep up on what is happening.

Chained to a fence? Consider this:

2005-10-26T21:01:00.000-04:00

I'd like to start today's post with a promise- after today you will never read the name Cindy Sheehan on this blog again- I may be forced to allude to her from time to time, especially if she does something really asinine, but it won't be by name. In fact, I'd welcome your suggestions for a good nom- de guerre for her. In the meantime I'll just use her initials CS, which if I am not mistaken, are also the initials for a type of tear gas.

After reading the site linked to in the last sentence I have come to think that both versions of CS have a lot in common:

Tear gas that you hear about on the news, in the form of CN or CS, is often used by law enforcement when they are faced with a combative crowd. The tear gas is launched in the form of grenades or aerosol cans so that the liquid becomes an aerosol. Both CN and CS are irritants -- they irritate mucous membranes in the eyes, nose, mouth and lungs, and cause tearing, sneezing, coughing, etc.

Try it like this:

Cindy Sheehan, that you hear about on the news, in the form of CNN or CBS, is often used by the left wing when they are faced with a combative crowd. Cindy Sheehan is launched in the form of sound bites or video clips so that the message becomes airborne. Both CNN and CBS are irritants -- they irritate mucous membranes in the eyes, nose, mouth and lungs, and cause tearing, sneezing, coughing, etc.

Apparently one should deal with our pal CS in much the same one would deal with tear gas:

If possible stand upwind...
The best treatments are air, cold water and time.

Okay, I think I have carried that as far as it can go. In all honesty we on the right owe CS a round of applause today, as she has already started doing what the left had proven to do so well in recent years: attacking it's own candidates:

"I believe that any candidate who supports the war should not receive our support," Sheehan said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "It doesn't matter if they're Senator Clinton or whoever."

[snip]

"I believe Mrs. Clinton is a brilliant woman who has a lot on the ball, but to characterize her as one of the leading liberals in Congress is absolutely false," Sheehan said. "With her position as a senator she's become more `let's see which way the wind blows, and what's going to get me re-elected or elected, or how am I going to benefit from this,' instead of truly voting from her integrity."

I can't believe that she was able to say that any Clinton has become the type that is governed by "which way the wind blows"- where the hell was she the eight years Hillary was President? As for voting from her integrity- well, I won't even bother to touch that gem. Too easy.

So, thanks for that at least CS. And thanks too, I suppose for your service as the front for the anti-Bush left. William Arkin in today's WaPO, put it perfectly: Cindy Sheehan. Could there be a more ineffective anti-war voice?

My problem with Mrs. Sheehan is that as a political voice, she is disempowering, and she has no solutions. In condemning the Bush administration, Sheehan seems utterly uninterested in either their thinking or the possibility that there were genuine and unpremeditated missteps that led us to where we are today. In short, she insists on characterizing the political battle over the Iraq war as merely a battle of good (her and her anti-war forces) versus evil (Bush).

It is the same shallow approach that George Bush uses when it comes to terrorism.

I can only wish I had been a fly on the wall when CS and rabble that are shamelessly using her first heard the likening of their icon to George W. Bush. It must have been classic.

A challenge, then to CS and friends- prove to us that you are not shallow, and that you do have answers and not just slogans- answer, if you can, this question:

The question, left unasked, and unconsidered by editorial pages is whether it would have been better to wait a few years, until Iraq really did have WMD, or to actually enforce the myriad of U.N. Resolutions and carry out a previously established U.S. Policy.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer, though.

Go ahead and chain yourself to the fence of the White House, CS, enjoy the freedom you have to express your displeasure, and the liberty to oppose the government. While you are chained up, in the few moments you have between interviews, think about this:

All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn't tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen."

"This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us."

"Amer's wife didn't lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer's throat."

and this:

US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.

The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.

Still chained to that fence? Here is some more food for thought:

Official Iraqi documents recovered after the fall of Saddam regime suggest a staggering 5 million executions were made during Bath era alone. Over 10 million were also imprisoned. They were all Shias save a small percentage of Kurds. It is also very interesting to note that after the 1991 Shia uprising over 300,000 were killed or captured never to be seen again, but there were no injured. This is very odd considering the logical fact that wars result in many more injuries than deaths. Under Saddam, however, people were either killed instantly or killed in mass executions soon after. With slogans such as 'After today no more Shias' the army had advanced into the city of Karbala. The killed were killed, the captured were killed, and the injured were killed as well. No one was spared.

Finally, CS- if you still have not had your addiction "fixed" for the day and here is a little quiz you can give to your friends while you celebrate the death of another American hero. (thanks to Cold Fury for the tip.) A sample question:

Who says that corporations are “terrorists” and has said “I don’t own a single share of stock” but secretly owns shares in Pentagon contractors like Boeing, pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, and even Halliburton?
a. Barney Frank
b. Gloria Steinem
c. Michael Moore
Answer: C. Michael Moore. According to IRS records, Moore owns at least several hundred
thousands of dollars in stock and has a broker, even though he has repeatedly claimed he doesn’t “own a single share of stock.”

That has to sting too. For what it is worth, I am srry that your son was killed Cindy, and I am sorry that 1,999 other sons were killed as well, just as I am sorry that countless tens of thousands were killed under Saddam. I am not sorry, though, that we are putting an end to it.

Good bye, Cindy Sheehan, God bless.

For Cindy and Michael.

2005-10-25T19:10:00.000-04:00

Staff Sgt. George Alexander died recently of wounds suffered in Iraq, becoming the 2,000th U.S. service member to die in that conflict. To his family, friends and comrades in arms we offer our prayers and deepest sympathies.

May our friends, the loyal opposition on the American left, allow his family time to mourn before they begin to attempt to capitalize on his sacrifice. Cindy, Michael- I am talking to you.

(End of post.)

"Imagine You're a Woman"

2005-10-24T20:32:00.000-04:00

Late last month Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes waded into the thick America's struggle for hearts and minds by taking a whirlwind tour of the Middle East. Not many people judged her effort to be a success- she took a pretty sound beating in the press for everything from the groups she met with to the topics she addressed. One of the most controversial (at least in the American press) topics she chose to use to illustrate the second-class citizen status of many females in the Muslim world is the ban on women driving in the Kingdom of the House of Saud. Her audience of hundreds of Saudi women, and a few men, reacted coolly, and Hughes was accused at home and abroad of not knowing what she was talking about, and not knowing to whom she was talking.

Never mind that the women who met with Hughes were most likely not chosen at random, or representative of the general population, or that there were men in the room (even the San Francisco Gate notes how odd that it). Anyone want to bet that the men who attended were not charter members of the Saudi Men for Women's Rights club?

No, forget all of that. Because today MEMRI brings us the words of Badriyya Al-Bishr. Al-Bishr is "a lecturer in social sciences at King Saud University" who "recently published an article titled "Imagine You're a Woman" in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat" (excerpts by MEMRI):

"Imagine you're a woman. When your brother is born, people say: 'It's a boy, how wonderful,' and when you are born they say: 'How wonderful, it's a little girl' , using the diminutive form. Your arrival is welcome if [you are] the first or second girl, but it's best if there are no more than two, so that nothing undesirable happens to the mother. On the other hand, your brothers' arrivals are welcomed, the more the merrier.

"Imagine you're a woman. You always need your guardian's approval, not only regarding your first marriage, as maintained by the Islamic legal scholars, but regarding each and every matter. You cannot study without your guardian's approval, even if you reach a doctorate level. You cannot get a job and earn a living without your guardian's approval. Moreover, there are people who are not ashamed to say that a woman must have permission to work even in the private sector.

"Imagine you're a woman, and the guardian who must accompany you wherever [you go] is your 15-year-old son or your brother, who scratches his chin before giving his approval, saying: 'What do you think, guys, should I give her my permission?' Sometimes he asks for... a bribe [in return], heaven forbid! [But] your brother avoids taking such a bribe in 'cash' because his self-respect prevents him from touching a woman's money. So he prefers the bribe to be a car, a fridge, or an assurance of money that you will pay in installments [for him], until Allah gets him out of his financial straits...

"Imagine you're a woman, and you are subject to assault, beatings, or murder. When the press publishes your photo [together with] the photo of the criminals and [descriptions] of their brutality, there are people who ask: 'Was the victim covered [by a veil] or not?' If she was covered up, [the question arises:] 'Who let her go out of the house at such an hour?' In the event that your husband is the one who broke your ribs, [people will say] that no doubt there was good reason for it.

"Imagine you're a woman whose husband breaks her nose, arm, or leg, and you go to the Qadi to lodge a complaint. When the Qadi asks you about your complaint, and you say, 'He beat me,' he responds reproachfully 'That's all?!' In other words, [for the Qadi], beating is a technical situation that exists among all couples and lovers, [as the saying goes]: 'Beating the beloved is like eating raisins.'

"Imagine you're a woman, and in order to manage your affairs you must ride in a 'limousine' with an Indian or Sri Lankan driver... or that you [must] wait for a younger brother to take you to work, or that you [must] bring a man who will learn to drive in your car, and will practice at your expense... because you yourself are not permitted to drive.

"Imagine you're a woman in the 21st century, and you see fatwas [issued] by some contemporary experts in Islamic law dealing with the rules regarding taking the women of the enemy prisoner and having sexual intercourse with them. Moreover, you find someone issuing a fatwa about the rules of taking the women of the enemy prisoner even in times of peace, and you don't know to which enemy women it refers.

"Imagine you're a woman who writes in a newspaper, and every time you write about your [women's] concerns, problems, poverty, unemployment, and legal status, they say about you: 'Never mind her, it's all women's talk.'"

Not surprisingly this item has not been picked up in the mainstream press. A Google News search returned only the MEMRI article, and a Google Web Search turns up only one other article by this author- on OurJerusalem.com, also via MEMRI, of course. This earlier piece discusses the terrorist need for "family" and the mistreatment of women and children within these "families."

The reason these pieces exist on the fringes of the Internet is that the MSM and the anti-Bush left have absolutely no interest in covering these stories- they much prefer to think that women in Saudi Arabia would rather not drive, since that is what the elite who have drivers have told them, and they prefer to stick their heads in the sand over issues of abuse, unequal treatment under the law and the systematic starvation of women and children. Why would they prefer to do this? Because they really don't care about the freedom, liberty, equality and safety of the millions of who are oppresseded under Islam. They care about making George W. Bush look bad, period.

So the next time someone denounces the idea that Muslims, especially Muslim women, want to be free, or want to be treated equally, or might want to shed the burqa, and that all of the President's talk is simply warmongering, just say to them "Imagine you're a woman..."

Clear, Hold and Build- UPDATED!

2005-10-19T21:20:00.000-04:00

The original content of this post begins below. Several kind readers managed to find the article which inspired this piece (I promptly mis-filed it after reading it the first time) and so I can now call this post complete. Thank you to those who posted or sent me the link. The article is entitled America-haters turn a blind eye to the killers in Iraq- you'll find another updated reference to it below. Note this post has been cross-blogged at The Intelligence Summit and is included in the Open Posts: Weekend Edition at The California Conservative.

Secretary of State Rice once again today reinforced my belief that she is the right person, in the right place, at the right tome, for the job. Questioned by the Senate today on an "exit strategy" for Iraq, Dr. Rice put forth the idea that the goal of our strategy in Iraq is to “Clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions." She then stood her ground, and gave excellent answers to ridiculous questions. Case in point:

"I'm not looking for a date to get out of Iraq," Senator Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the panel, said. "But at what point, assuming the strategy works, do you think we'll be able to see some sign of bringing some American forces home?"

Said Dr. Rice "When the job is done, and the Iraqi people have a land cleared of terrorists, held free, and with strongly built Iraqi institutions."

OK, she didn't say that- what she said was "I don't want to hazard what I think would be a guess, even if it were an assessment, of when that might be possible." Why would she give an answer like that? Because it is the truth, she can not see into the future any more than Biden or anyone else can.

In something approaching the court room scene in A Few Good Men Senator Barbara Boxer tossed out this gem:

"Our country is sick at heart at the spin and false expectations," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told Rice. "They want the truth and they deserve it."

Dr. Rice then gave them the truth:

Rice said Iraq's police and Army forces are becoming better able to handle the country's security without U.S. help, and she repeated President Bush's warning that setting a timetable for withdrawal plays into terrorists' hands.

"The terrorists want us to get discouraged and quit," Rice said. "They believe we do not have the will to see this through."

The question is: can they handle it? Even Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind) got into the act:

"We should recognize that most Americans are focused on an exit strategy in Iraq," said Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman. "Even if withdrawal timelines are deemed unwise because they might provide a strategic advantage to the insurgency, the American people need to more fully understand the basis upon which our troops are likely to come home."

I never thought I would hear a United Sates Senator say something as asinine as this- we should set timelines EVEN IF THEY MIGHT PROVIDE A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE TO OUR ENEMY? For shame, Sen. Lugar.

I understand that people, not the American people, or the Iraqi people, but just people want peace. I also understand that politicians want to be re-elected. It is what they live for. So here is my compromise: when the politicians want to ask stupid questions and make ridiculous remarks, Madam Secretary, let them. Help them, even- provide them with the facts and the truth, and even the opinions of a Nobel Peace Prize winner- namely Jose Ramos-Horta:

From 2001:
...I oppose wars as a matter of personal conviction. But because of my own experience, I also say that sometimes the use of force is necessary to put an end to tyranny and genocide. Can anyone condemn the U.S. for having intervened during World War II, to save the Jews from total annihilation? Can we condemn the NATO countries for intervening against Milosevic in 1998? For saving the Kosovars from annihilation? And moving to Afghanistan, it is often far too simplistic for blaming the U.S. But people forget that the U.S. gave an ultimatum to the Taliban regime to turn over Osama bin Laden. Pakistani diplomats traveled to Kabul twice, to persuade the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden. Here you have a state, Afghanistan, ruled by a regime that hosted a network and boasted about it, and defied the rest of the world about it. So, what should you do? The pacifists say "bring them to justice." Sure. Tell me how to bring them to justice without using force.

From 2002:
...Iraq has waged two wars of aggression against its neighbours, first against Iran causing the death of more than 8 million people, then a war of aggression against Kuwait, causing the destruction the death of tens of thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars in destruction. Sadaam Hussein was the very first leader in the modern world to have launched an environmental war in blowing up the oilfields when he was defeated over Kuwait. The first environmental war in humanity's history. He was also the first leader to use chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s against Iranian soldiers. Again in the 1990s, biological chemical weapons were used against civilian Kurdish. 20,000 people perished under biological chemical weapons. In the 21st century, are we going to accept that there is a leader like that? Are we going to debate whether he has chemical weapons or not? Whether he has nuclear capability or not, the question we should focus on is should such an individual with such a record in this day and age be in office at all?

From 2003:
Ramos-Horta knows from terrible experience that the trouble with tyrants is that you can't vote them out. Like the leaders of the Iraqi opposition today, the East Timorese 'begged a foreign power to free us from oppression, by force if necessary,' he wrote in the New York Times last week. 'Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations, did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people?'

From 2004:
In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mr. Mandela, too, recognized the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.

Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.

(BEGIN UPDATE)

From 2005-
...those who hate the US seem to believe that every wrong committed by an American serviceman must not only be loudly condemned but portrayed as a deliberate act by the US Government, while the systematic and daily barbarities perpetrated predominantly by Sunni Muslims upon their fellow Muslims pass without comment. Such hypocrisy and unwarranted attacks increase the pressure on the US to cut and run from Iraq...

For all the present violence, in a few years Iraq could easily evolve into a peaceful and democratic country. Whether that transpires ultimately rests in the hands of the millions of Iraqis. But they cannot succeed if they are abandoned. And the brave, young American soldiers whom we today see cruising the treacherous streets of Iraq, sometimes battling the terrorists, sometimes conversing with ordinary Iraqis, will be remembered as the heroes who made this possible.

Ramos-Horta has is exactly right. It is up to the Iraqi's, but they need a little help from their friends. And right now the best friend they ahve is the American soldier (meaning all our forces). And those soldiers and their Iraqi friends and their mission need our support, for America's young men and women in Iraq represent all of us. Many too be sure are from the lower or middle class. Few are members of the "American Aristocracy"- it has been a long time since a Kennedy went to war, and is likely to be longer yet. Some went to "State" universities and some went to West Point or the other service academies- elite educational institutions of the highest caliber. They are America- they are us. But they are something more than us- they are us distilled. Ramos-Horta closes with the following:

For all the present violence, in a few years Iraq could easily evolve into a peaceful and democratic country. Whether that transpires ultimately rests in the hands of the millions of Iraqis. But they cannot succeed if they are abandoned. And the brave, young American soldiers whom we today see cruising the treacherous streets of Iraq, sometimes battling the terrorists, sometimes conversing with ordinary Iraqis, will be remembered as the heroes who made this possible. (END UPDATE)

And so we will continue to clear, hold and build. Because just like our Nobel Prize winning friend, we too understand that there are worse things than war. Iraqis want to be free, and they want peace. Our troops want to come home, and we want them to come home, alive and well. But the people of Iraq and indeed the world, depend on their mission being accomplished. The people of Iraq also want justice- perhaps justice more than anything else- and here I'll repeat Ramos-Horta's challenge to the anti-war left: tell me how to bring those who are need of being brought to justice to that justice without using force. We'd all love to see it happen.

(End of post.)

Return of "the perfect dictatorship"?

2005-10-16T21:52:00.000-04:00

Not many political parties stay in power for over seven decades- even the Soviets didn't last that long- and even fewer remain in power for so long in a "democracy." One party, however, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) (The Institutional Revolutionary Party- I love that name) managed to do just that . And they did it within spitting distance of the United States. Mexico spent more than seventy years of the last decade under a corrupt, repressive regime- and it appears that they may just be poised to vote that same party back into power this summer. I find it somewhat ironic that on the eve of yet another historic vote in Iraq to move towards democracy one of our nearest neighbor's is about to backpedal.

In 2000, when Vicente Fox's coalition party (Partido Accion Nacional- PAN- the National Action Party) defeated the PRI many saw it as the end to that party in Mexico. President Bush broke with long standing tradition and visited Mexico on his first trip outside of the U.S., and not Canada (pissed the Canucks off, too). During that visit in February of 2001 President made the following remarks:

We also talked about what we can do together to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity throughout the entire hemisphere. I told President Fox that building a hemisphere of freedom will be a fundamental commitment of my administration. We both look forward to discussing these ideas with other hemispheric leaders in Quebec in April at the Summit of the Americas.

President Fox, his government and all of Latin America were looking forward to an era of hemispheric development the likes of which had never been seen. The severely dysfunctional immigration policy of the United States seemed destined for overhaul. Democracy was indeed on the march, and prosperity for many more people a real possibility. However, reading the full text of the remarks of that day again now, I am struck by the apparent foreshadowing of a question by one of the reporters present:

What is the message that you want to send right now, what does the United States want to send to the world as a message with the new bombing of Iraq? And, above all, why, Mr. Bush, at this point, when you are establishing a dialogue with the President of Mexico? Why? Is this a beginning of a new war?

Now, I do not think that at that moment the message was that we were at the "beginning of a new war." But eight months later we were at the beginning of a new war, a war that is ongoing, and expanding. The effects of 9-11 were, and continue to be, long reaching. Our relationship with President Fox's fragile new government was one of the first foreign policy casualties of the attacks.

Suddenly Mexico's porous border became much more than a nuisance for those living along that same border, and the image of illegal aliens took a dark turn. I, for one, have taken a hard line stand when it comes to closing the border as tightly as humanly possible, if for no other reason than this- if a dirt farmer from Chiapas can slip past the border patrol how hard would it be for a team of even semi-trained terrorists to do the same?

This change in attitude towards Mexico and policies of immigration reform played a significant part in the failure of President Fox's coalition to make real change in Mexico (the remaining PRI politicians in office helped- they once even denied Fox permission to leave Mexico to visit the United Sates). Fox had been seen by many in Mexico, and indeed throughout Latin America and even the United States, as having the ear of the American President. Immigration accords between the two conservative businessmen appeared to be certain. After 9-11, Fox found himself facing a six year term with no possibility for re-election (not allowed under Mexican election law), and without the possibility of an immigration accord with the U.S. He immediately became a lame-duck president. In the last two years the PRI have made major comebacks in Mexico, particularly along the border where they now control the entire region apart form Baja California.

Why should we care, you might ask? How about this, from The World Fact Book:

Mexico has a free market economy that recently entered the trillion dollar class. It contains a mixture of modern and outmoded industry and agriculture, increasingly dominated by the private sector. Recent administrations have expanded competition in seaports, railroads, telecommunications, electricity generation, natural gas distribution, and airports. Per capita income is one-fourth that of the US; income distribution remains highly unequal. Trade with the US and Canada has tripled since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Mexico has 12 free trade agreements with over 40 countries including, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, the European Free Trade Area, and Japan, putting more than 90% of trade under free trade agreements. The government is cognizant of the need to upgrade infrastructure, modernize the tax system and labor laws, and provide incentives to invest in the energy sector, but progress is slow.

Progress, my friends, is slow. And as slow as it has been it may soon come to halt. Soon after the elections which toppled the PRI The Economist ran a piece entitled "Revolution ends, change begins" , in which they described the PRI as:

...not so much a strict father as a rich, if whimsical, uncle. It co-opted trade unions and their block votes by lavishing money and power on their leaders. It bought the peasants eternal gratitude by breaking up huge plantations and handing out millions of small tracts of land. Instead of censoring the press, it kept newspapers afloat- and loyal- with cheap newsprint, floods of government advertising, and generous gifts to journalists. It was the greatest patron of the arts. Sometimes it even funded opposition political parties, both to give its critics a little space to vent their feelings, and to make sure they stayed divided. Its rule was based on collaboration, not coercion...

Mexico thus became what Mario Vargas Llosa, a Peruvian novelist, in 1990 called a "perfect dictatorship." It looked like a democracy, headed by a president who could not be re-elected, and equipped with all the institutional bells and whistles usually found in democracies.

The very sad fact may just be that the Fox and his coalition were a flash in the pan (no pun intended) and that the revolution really has been institutionalized in Mexico. Should the PRI regain control of our neighbor to the south I have little doubt that there will soon be a return to the corrupt practices of the past. This will mean several things to the United States:

- A probable increase in illegal immigration from Mexico: the PRI had seventy years to modernize Mexico and failed. Having thwarted Fox and the PAN, what real incentive do they have to make progress now?

- An increased threat along our southern border from those who mean to do us harm: any increase in illegal aliens looking to pick fruit means stretching the border patrol ever thinner. Mix into that corrupt officials willing to look the other way as cargo moves through their region, or to offer legitimate documents in false names, and the issue become apparent.

- Democracy in our hemisphere will have suffered a blow- sure, the PRI might be legitimately voted back into power. It happens in Egypt all the time, right?

I do not blame what has happened on Mexico over the last six years solely on September 11th and our resulting shift of focus in our foreign policy; but those events certainly had something to do with the current political situation to o ur immediate south. As Mexico gears up for the July 2006 elections it will behoove us to pay attention. Regardless of the outcome, we will have to live with a few facts- we share a huge border with the Third World where we meet Mexico, millions of Mexicans live in the U.S. both legally and illegally, and when we make promises or discuss our ideology Mexicans on both sides of the border pay attention. We need to do the same.