In answer to questions:
> See today's earlier post for the satellite radio channels and where to access them.
> My guess is that much of John's Monday show will be given to discussing the London Train bombings.
> A caution for overseas readers who hope they can follow the show by visiting John's website: The news reports and guest names he features in the daily lineup portion of the website are only a ballpark indication of what a segment will be about.
Until such time as the entire broadcast is archived on the show's website, if that ever happens, you need to listen to the show to get his source's reports. Also, depending on how news is breaking, the reports can sometimes be at wide variance from the list of topics on the website.
> If I were three people I would type up my notes on every Batchelor segment over the coming weeks that discusses evidence/expert opinion about the London Train bombings. While I have done this on occasion for other Batchelor reports and other radio shows (recall my notes on Drudge interview with Gertz on China-North Korea), I cannot do it on a regular basis. I hope my readers in the United Kingdom understand. And really, my notes are a poor substitute for the reports from Batchelor's sources.
> As to whether what Eddie Hayes said on the air last night during Batchelor's show is true, which is that the ratings for John's show are bigger than the circulation numbers for The New York Times -- Eddie is a big-name attorney with a reputation for integrity so I doubt he would have said it, if it wasn't true. But if this question is important to you kindly write John Batchelor (his email address is posted on the show's website) and ask him. Or spend hours trying to plumb the arcane notations at the byzantine Arbitron website (I tried two years ago and gave up).
I will note that anecdotal reports I've heard over the years tend to support Eddie's observation. What is certain is that the reporters and other sources, including the "superstar" media figures who guest on John's show, do it for free. This would include Larry Kudlow, the British media journalist John Terrett, and a host of top reporters for major press here and in Europe in Asia (including reporters who do stories for The New York Times).
All that is volunteer work. While their primary motive is surely to help John's audience get the 'real' story, they know they are not talking into a black hole in USA radio-land. And they know the audience for John's show is global.
> As to why you can't find taped broadcasts and/or transcripts of the show on the Batchelor website -- I don't know; kindly write Batchelor and ask him.
> I was supposed to get a breather this weekend but as you can see I'm still at my -- er, post. However, the next post will not be until Monday, even if the breaking news is North Korea has agreed to rejoin the Six-Party talks, which it happens to be. Check Marmot's Hole and Simon World (see Pundita sidebar under China/Korea's heading for the links) for comments on the latest act in the Tehran-Pyongyang-Beijing Three Ring circus. And don't forget to stop by American Future for the latest from the EU.
Best regards to all,
Pundita
Saturday, July 9
London Train bombings: early reports, pieces in a jigsaw puzzle
(See about half-way down this post for information on Batchelor show satellite radio channels.)
From Friday John Batchelor show:
> John Loftus reports that it's looking as if a "local hothead" AQ "franchise" cell carried out the bombings. (In other words, AQ didn't risk exposing their best sleeper cells - Pundita.)
> Yossef Bodansky reports that the bomb material is expensive, military grade and bears some earmarks of the same material used in the Madrid train bombings. There are indications the material is part of large shipment stolen from a base in Yugoslavia some years back. The British government is awaiting a sample of the material. The Iranian military was involved in the heist, has a huge covert presence in Yugoslavia, and personally oversees bombmaking for terrorist cells moving in and out of the region.
> Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi of Iran Press News reports that her sources in Iran tell her that the London bombings were directed by the Iranian military; this was to send a message to Britain not to push Iran on nuclear weapons program and to Vienna not to push the criminal investigation of Iran's new president.
* * * * * * * * *
Speaking quite frankly, I would not be surprised to learn that Zand-Bonazzi's sources are also currently blaming global warming and male pattern baldness on the Iranian regime. But there is no doubt that Tehran is alarmed about strong hints that Britain is leading the EU to considering a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program. This from a July 5 story:
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/
source/005978.html
I repeat the warning I mentioned in the update to my last post: Traditional military wisdom is that in war, the first three reports are often wrong. News consumers (including Batchelor and his sources) are working with 'mosaics' -- bits and pieces of data, in the manner of forensic investigators, and as more pieces are obtained the picture can change. But it's vital to pay attention to the data because al Qaeda, the regime in Tehran and their stoodges are trying to 'spin' the London bombings as being the fault of the British because their government stood with the US administration on Iraq.
That is a crock. All President Bush did was flush into the open a war that's been going on for more than a decade, and which is not grounded in the Israel-Palestine dispute. All Tony Blair did was the right thing -- how right, the story will come out soon enough.
The Europeans need to keep one thing uppermost in mind: the sleeper cells that al Qaeda installed in Europe predate the Afghanistan and Iraq operations. And the cells were not installed for the fun of having a secret society.
About listening to Batchelor via satellite:
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=
Channel&cid=1104779630453
Above is the URL for John Batchelor page of Sirius website. His show can be heard Monday-Friday 3-6 AM Greenwich Mean Time at Channel 140.
Also available on XM Satellite radio Channel 125 at same time
http://xmradio.com/programming/
channel_page.jsp?ch=124
Via Internet:
WABC website (New York 770 AM)
10 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
3 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
or WMAL website (Washington, D.C. 630 AM)
9 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
2 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
or (anecdotal reports that it's the best Internet link) WRKO AM out of Boston -- click on WRKO logo on Batchelor's website home page
http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/
.
From Friday John Batchelor show:
> John Loftus reports that it's looking as if a "local hothead" AQ "franchise" cell carried out the bombings. (In other words, AQ didn't risk exposing their best sleeper cells - Pundita.)
> Yossef Bodansky reports that the bomb material is expensive, military grade and bears some earmarks of the same material used in the Madrid train bombings. There are indications the material is part of large shipment stolen from a base in Yugoslavia some years back. The British government is awaiting a sample of the material. The Iranian military was involved in the heist, has a huge covert presence in Yugoslavia, and personally oversees bombmaking for terrorist cells moving in and out of the region.
> Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi of Iran Press News reports that her sources in Iran tell her that the London bombings were directed by the Iranian military; this was to send a message to Britain not to push Iran on nuclear weapons program and to Vienna not to push the criminal investigation of Iran's new president.
* * * * * * * * *
Speaking quite frankly, I would not be surprised to learn that Zand-Bonazzi's sources are also currently blaming global warming and male pattern baldness on the Iranian regime. But there is no doubt that Tehran is alarmed about strong hints that Britain is leading the EU to considering a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program. This from a July 5 story:
WASHINGTON – AFP- The European Union will not accept a resumption of any nuclear arms activitiy by Iran, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douse-Blazy said Tuesday after talks with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.For the rest of the report visit Iran Press News at this URL:
"The Europeans will never accept a resumption of the Iranian military nuclear activity," he told reporters with Rice by his side after their meeting at the State Department.
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/
source/005978.html
I repeat the warning I mentioned in the update to my last post: Traditional military wisdom is that in war, the first three reports are often wrong. News consumers (including Batchelor and his sources) are working with 'mosaics' -- bits and pieces of data, in the manner of forensic investigators, and as more pieces are obtained the picture can change. But it's vital to pay attention to the data because al Qaeda, the regime in Tehran and their stoodges are trying to 'spin' the London bombings as being the fault of the British because their government stood with the US administration on Iraq.
That is a crock. All President Bush did was flush into the open a war that's been going on for more than a decade, and which is not grounded in the Israel-Palestine dispute. All Tony Blair did was the right thing -- how right, the story will come out soon enough.
The Europeans need to keep one thing uppermost in mind: the sleeper cells that al Qaeda installed in Europe predate the Afghanistan and Iraq operations. And the cells were not installed for the fun of having a secret society.
About listening to Batchelor via satellite:
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=
Channel&cid=1104779630453
Above is the URL for John Batchelor page of Sirius website. His show can be heard Monday-Friday 3-6 AM Greenwich Mean Time at Channel 140.
Also available on XM Satellite radio Channel 125 at same time
http://xmradio.com/programming/
channel_page.jsp?ch=124
Via Internet:
WABC website (New York 770 AM)
10 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
3 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
or WMAL website (Washington, D.C. 630 AM)
9 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
2 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
or (anecdotal reports that it's the best Internet link) WRKO AM out of Boston -- click on WRKO logo on Batchelor's website home page
http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/
.
To Readers in UK
If you did not listen to John Batchelor's Friday show, kindly stop back in an hour and I'll fill you in; his sources did have some news about the bombings. The caution, as Batchelor has said many, many times, is that in war the first three reports are usually wrong.
Regards,
Pundita
Regards,
Pundita
Friday, July 8
Questions about Pundita's London bombings post
I received questions about today's earlier post (Re-titled London bombings and President Bush plays Sherlock Holmes), which I strive to answer here:
> At last count there were 1,690,000 Google references to the Iran-al Qaeda (AQ) connection; a large number of these surely reference al Qaeda's connection to the regime in Tehran.
> It is well established that AQ senior leadership are now bunkered in Iran and rely on Tehran's military for protection. In exchange, they carry out Tehran's bidding -- which does not mean Tehran is the sole "funder" of AQ.
> The AQ-Tehran connection is an example of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" method that terrorists are using to survive the US war on terror -- a method which now dominates AQ's (and Tehran's) ever-shifting alliances. In other words, AQ and Tehran buried the hatchet when it was mutually beneficial for them to do so.
> To clarify my speculation that Tehran ordered AQ to strike London: Tehran's new president has recognized that his hard line on nukes could be met with a hard line from the EU Three. A strong European united front, led by Britain, could easily set in motion a UN resolution for an embargo of Iran -- a resolution with teeth. At all costs Tehran needs to prevent that.
Ergo, my guess that Tehran ordered AQ to deliver a brutal warning to the British government not to go down the embargo road and not to support a tough Bush line on Tehran. Again, my view runs counter to the prevailing ones about the rationale for the attack on London, which is why I brought it up.
In war we need to look at all plausible major scenarios relating to an attack. Also the speculations I've heard drift from Bush's argument that most terrorism we face today is state sponsored. My speculations carefully stay within the framework of his argument.
> For readers who want some kind of map before sailing on Google's sea of data about the AQ-Iran connection, they might wish to start with Dan Darling's recent observations at Winds of Change blog are found here and here Iran & al-Qaeda: The Ties That Bomb.
Check the Winds of Change archive for additional reports on the Iran-AQ connection.
> For readers who yearn for deep background, read Yossef Bodansky's The Secret History of the Iraq War, which details US intelligence on the AQ-Iran alliance.
Please -- no questions to Pundita about why the book is not footnoted. Read through Bodansky's credentials at the link I provide in order to grasp why he couldn't name his sources.
> Finally, returning readers might note that I made extensive edits to today's post on the London bombings. I did this after a sincere reader who is not very much up on the war on terror got lost wending through the many points I hurled into the essay. The reader's questions are much appreciated, and galvanized me to clarify points and prune the writing.
Thus, I leave it for another day to argue that emphasis on the Islamic element makes for a diversionary counter-thesis to Bush's elegant (and correct) theory that the emphasis of the war on terror should be on state sponsors of terrorism.
.
> At last count there were 1,690,000 Google references to the Iran-al Qaeda (AQ) connection; a large number of these surely reference al Qaeda's connection to the regime in Tehran.
> It is well established that AQ senior leadership are now bunkered in Iran and rely on Tehran's military for protection. In exchange, they carry out Tehran's bidding -- which does not mean Tehran is the sole "funder" of AQ.
> The AQ-Tehran connection is an example of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" method that terrorists are using to survive the US war on terror -- a method which now dominates AQ's (and Tehran's) ever-shifting alliances. In other words, AQ and Tehran buried the hatchet when it was mutually beneficial for them to do so.
> To clarify my speculation that Tehran ordered AQ to strike London: Tehran's new president has recognized that his hard line on nukes could be met with a hard line from the EU Three. A strong European united front, led by Britain, could easily set in motion a UN resolution for an embargo of Iran -- a resolution with teeth. At all costs Tehran needs to prevent that.
Ergo, my guess that Tehran ordered AQ to deliver a brutal warning to the British government not to go down the embargo road and not to support a tough Bush line on Tehran. Again, my view runs counter to the prevailing ones about the rationale for the attack on London, which is why I brought it up.
In war we need to look at all plausible major scenarios relating to an attack. Also the speculations I've heard drift from Bush's argument that most terrorism we face today is state sponsored. My speculations carefully stay within the framework of his argument.
> For readers who want some kind of map before sailing on Google's sea of data about the AQ-Iran connection, they might wish to start with Dan Darling's recent observations at Winds of Change blog are found here and here Iran & al-Qaeda: The Ties That Bomb.
Check the Winds of Change archive for additional reports on the Iran-AQ connection.
> For readers who yearn for deep background, read Yossef Bodansky's The Secret History of the Iraq War, which details US intelligence on the AQ-Iran alliance.
Please -- no questions to Pundita about why the book is not footnoted. Read through Bodansky's credentials at the link I provide in order to grasp why he couldn't name his sources.
> Finally, returning readers might note that I made extensive edits to today's post on the London bombings. I did this after a sincere reader who is not very much up on the war on terror got lost wending through the many points I hurled into the essay. The reader's questions are much appreciated, and galvanized me to clarify points and prune the writing.
Thus, I leave it for another day to argue that emphasis on the Islamic element makes for a diversionary counter-thesis to Bush's elegant (and correct) theory that the emphasis of the war on terror should be on state sponsors of terrorism.
.
London Bombings and President Bush plays Sherlock Holmes
"Pundita, I'm wondering if you have your crystal ball back from the repair shop or if your Ouija board is in the mood to speak English.
Jan in Reston"
Dear Jan:
When it gets to the point where one's regular readers can psych one out, I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing. All right. The caveats apply but my first thought on getting the news of the London bombing was that this was a message from Tehran to Blair's government.
Keep in mind that the EU Three negotiations with Tehran about their nuclear program have been led by Jack Straw; the negotiations, which have depended on the diplomatic ploy known as confidence building (or what the layperson would call "appeasement"), have been his special project. But recently the EU Three have said in essence, "Hey, this isn't working."
They've been tossing around the idea of a harder line but it really depends on Britain's decision because they've been leading the negotiations. The question of what to do about Tehran is surely at the top of the agenda at the G8 meeting, even though I doubt this has been announced.
So if ever there was a time for Tehran to send a message to Blair that stiff penalties would accompany London encouraging Brussels to take a harder line, yesterday was the time.
The reasoning informing my view requires explanation. I see the term "war on terror" as shorthand for referring not to the methods of warfare or so-called terror organizations but to state sponsors of covert warfare. These states use mercenary armies specializing in asymmetrical warfare that passes as terrorism.
Bush came close to spelling it out when he okayed a speechwriter's use of the term "axis of evil." He was speaking of governments -- three, to be precise -- that fund and direct what are mercenary armies, although he was aiming the message at more than three governments.
Bush's naming of governments as an axis spreading terrorism was the outcome of a trend that he and his military and intelligence advisors identified after 9/11. Previous to that time, Western intelligence agencies were drowning in data about terrorist attacks, but with no way to organize the data to reveal meaningful patterns.
Along came Bush, the son of a US president who had been head of the CIA. So, unlike his predecessor, Bush actually read the intelligence reports that came to his desk. And (unlike his predecessor) he received an in-person report from the head of the CIA every working day. And he paid more attention to Israeli dossiers on terrorism than perhaps any previous US president.
From all that, Bush formed the idea that the concept of terrorism was outdated. At that time (early 2001) terrorism was seen as the means for an oppressed group to influence/topple a government via attacking the civilian population. But from what Bush was learning, it seemed that many terrorist acts were government sponsored.
That view up-ends the accepted definition of terrorism. Yet it also presents an efficient way to organize data about terrorism: Instead of trying to figure out from the past attacks where and when various terrorist organizations are going to strike next, see if the data points to a specific government sponsor.
That tentative view led to the Bush administration's ill-fated attempt to hit at al Qaeda via the Afghanistan Taliban regime. I'd say the administration was on the right track but a little late in the day -- 1998 would have been a better shot but then that was before the Bush administration. And bin Laden figured out that the Taliban were preparing to give him up.
After 9/11 Paul Wolfowitz had his assistants plug data on terrorist attacks into a software program called Analyst Notebook, which looks for connections between disparate data. The program massaged the data to reveal a clear pattern of government-sponsored terrorism.
Yet so entrenched was the idea that terrorism is a weapon against the state that intelligence agencies never made a concerted effort to connect terrorist acts with state sponsorship. Once they made that effort a completely different picture emerged. The new picture quickly rescued Western intelligence agencies from the hall of mirrors created by too much data and no coherent way to organize it.
And the revised view quickly led to successful interdictions of weapons and WMD material shipments. One such interdiction led to Libya folding up their WMD program.
So, while George W. Bush seems an unlikely contributor to the science of detection, he holds a place there, although it might take historians a century to get around to crediting him. He had considerable help but without his grasp of the issues and pushing the idea, the revised view of terrorism could not have come about and gotten a foothold in the US government.
This does not imply that all modern acts of terrorism are state sponsored. The "Battle of Algiers" type of terrorism, which is as old as resistance to a powerful oppressive government, will always be with us. But the global epidemic of terrorism, which is the target of the war on terror, can be traced to sponsorship by a small number of governments and/or factions within them.
Thus, the Bush Axis of Evil speech and the thesis informing the war on terror: take down the kingpins -- the corrupt regimes sponsoring terror armies -- to end the global epidemic of terrorism. Readers who lived through decades of rampant crime in New York City then saw Rudy Giuliani's strategy to go after the crime kingpins can appreciate the concept behind the war on terror.
With that explanation out of the way, I can return to the London bombings. From what I heard last night on John Batchelor's show, George Friedman, the head of Stratfor , would probably dispute my view of who gave the order for the London bombings and why.* According to what George said last night, Stratfor holds to the theory that the bombings were part of a methodical al Qaeda plan to stage bombings in Europe about 18 months apart.
For what reason? Once you accept the Stratfor thesis, there are branching theories. One branch is that the bombing is an attempt to terrorize Europe into pressuring European members of the Coalition to leave Iraq. Another theory is that al Qaeda has to periodically stage attacks in order to save Face and keep up recruitment.
Those speculations might be very sound. Yet they ignore that al Qaeda central command currently draws pay from Tehran and the implications. And they ignore that timing is everything. They ignore other things as well, such as that al Qaeda's leaders are not fools. They don't spend a lot of money and risk exposing a cell over a matter of Face. And in a world of many hungry people, recruitment is always as easy as a few bags of grain.
My bet is that the London bombings were staged to send a precise message to a government at a precise time. In the case of London the message was: If Britain wants to avoid being a target for ongoing warfare against civilians, the British government should continue taking a soft line against Tehran's nuclear weapons program.
* This is not to discount Stratfor's view. It's thanks to Stratfor's analysts that John Batchelor's audience was probably the first to get confirmation that al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attack.
Stratfor is not a news source -- it's an intelligence source -- but it provides so much valuable information that it's used by many media insiders, congressionals, and even government intelligence analysts as a cutting edge source of news on international developments. From that angle, Stratfor, along with John Batchelor's radio show, is spearheading the "intelligence-based" post-partisan revolution in news reporting and analysis.
For readers unfamiliar with John's show and the concept of intelligence-based reporting, see yesterday's Pundita post John Batchelor Show: stay tuned , which I put up as a public service to UK readers looking for news on the London train bombings. (Almost all of John's three-hour show last night, plus the fourth hour we receive here in WMAL-land, was devoted to sources reporting on the bombings.)
Jan in Reston"
Dear Jan:
When it gets to the point where one's regular readers can psych one out, I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing. All right. The caveats apply but my first thought on getting the news of the London bombing was that this was a message from Tehran to Blair's government.
Keep in mind that the EU Three negotiations with Tehran about their nuclear program have been led by Jack Straw; the negotiations, which have depended on the diplomatic ploy known as confidence building (or what the layperson would call "appeasement"), have been his special project. But recently the EU Three have said in essence, "Hey, this isn't working."
They've been tossing around the idea of a harder line but it really depends on Britain's decision because they've been leading the negotiations. The question of what to do about Tehran is surely at the top of the agenda at the G8 meeting, even though I doubt this has been announced.
So if ever there was a time for Tehran to send a message to Blair that stiff penalties would accompany London encouraging Brussels to take a harder line, yesterday was the time.
The reasoning informing my view requires explanation. I see the term "war on terror" as shorthand for referring not to the methods of warfare or so-called terror organizations but to state sponsors of covert warfare. These states use mercenary armies specializing in asymmetrical warfare that passes as terrorism.
Bush came close to spelling it out when he okayed a speechwriter's use of the term "axis of evil." He was speaking of governments -- three, to be precise -- that fund and direct what are mercenary armies, although he was aiming the message at more than three governments.
Bush's naming of governments as an axis spreading terrorism was the outcome of a trend that he and his military and intelligence advisors identified after 9/11. Previous to that time, Western intelligence agencies were drowning in data about terrorist attacks, but with no way to organize the data to reveal meaningful patterns.
Along came Bush, the son of a US president who had been head of the CIA. So, unlike his predecessor, Bush actually read the intelligence reports that came to his desk. And (unlike his predecessor) he received an in-person report from the head of the CIA every working day. And he paid more attention to Israeli dossiers on terrorism than perhaps any previous US president.
From all that, Bush formed the idea that the concept of terrorism was outdated. At that time (early 2001) terrorism was seen as the means for an oppressed group to influence/topple a government via attacking the civilian population. But from what Bush was learning, it seemed that many terrorist acts were government sponsored.
That view up-ends the accepted definition of terrorism. Yet it also presents an efficient way to organize data about terrorism: Instead of trying to figure out from the past attacks where and when various terrorist organizations are going to strike next, see if the data points to a specific government sponsor.
That tentative view led to the Bush administration's ill-fated attempt to hit at al Qaeda via the Afghanistan Taliban regime. I'd say the administration was on the right track but a little late in the day -- 1998 would have been a better shot but then that was before the Bush administration. And bin Laden figured out that the Taliban were preparing to give him up.
After 9/11 Paul Wolfowitz had his assistants plug data on terrorist attacks into a software program called Analyst Notebook, which looks for connections between disparate data. The program massaged the data to reveal a clear pattern of government-sponsored terrorism.
Yet so entrenched was the idea that terrorism is a weapon against the state that intelligence agencies never made a concerted effort to connect terrorist acts with state sponsorship. Once they made that effort a completely different picture emerged. The new picture quickly rescued Western intelligence agencies from the hall of mirrors created by too much data and no coherent way to organize it.
And the revised view quickly led to successful interdictions of weapons and WMD material shipments. One such interdiction led to Libya folding up their WMD program.
So, while George W. Bush seems an unlikely contributor to the science of detection, he holds a place there, although it might take historians a century to get around to crediting him. He had considerable help but without his grasp of the issues and pushing the idea, the revised view of terrorism could not have come about and gotten a foothold in the US government.
This does not imply that all modern acts of terrorism are state sponsored. The "Battle of Algiers" type of terrorism, which is as old as resistance to a powerful oppressive government, will always be with us. But the global epidemic of terrorism, which is the target of the war on terror, can be traced to sponsorship by a small number of governments and/or factions within them.
Thus, the Bush Axis of Evil speech and the thesis informing the war on terror: take down the kingpins -- the corrupt regimes sponsoring terror armies -- to end the global epidemic of terrorism. Readers who lived through decades of rampant crime in New York City then saw Rudy Giuliani's strategy to go after the crime kingpins can appreciate the concept behind the war on terror.
With that explanation out of the way, I can return to the London bombings. From what I heard last night on John Batchelor's show, George Friedman, the head of Stratfor , would probably dispute my view of who gave the order for the London bombings and why.* According to what George said last night, Stratfor holds to the theory that the bombings were part of a methodical al Qaeda plan to stage bombings in Europe about 18 months apart.
For what reason? Once you accept the Stratfor thesis, there are branching theories. One branch is that the bombing is an attempt to terrorize Europe into pressuring European members of the Coalition to leave Iraq. Another theory is that al Qaeda has to periodically stage attacks in order to save Face and keep up recruitment.
Those speculations might be very sound. Yet they ignore that al Qaeda central command currently draws pay from Tehran and the implications. And they ignore that timing is everything. They ignore other things as well, such as that al Qaeda's leaders are not fools. They don't spend a lot of money and risk exposing a cell over a matter of Face. And in a world of many hungry people, recruitment is always as easy as a few bags of grain.
My bet is that the London bombings were staged to send a precise message to a government at a precise time. In the case of London the message was: If Britain wants to avoid being a target for ongoing warfare against civilians, the British government should continue taking a soft line against Tehran's nuclear weapons program.
* This is not to discount Stratfor's view. It's thanks to Stratfor's analysts that John Batchelor's audience was probably the first to get confirmation that al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attack.
Stratfor is not a news source -- it's an intelligence source -- but it provides so much valuable information that it's used by many media insiders, congressionals, and even government intelligence analysts as a cutting edge source of news on international developments. From that angle, Stratfor, along with John Batchelor's radio show, is spearheading the "intelligence-based" post-partisan revolution in news reporting and analysis.
For readers unfamiliar with John's show and the concept of intelligence-based reporting, see yesterday's Pundita post John Batchelor Show: stay tuned , which I put up as a public service to UK readers looking for news on the London train bombings. (Almost all of John's three-hour show last night, plus the fourth hour we receive here in WMAL-land, was devoted to sources reporting on the bombings.)
Thursday, July 7
John Batchelor Show: Stay tuned
Broadcasting on the radio since September 12, 2001.
The head of C-SPAN changed his schedule to make time to listen to John Batchelor and so have many news media insiders and high-level government figures in Washington and around the world. During this fast-moving dangerous era, so should you.
The audience for John Batchelor's radio show is global. The show has the world's best reporting on the war on terror and also carries nightly (M-F) the John Loftus report on current war-related "open source" intelligence. The show also features reports from journalists filing with the world's most respected press outlets.
Batchelor's show represents post-partisan, intelligence-based news analysis and reporting.(*) John and his sources unpack background to major news events over days, months, and even years so that the listener develops an in-depth, coherent view of a particular world region/issue.
First American news program to treat the United States as a superpower nation. First American news program to look at international news from a uniquely American perspective. First news program to integrate daily news coverage with 21st century issues--energy, space exploration, etc.
Witty, dramatic, and always fascinating presentation of the news. Brings back radio's Golden Age. Analysis of US politics and European/other world region politics--Middle East, China, India, Former Soviet Union, African countries, etc. Reports regularly on State Department, White House, Congress, US intelligence agencies. Nightly in-depth reporting on war on terror. US history discussions, strong on US war history. Cultural trends. Discussions about new books on literary/historical figures.
The show, based in New York City (WABC AM radio), airs on many ABC radio stations throughout USA. Show is three hours Monday-Friday nights on most stations (10:00 PM - 1:00 AM, Eastern US time).
Show airs four hours in WMAL AM region (Greater Washington, DC). Some or most of the fourth hour is aired during the regular three hour format, time permitting.
The show (or portions of it) is sometimes bumped by sportscasts on local ABC radio stations. Check ABC affiliate station websites for sports schedules.
Check affiliate ABC radio station websites for information on show times and listening via local websites. Also see John Batchelor Show website ("Q & A" and "Show Times"):
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/
Listening via Satellite (All four show hours)
1) Sirius satellite radio, Monday-Friday 3-6 AM Greenwich Mean Time at Channel 140. Sirius Batchelor webpage:
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=
Channel&cid=1104779630453
2) XM Satellite radio Channel 125 at same time as Sirius:
http://xmradio.com/programming/
channel_page.jsp?ch=124
Listening via Internet:
WABC website (New York 770 AM)
10 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
3 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
Or
WMAL website (Washington, D.C. 630 AM)
9 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
2 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
* Post-partisan means Republicans and Democrats more-or-less equally get their blood pressure raised listening to the program over a period of a few weeks.
Intelligence-based means (a) the guest lineup can reflect guests with good sources in intellience agencies here and abroad, and (b) the show takes an empirical rather than agenda-based view of news.
The latter observation doesn't mean the show has no point of view (Batchelor is on the Hawkish side and strongly supports Israel); it means Batchelor is more interested in getting the story straight than pushing his point of view. He is completely up front about his personal views on US foreign policy, which is more than can be said for any other broadcast (or major press) news media outlet in the USA.
NOTE: This post does not constitute an endorsement of John Batchelor's views or the views of any of his sources. Nor is it an endorsement of the advertisers or links featured on Batchelor's website. Also, I have no connection with the John Batchelor Show, ABC and its parent corporation, ABC Radio, or any ABC affiliate stations.
The head of C-SPAN changed his schedule to make time to listen to John Batchelor and so have many news media insiders and high-level government figures in Washington and around the world. During this fast-moving dangerous era, so should you.
The audience for John Batchelor's radio show is global. The show has the world's best reporting on the war on terror and also carries nightly (M-F) the John Loftus report on current war-related "open source" intelligence. The show also features reports from journalists filing with the world's most respected press outlets.
Batchelor's show represents post-partisan, intelligence-based news analysis and reporting.(*) John and his sources unpack background to major news events over days, months, and even years so that the listener develops an in-depth, coherent view of a particular world region/issue.
First American news program to treat the United States as a superpower nation. First American news program to look at international news from a uniquely American perspective. First news program to integrate daily news coverage with 21st century issues--energy, space exploration, etc.
Witty, dramatic, and always fascinating presentation of the news. Brings back radio's Golden Age. Analysis of US politics and European/other world region politics--Middle East, China, India, Former Soviet Union, African countries, etc. Reports regularly on State Department, White House, Congress, US intelligence agencies. Nightly in-depth reporting on war on terror. US history discussions, strong on US war history. Cultural trends. Discussions about new books on literary/historical figures.
The show, based in New York City (WABC AM radio), airs on many ABC radio stations throughout USA. Show is three hours Monday-Friday nights on most stations (10:00 PM - 1:00 AM, Eastern US time).
Show airs four hours in WMAL AM region (Greater Washington, DC). Some or most of the fourth hour is aired during the regular three hour format, time permitting.
The show (or portions of it) is sometimes bumped by sportscasts on local ABC radio stations. Check ABC affiliate station websites for sports schedules.
Check affiliate ABC radio station websites for information on show times and listening via local websites. Also see John Batchelor Show website ("Q & A" and "Show Times"):
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/
Listening via Satellite (All four show hours)
1) Sirius satellite radio, Monday-Friday 3-6 AM Greenwich Mean Time at Channel 140. Sirius Batchelor webpage:
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=
Channel&cid=1104779630453
2) XM Satellite radio Channel 125 at same time as Sirius:
http://xmradio.com/programming/
channel_page.jsp?ch=124
Listening via Internet:
WABC website (New York 770 AM)
10 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
3 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
Or
WMAL website (Washington, D.C. 630 AM)
9 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
2 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time
* Post-partisan means Republicans and Democrats more-or-less equally get their blood pressure raised listening to the program over a period of a few weeks.
Intelligence-based means (a) the guest lineup can reflect guests with good sources in intellience agencies here and abroad, and (b) the show takes an empirical rather than agenda-based view of news.
The latter observation doesn't mean the show has no point of view (Batchelor is on the Hawkish side and strongly supports Israel); it means Batchelor is more interested in getting the story straight than pushing his point of view. He is completely up front about his personal views on US foreign policy, which is more than can be said for any other broadcast (or major press) news media outlet in the USA.
NOTE: This post does not constitute an endorsement of John Batchelor's views or the views of any of his sources. Nor is it an endorsement of the advertisers or links featured on Batchelor's website. Also, I have no connection with the John Batchelor Show, ABC and its parent corporation, ABC Radio, or any ABC affiliate stations.
Wednesday, July 6
French philosopher goes to war against Iran's regime. What's next from Europe? Pink elephants falling from the sky?
Pundita is not having a good week. Yesterday we keeled at news that the European Commission has decided that rampant environmentalism is bad for industry. Tonight we suffered a bruised elbow while falling off our swivel chair. This happened upon hearing Shaheen Fatemi of the Iran va Jahan blog inform John Batchelor's audience that a famous French philosopher, Bernard-Henri Lévy, has called a spade a spade with regard to Iran's new president.
Here are excerpts from Fatemi's translation of Lévy's opinion piece for the prestigious French weekly, Le Point:
"Chancelleries will as usual minimize it. Experts will explain that there is no religious extremism which is not diluted by the responsibility which comes with the elected office.
"Americans and the Israelis will be warned against the temptation to use force. It would be said and repeated that it is urgent to hold judgment on the newly elected subject to his actions.
"As far as Vladimir [Putin] is concerned, he has already given [the new President of Iran] his shining seal of approval in return for petrodollars.
"Let’s face the facts: Mr. Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man. His election as President of Iran is a catastrophe. Coming after the takeover of the city and municipal councils and then the Parliament it should be construed as another step in the full fledged return to power of the hard-liners. [...]
"The new President is not the modest and pious leader described at length by the media. He is a brutal man. He is a man with blood on his hands. He is a professional killer, not very well known publicly but very familiar to the intelligence community that see him rightfully as one of the agents of international terrorism manipulated by IRI. Before him Iran was already a terrorist state. What will happen to it with him? What would you call a country whose chief is a terrorist himself?
"On the nuclear issue the new President following his election left no room for doubt. He promised that Iran under his leadership would become an exemplary powerful Islamic State. The status of nuclear power according to him is non-negotiable.
"And those who did not understand this unbelievable sophistry, a good example of the best collection of political bad faith, should take a second look:
"How did we get there? How did Iran about whom we were assured of irreversible progress towards democracy could all of a sudden reverse into such regression?" [...]
We will leave off there, before Lévy really gets wound up. Pundita must meet the philosopher's question with a question: When you ask how we got to there -- what you mean "we" kemosabe?
Any well-informed news consumer, any Iranian exile, knows there is nothing "sudden" about the hard-line regime. There is no "reverse into regression." There is a natural progression, as methodical and inevitable as the Nazi party progressed until the world had no choice but look at their face.
So here is my question: How does one interpret as a "sudden reversal" a regime following on a regime that ordered the death by beating and gang rape of a female Canadian journalist, then poured acid on the victim's genitals in a vain attempt to cover up the method of murder?
Where is the "sudden reversal" when for years Iranian exiles in France have been shouting at the French in speeches and from books, press articles and websites about wholesale atrocities and murders carried out by every administration in power in Tehran since the Iranian revolution?
Where is the "sudden reversal" when it was screamingly obvious during the first months after the revolution that democracy had not followed on the heels of the Shah's toppled regime?
And as long as I'm in the mood to ask rhetorical questions: What's in their water supply that causes the French to studiously ignore barbarism until it prepares to cook them for dinner? Maybe it's the same gunk that infested the water supply in Washington, DC, and which caused one US presidential administration after another to think it was a really cool idea to have a 'Green Belt' in the Middle East.
Bright thinking: pit a bunch of Islamofascists and outright dictators against the Soviet commies. Downside: once you let loose the Hounds of Hell, they don't tend to respond to "Shoo poochie!"
But let us look on the bright side. One has to understand the French and their influence in the Arab world to appreciate the far-reaching import of Levy's opinions. Surely as write these words Egyptian intellectuals lounging in Cairo coffee houses are discussing Lévy's points.
God Himself could appear to the French to give a warning and they would just shrug. But let a French philosopher hold forth and the earth pauses in its spin while the French ponder. Their dedication to the ideas of intellectuals -- which often make no reference to facts -- is at once their most irritating and endearing trait.
In this case, though, Lévy references hard facts while challenging his government's studious blindness about Iran's regime.
As to where we go from here, it's up to French citizens to continue recalling the meaning of a democracy -- a trend they've been demonstrating since the "Non!" vote. They need to stop acting as if they are ruled by oligarchs. All they have to do is read the riot act to their government and Chirac's party.
As to the fear that Iran will cut off oil to Europe if Europeans put up a united front, Tehran is referencing the past if they make that threat. They assume a UN embargo would have the same effect on them as it did on Saddam's regime. All that did was force the regime into back-channel deals with Europeans who were eager to do business with him.
So it's a matter of the French, and the rest of Europe, grasping the concept of a "united front." It doesn't require a philosopher to understand the meaning.
For Shaheen Fatemi's complete English translation of Bernard-Henri Lévy's piece for Le Point and a link to the article in French, visit Iran va Jahan. The visit is well worth it.
.
Here are excerpts from Fatemi's translation of Lévy's opinion piece for the prestigious French weekly, Le Point:
"Chancelleries will as usual minimize it. Experts will explain that there is no religious extremism which is not diluted by the responsibility which comes with the elected office.
"Americans and the Israelis will be warned against the temptation to use force. It would be said and repeated that it is urgent to hold judgment on the newly elected subject to his actions.
"As far as Vladimir [Putin] is concerned, he has already given [the new President of Iran] his shining seal of approval in return for petrodollars.
"Let’s face the facts: Mr. Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man. His election as President of Iran is a catastrophe. Coming after the takeover of the city and municipal councils and then the Parliament it should be construed as another step in the full fledged return to power of the hard-liners. [...]
"The new President is not the modest and pious leader described at length by the media. He is a brutal man. He is a man with blood on his hands. He is a professional killer, not very well known publicly but very familiar to the intelligence community that see him rightfully as one of the agents of international terrorism manipulated by IRI. Before him Iran was already a terrorist state. What will happen to it with him? What would you call a country whose chief is a terrorist himself?
"On the nuclear issue the new President following his election left no room for doubt. He promised that Iran under his leadership would become an exemplary powerful Islamic State. The status of nuclear power according to him is non-negotiable.
"And those who did not understand this unbelievable sophistry, a good example of the best collection of political bad faith, should take a second look:
“Nuclear energy is the result of scientific development of the Iranian people and no one can bar them from this path to scientific advancement.""Add to this the hatred toward Israel which is the main ingredient of his world view; add to this a North Korean-type hatred for America of an irresponsible leader who has no hesitation in saying that he will lead his country on the path of self-sufficiency and thus is not impressed with threats of a superpower. [...]
"How did we get there? How did Iran about whom we were assured of irreversible progress towards democracy could all of a sudden reverse into such regression?" [...]
We will leave off there, before Lévy really gets wound up. Pundita must meet the philosopher's question with a question: When you ask how we got to there -- what you mean "we" kemosabe?
Any well-informed news consumer, any Iranian exile, knows there is nothing "sudden" about the hard-line regime. There is no "reverse into regression." There is a natural progression, as methodical and inevitable as the Nazi party progressed until the world had no choice but look at their face.
So here is my question: How does one interpret as a "sudden reversal" a regime following on a regime that ordered the death by beating and gang rape of a female Canadian journalist, then poured acid on the victim's genitals in a vain attempt to cover up the method of murder?
Where is the "sudden reversal" when for years Iranian exiles in France have been shouting at the French in speeches and from books, press articles and websites about wholesale atrocities and murders carried out by every administration in power in Tehran since the Iranian revolution?
Where is the "sudden reversal" when it was screamingly obvious during the first months after the revolution that democracy had not followed on the heels of the Shah's toppled regime?
And as long as I'm in the mood to ask rhetorical questions: What's in their water supply that causes the French to studiously ignore barbarism until it prepares to cook them for dinner? Maybe it's the same gunk that infested the water supply in Washington, DC, and which caused one US presidential administration after another to think it was a really cool idea to have a 'Green Belt' in the Middle East.
Bright thinking: pit a bunch of Islamofascists and outright dictators against the Soviet commies. Downside: once you let loose the Hounds of Hell, they don't tend to respond to "Shoo poochie!"
But let us look on the bright side. One has to understand the French and their influence in the Arab world to appreciate the far-reaching import of Levy's opinions. Surely as write these words Egyptian intellectuals lounging in Cairo coffee houses are discussing Lévy's points.
God Himself could appear to the French to give a warning and they would just shrug. But let a French philosopher hold forth and the earth pauses in its spin while the French ponder. Their dedication to the ideas of intellectuals -- which often make no reference to facts -- is at once their most irritating and endearing trait.
In this case, though, Lévy references hard facts while challenging his government's studious blindness about Iran's regime.
As to where we go from here, it's up to French citizens to continue recalling the meaning of a democracy -- a trend they've been demonstrating since the "Non!" vote. They need to stop acting as if they are ruled by oligarchs. All they have to do is read the riot act to their government and Chirac's party.
As to the fear that Iran will cut off oil to Europe if Europeans put up a united front, Tehran is referencing the past if they make that threat. They assume a UN embargo would have the same effect on them as it did on Saddam's regime. All that did was force the regime into back-channel deals with Europeans who were eager to do business with him.
So it's a matter of the French, and the rest of Europe, grasping the concept of a "united front." It doesn't require a philosopher to understand the meaning.
For Shaheen Fatemi's complete English translation of Bernard-Henri Lévy's piece for Le Point and a link to the article in French, visit Iran va Jahan. The visit is well worth it.
.
African economist pleads, "For God's sake, please stop the aid!" Can astrologers explain this week in Europe?
Has anyone else noticed that something really strange is going on across the Pond? Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye has just sent Pundita this bombshell: an online newspaper interview with a Kenyan economist who charges that aid to Africa and Western development policies helped wreck the continent. Nothing the economist says would be news to Pundita readers, but the astounding part is that the newspaper is Germany's Spiegel and that they actually published the interview:
.
The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa . . . "If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor. [...]That's telling it like it is.
"Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent.
"In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need.
"As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid. " [...]
.
Powderkeg Gaza and a recollection of Churchill's warnings
Beth, Pundita has not forgotten your letter. I am working on an essay with the fun title, US Aid Policy and ICT: Barber's Pandorian, Panglossian, and Jeffersonian models.
Simon, Pundita has not forgotten your essay on China and I'm still working on The West's view of China: the enemy is ourselves.
But right now I entreat my readers to keep one eye on the Middle East and one eye on the runup to Gleneagles.
Tom Friedman's report today for The New York Times jibes with observations about the Palestinians that John Loftus made in his reply yesterday to Pundita's question. Friedman notes in part:
Friedman criticizes Condoleezza Rice for "breezing in and out of the region" at this critical juncture. I don't know what Mr Friedman wants the United States government to do there. Continue treating both sides as if they're children?
In any case, it's Tehran that is the bad actor in the situation. They're seeing common sense blooming in the region wherever they look. That's the worst news for them.
But the pressure from the US side has to be at the G8 meeting in Gleneagles -- and it has to be directed toward the EU Three -- Britain, France and Germany. If the G7 nations cannot agree to put up a united front with Tehran, Russia won't go along with a hard line toward Tehran. If Russia won't go along, you can be sure China will continue sucking up to Tehran.
As with so many situations today, the United States needs to be focusing on our allies in West Europee. It's not about "over there in the Middle East." It's about our Western allies getting their heads together and acknowleding that it helps nothing to attempt to appease a terror-sponsoring regime that deals in bad faith.
And it's time for those allies to acknowledge that government-sponsored terror armies are not freedom fighters. It ain't the Battle of Algiers going on over there. It's Tehran feeling like an island in a sea of Arab nations and playing the divide-and-conquer card.
If our oldest allies in Europe do not confront that truth, Secretary Rice could take up residence in Gaza and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
Everybody in the Middle East knows what Tehran is up to, so it's a matter of both sides continuing to resist Tehran-sponsored provacations. And everybody in the Middle East knows what the Israeli extremists are up to. Yet they also know that Ariel Sharon is practically dead man walking for standing up to the extremists in his government.
So if there was ever a time for sane adults in Palestine and Israel to maintain the upper hand, now is that time. The biggest help the United States could give at this juncture would occur at Gleneagles.
As if to underscore my sense of foreboding, this weekend I received a letter from Marc Schulman at American Future that made reference to parallels between today and 1930s Europe. I promised Marc a reply but the question is whether his points can be readily perceived in many regions outside America.
The more I learn about present-day Europe's news media, the more obvious that much news is suppressed by Europe's governments. So while many informed Americans could easily grasp the parallels, I'm not sure they would be seen in Europe. In any case, I'll publish the letter with Marc's permission:
"Pundita:
I'm curious about something. Ever since I was a teen-ager, I've been absolutely fascinated by the 1930s. While I've read numerous books on the subject, I still can't understand how the western democracies could allow Hitler to have his way in Europe. After all, he made no secret of his ambitions and intentions -- they were all in Mein Kampf.
Yes, there are plenty of explanations, such as perceiving Nazi Germany as the bulwark against communism. Be that as it may, the blindness of Europe's statesmen (with the notable exception of Churchill) remains incomprehensible to me.
My knowledge of the 1930s is the prism through which I view our current situation. Like Hitler, bin Laden and his ilk have made it crystal clear, in their spoken words and writings, that they seek the destruction of Western civilization.
And, as in the 1930s, numerous statesmen (again in Europe!) and millions of ordinary citizens have chosen to bury their heads in the sand, notwithstanding 9/11. Further, the United Nations is as ineffective and toothless now as the League of Nations was then.
The parallels between now and that sorry decade seem so obvious to me that I am again finding it to be impossible to truly understand those who do not see what I see and instead are irate because [America's] behavior is less than perfect.
So here's my question: is your prism the same as mine and, if not, what is it?"
Interested readers might want to send their answer, if they can find one, to Marc for publication. I hope that European readers will consider responding. And readers outside Europe -- please remember to check American Future (see the blogroll) for the latest news on EU doings in the runup to Gleneagles.
.
Simon, Pundita has not forgotten your essay on China and I'm still working on The West's view of China: the enemy is ourselves.
But right now I entreat my readers to keep one eye on the Middle East and one eye on the runup to Gleneagles.
Tom Friedman's report today for The New York Times jibes with observations about the Palestinians that John Loftus made in his reply yesterday to Pundita's question. Friedman notes in part:
The simultaneous boomlets in the Israeli and Palestinian stock markets highlight one of the most important political facts I encountered traveling in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank: a groundswell of relief that both sides have found a way, even temporarily, to stop the insane cycle of Palestinian suicide bombing and Israeli retaliations that totally distorted daily life here.The Israeli military is deploying 45,000 troops to insure an orderly withdrawal and has strongly warned that if shooting starts, they will finish it.
Quite simply, Israelis and Palestinians are really enjoying this calm after four years of mutually assured destruction. Palestinian restaurants in Ramallah are full again. Hotel owners in Gaza are repainting their lobbies. Israel is again awash in tourists.
No leader or party can ignore how much people want this calm to hold - even Hamas. As Ghazi Hamad, editor of the Hamas newspaper Al Risalat, said to me, "One reason Hamas agreed to the cease-fire was to give people a chance to breathe and rest."
The other hugely important fact is that Israel is going to begin withdrawing from the Gaza Strip in mid-August.
Friedman criticizes Condoleezza Rice for "breezing in and out of the region" at this critical juncture. I don't know what Mr Friedman wants the United States government to do there. Continue treating both sides as if they're children?
In any case, it's Tehran that is the bad actor in the situation. They're seeing common sense blooming in the region wherever they look. That's the worst news for them.
But the pressure from the US side has to be at the G8 meeting in Gleneagles -- and it has to be directed toward the EU Three -- Britain, France and Germany. If the G7 nations cannot agree to put up a united front with Tehran, Russia won't go along with a hard line toward Tehran. If Russia won't go along, you can be sure China will continue sucking up to Tehran.
As with so many situations today, the United States needs to be focusing on our allies in West Europee. It's not about "over there in the Middle East." It's about our Western allies getting their heads together and acknowleding that it helps nothing to attempt to appease a terror-sponsoring regime that deals in bad faith.
And it's time for those allies to acknowledge that government-sponsored terror armies are not freedom fighters. It ain't the Battle of Algiers going on over there. It's Tehran feeling like an island in a sea of Arab nations and playing the divide-and-conquer card.
If our oldest allies in Europe do not confront that truth, Secretary Rice could take up residence in Gaza and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
Everybody in the Middle East knows what Tehran is up to, so it's a matter of both sides continuing to resist Tehran-sponsored provacations. And everybody in the Middle East knows what the Israeli extremists are up to. Yet they also know that Ariel Sharon is practically dead man walking for standing up to the extremists in his government.
So if there was ever a time for sane adults in Palestine and Israel to maintain the upper hand, now is that time. The biggest help the United States could give at this juncture would occur at Gleneagles.
As if to underscore my sense of foreboding, this weekend I received a letter from Marc Schulman at American Future that made reference to parallels between today and 1930s Europe. I promised Marc a reply but the question is whether his points can be readily perceived in many regions outside America.
The more I learn about present-day Europe's news media, the more obvious that much news is suppressed by Europe's governments. So while many informed Americans could easily grasp the parallels, I'm not sure they would be seen in Europe. In any case, I'll publish the letter with Marc's permission:
"Pundita:
I'm curious about something. Ever since I was a teen-ager, I've been absolutely fascinated by the 1930s. While I've read numerous books on the subject, I still can't understand how the western democracies could allow Hitler to have his way in Europe. After all, he made no secret of his ambitions and intentions -- they were all in Mein Kampf.
Yes, there are plenty of explanations, such as perceiving Nazi Germany as the bulwark against communism. Be that as it may, the blindness of Europe's statesmen (with the notable exception of Churchill) remains incomprehensible to me.
My knowledge of the 1930s is the prism through which I view our current situation. Like Hitler, bin Laden and his ilk have made it crystal clear, in their spoken words and writings, that they seek the destruction of Western civilization.
And, as in the 1930s, numerous statesmen (again in Europe!) and millions of ordinary citizens have chosen to bury their heads in the sand, notwithstanding 9/11. Further, the United Nations is as ineffective and toothless now as the League of Nations was then.
The parallels between now and that sorry decade seem so obvious to me that I am again finding it to be impossible to truly understand those who do not see what I see and instead are irate because [America's] behavior is less than perfect.
So here's my question: is your prism the same as mine and, if not, what is it?"
Interested readers might want to send their answer, if they can find one, to Marc for publication. I hope that European readers will consider responding. And readers outside Europe -- please remember to check American Future (see the blogroll) for the latest news on EU doings in the runup to Gleneagles.
.
Tuesday, July 5
Pundita faints dead away
Two posts up earlier today (don't miss the letter from John Loftus!) but I had to add this one after an alert reader sent the following tidbit from Blue State Conservatives: European Commission scrapping environmental strategy in order to put life back into European industry.
Note to alert readers: In future, kindly put some kind of warning in the email subject line so Pundita is not driven to the smelling salts.
For more shocking news out of Europe, see update to Pundita July 4th entry re end of political correctness. What is going on over there, anyhow? "Storming of the Bastille: The Sequel?"
Note to alert readers: In future, kindly put some kind of warning in the email subject line so Pundita is not driven to the smelling salts.
For more shocking news out of Europe, see update to Pundita July 4th entry re end of political correctness. What is going on over there, anyhow? "Storming of the Bastille: The Sequel?"
International Intelligence Summit: for readers who requested information
I provided a link to the summit's website in today's earlier post but here is an overview, from the website's About section. Kindly note the emphasis on the "free world." Unless I read it wrongly, that means intelligence agencies from countries such as Saudi Arabia and China have not received an invitation to attend the summit. Awwwww..... Where is Pundita's Kleenex box?
Does the Democracy Doctrine rock, or what? The journey of ten thousand miles is underway.
"International Intelligence Summit[sm], a non-partisan, non-profit, neutral forum that uses private charitable funds to bring together for the first time the intelligence agencies of the free world and the emerging democracies [emphasis mine].
"The purpose of the Summit is to provide an opportunity for the International Intelligence community to listen to and learn from each other, and to share ideas in the common war against terrorism.
"The Summit's Advisory Board includes former heads of CIA, DIA, NSA, former official of the Mossad, and former Chair of British Joint Intelligence Committee. The list of presenters at the Summit will include many of the top leaders of the intelligence, espionage, counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence agencies from around the free world.
"The Summit is intended to be the most prestigious world conference on international studies, intelligence policy, terrorism, and homeland security."
For information about the date of conference, any restrictions on attendance, etc. click here.
Does the Democracy Doctrine rock, or what? The journey of ten thousand miles is underway.
"International Intelligence Summit[sm], a non-partisan, non-profit, neutral forum that uses private charitable funds to bring together for the first time the intelligence agencies of the free world and the emerging democracies [emphasis mine].
"The purpose of the Summit is to provide an opportunity for the International Intelligence community to listen to and learn from each other, and to share ideas in the common war against terrorism.
"The Summit's Advisory Board includes former heads of CIA, DIA, NSA, former official of the Mossad, and former Chair of British Joint Intelligence Committee. The list of presenters at the Summit will include many of the top leaders of the intelligence, espionage, counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence agencies from around the free world.
"The Summit is intended to be the most prestigious world conference on international studies, intelligence policy, terrorism, and homeland security."
For information about the date of conference, any restrictions on attendance, etc. click here.
John Loftus weighs in on Palestine-Israel
"Dear Pundita:
Regarding your posts about the Muslim Brotherhood-Nazi connection. Thank you for discussing such an important issue. Sadly, too many people are in flat denial about the Arab Nazis. As you pointed out, it is quite simple to verify. If you have questions about the issue please feel free to contact me.
John Loftus
International Intelligence Summit
Dear John:
Actually I do have a question but first you might be surprised to learn that we met at the 2005 National Intelligence Conference, although I was not introduced as Pundita. However, you might remember me. I was wearing a sea foam green plaid suit with a pink silk flower and matched set of pearl earrings and necklace and I nearly shorted out the conference's electrical system when I spilled a pitcher of water near a keynote speaker.
Your letter points up that the Arab-Nazi connection goes beyond the Muslim Brotherhood. However, while the Europeans seem in denial about this connection, I submit that few Americans outside academic, intelligence and military circles are aware that Nazism continued to flourish after World War Two ended.
But Nazism did not walk to the Middle East on its own feet. Nor did it stay there after the war without encouragement from Western intelligence agencies. Yet when one speaks about the pervasive hatred of Jews among the Arabs, once again, peoples in 'underdeveloped' countries are blamed for mischief made by the Europeans.
Those who would say that the Arabs were free to reject Nazi teachings are not knowledgeable about the era or human nature. Peoples in underdeveloped lands -- underdeveloped by Western standards -- are a vessel for ideas brought to them by a wealthy culture that uses vast amounts of money and the trappings of authority to promulgate ideas among very poor people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Arabs and Jews managed to live in peace for centuries until Europeans sympathetic to the ideas of Nazism spread a doctrine of racial hatred in the Middle East. Yet Arab enmity toward the Jews is blamed on Islam and the creation of the Israeli state.
So my question to you is this: if the strongly European elements in the Israeli government and the European elements strongly influencing the Palestinian governing authority could be somehow induced to sit down and shut up, what are the chances for speedy, genuine agreement between the two sides?
"Pundita:
My sense is that in order to get rid of the last corrupt vestiges of Arafat's machine, the Palestinian people will vote for Hamas. Then, they will dump Hamas by voting for their local clan leaders. Once the foreign fighters (post-Oslo returnees) are removed from power, then yes, I think there is a real chance that the Palestinians and Israelis will sit down together.
Most Palestinians tell me the same thing: "We don't want Jewish extremists. We don't want Arab extremists. We want the tourists back."
* * * * * *
Thanks to John for his comments. Just see what happens when people get a little freedom to direct their own affairs. An epidemic of common sense breaks out.
I'm also glad to learn about the 2006 intelligence summit. From a quick visit to the website, I see that exhibitors and attendees can save a bundle if they sign up early. This conference looks to be even better than Intelcon, although I must say I learned a great deal at the Intelcon seminars. Pundita takes her duties as a citizen much more seriously after that conference.
Pundita readers really do need to put eyes on the Middle East. That means we should bone up on the history of the Israeli-Palestine situation. No groans. Think of it as a root canal; the sooner we do it, the better.
To make things as painless as possible, Pundita has found an article by David Meir-Levi at Front Page Magazine on the topic that is a rarity: although it's by a scholar in Near Eastern affairs, it's written in business rather than academic English.* And with points organized in such fashion as to present a coherent picture of a situation that generations of American and European journalists, scholars and Agenda Heads did their best to render arcane.
Palestine Myth and Reality.
Noon Update - Email from "Liz"
"Have read the Front Page column you featured and found it the best summary. For more detail (mind-numbing detail, perhaps) try these:
Palestine Facts
Jewish Virtual Library
They are, of course, written from a POV supporting Israel, but I have found a number of verifiable facts in the data. Hard to fake...."
Pundita has not had time to study all the data at the above sites but readers familiar with "Liz" from our dialogue about US security issues will understand why I trust her opinion of a source's value enough to share it with Pundita readers.
* 5:00 PM UPDATE
"Dear Pundita:
Thanks for running my piece. One correction: I am not a scholar of the Middle East. I am an insurance broker and investment professional. Note my attached bioblurb.
David Meir-Levi"
Dear Mr. Meir-Levi:
This explains everything -- why your report is so clear, so concise, so coherent....
I had found your bio on the Internet -- incidentially I was miffed at Front Page because they didn't carry info about the report's author, which tends to undercut it for those looking for credentials.
Yes I can see how you would want to split hairs so as not to be tarred and feathered by Academia; technically you are not a scholar because you don't have a PhD and you have a 'day' job. Okay, we'll define you as a businessman-educator-scholar.
But Pundita defends calling you a scholar because for the purposes of my writing, someone with a BA in Near Eastern studies and professorial-level teaching should qualify as -- Pundita will roll on this one -- as an 'expert.'
Actually, I recently featured another of your reports (discovered at the same time as the Palestine Myth-Reality) about how the terror contingent had ripped off the Palestinians. I had meant to do a blog on your Myth-Reality report almost immediately after, then send you notification of both, but things came up. I will dig up the URL to the earlier blog and send it along.
Thank you for letter and the correction.
.
Regarding your posts about the Muslim Brotherhood-Nazi connection. Thank you for discussing such an important issue. Sadly, too many people are in flat denial about the Arab Nazis. As you pointed out, it is quite simple to verify. If you have questions about the issue please feel free to contact me.
John Loftus
International Intelligence Summit
Dear John:
Actually I do have a question but first you might be surprised to learn that we met at the 2005 National Intelligence Conference, although I was not introduced as Pundita. However, you might remember me. I was wearing a sea foam green plaid suit with a pink silk flower and matched set of pearl earrings and necklace and I nearly shorted out the conference's electrical system when I spilled a pitcher of water near a keynote speaker.
Your letter points up that the Arab-Nazi connection goes beyond the Muslim Brotherhood. However, while the Europeans seem in denial about this connection, I submit that few Americans outside academic, intelligence and military circles are aware that Nazism continued to flourish after World War Two ended.
But Nazism did not walk to the Middle East on its own feet. Nor did it stay there after the war without encouragement from Western intelligence agencies. Yet when one speaks about the pervasive hatred of Jews among the Arabs, once again, peoples in 'underdeveloped' countries are blamed for mischief made by the Europeans.
Those who would say that the Arabs were free to reject Nazi teachings are not knowledgeable about the era or human nature. Peoples in underdeveloped lands -- underdeveloped by Western standards -- are a vessel for ideas brought to them by a wealthy culture that uses vast amounts of money and the trappings of authority to promulgate ideas among very poor people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Arabs and Jews managed to live in peace for centuries until Europeans sympathetic to the ideas of Nazism spread a doctrine of racial hatred in the Middle East. Yet Arab enmity toward the Jews is blamed on Islam and the creation of the Israeli state.
So my question to you is this: if the strongly European elements in the Israeli government and the European elements strongly influencing the Palestinian governing authority could be somehow induced to sit down and shut up, what are the chances for speedy, genuine agreement between the two sides?
"Pundita:
My sense is that in order to get rid of the last corrupt vestiges of Arafat's machine, the Palestinian people will vote for Hamas. Then, they will dump Hamas by voting for their local clan leaders. Once the foreign fighters (post-Oslo returnees) are removed from power, then yes, I think there is a real chance that the Palestinians and Israelis will sit down together.
Most Palestinians tell me the same thing: "We don't want Jewish extremists. We don't want Arab extremists. We want the tourists back."
* * * * * *
Thanks to John for his comments. Just see what happens when people get a little freedom to direct their own affairs. An epidemic of common sense breaks out.
I'm also glad to learn about the 2006 intelligence summit. From a quick visit to the website, I see that exhibitors and attendees can save a bundle if they sign up early. This conference looks to be even better than Intelcon, although I must say I learned a great deal at the Intelcon seminars. Pundita takes her duties as a citizen much more seriously after that conference.
Pundita readers really do need to put eyes on the Middle East. That means we should bone up on the history of the Israeli-Palestine situation. No groans. Think of it as a root canal; the sooner we do it, the better.
To make things as painless as possible, Pundita has found an article by David Meir-Levi at Front Page Magazine on the topic that is a rarity: although it's by a scholar in Near Eastern affairs, it's written in business rather than academic English.* And with points organized in such fashion as to present a coherent picture of a situation that generations of American and European journalists, scholars and Agenda Heads did their best to render arcane.
Palestine Myth and Reality.
Noon Update - Email from "Liz"
"Have read the Front Page column you featured and found it the best summary. For more detail (mind-numbing detail, perhaps) try these:
Palestine Facts
Jewish Virtual Library
They are, of course, written from a POV supporting Israel, but I have found a number of verifiable facts in the data. Hard to fake...."
Pundita has not had time to study all the data at the above sites but readers familiar with "Liz" from our dialogue about US security issues will understand why I trust her opinion of a source's value enough to share it with Pundita readers.
* 5:00 PM UPDATE
"Dear Pundita:
Thanks for running my piece. One correction: I am not a scholar of the Middle East. I am an insurance broker and investment professional. Note my attached bioblurb.
David Meir-Levi"
Dear Mr. Meir-Levi:
This explains everything -- why your report is so clear, so concise, so coherent....
I had found your bio on the Internet -- incidentially I was miffed at Front Page because they didn't carry info about the report's author, which tends to undercut it for those looking for credentials.
Yes I can see how you would want to split hairs so as not to be tarred and feathered by Academia; technically you are not a scholar because you don't have a PhD and you have a 'day' job. Okay, we'll define you as a businessman-educator-scholar.
But Pundita defends calling you a scholar because for the purposes of my writing, someone with a BA in Near Eastern studies and professorial-level teaching should qualify as -- Pundita will roll on this one -- as an 'expert.'
Actually, I recently featured another of your reports (discovered at the same time as the Palestine Myth-Reality) about how the terror contingent had ripped off the Palestinians. I had meant to do a blog on your Myth-Reality report almost immediately after, then send you notification of both, but things came up. I will dig up the URL to the earlier blog and send it along.
Thank you for letter and the correction.
.
Monday, July 4
The era of Political Correctness draws to a close, thank God
July 5, 2:15 Update: Marc Schulman just sent another eye-popper Luxembourg Set To Vote on EU Constitution. The stunning news is that the last poll showed 45% of the voters turned against the constitution and the number fast rising. This is amazing; just a few months ago polls showed that close to 70% were going to vote yes.
So much is happening so fast in Europe that it's hard to keep track of it. Luckily Pundita readers have access to American Future's intrepid correspondent to help keep track of what seems to be a "No, Nope, Forgitaboutit" revolution building across Europe.
* * * * *
The Pundita Blogroll has been restored. To keep the peace I have placed Belmont Club under the creative heading, "His Own Category."
If you have been twitching with anticipation over the holiday to read the latest on the run-up to the G-8 meeting, visit American Future for the roundup; look on his right sidebar for the titles. You can start with this gem, which is the best news I've had so far this century: British-French food fight.
It is refreshing and I think a healthy sign that European leaders are finally coming out and saying what they really think, or pretty close to it. This is a trend started by George W. Bush. It could be that by the time he leaves office leaders all over the world will be discovering that once in a while it's okay to say what you really think.
Of course all this frankness won't make Beijing happy but one never knows; it could be they'll get into the swing of the idea that language is supposed to convey reality, not mask it.
So much is happening so fast in Europe that it's hard to keep track of it. Luckily Pundita readers have access to American Future's intrepid correspondent to help keep track of what seems to be a "No, Nope, Forgitaboutit" revolution building across Europe.
* * * * *
The Pundita Blogroll has been restored. To keep the peace I have placed Belmont Club under the creative heading, "His Own Category."
If you have been twitching with anticipation over the holiday to read the latest on the run-up to the G-8 meeting, visit American Future for the roundup; look on his right sidebar for the titles. You can start with this gem, which is the best news I've had so far this century: British-French food fight.
It is refreshing and I think a healthy sign that European leaders are finally coming out and saying what they really think, or pretty close to it. This is a trend started by George W. Bush. It could be that by the time he leaves office leaders all over the world will be discovering that once in a while it's okay to say what you really think.
Of course all this frankness won't make Beijing happy but one never knows; it could be they'll get into the swing of the idea that language is supposed to convey reality, not mask it.
Happy Fourth of July and a note for scientists researching memory in rats
Pundita is up at this awful hour to prepare for a delightful family outing at the beach and then we hope to make it back in time for fireworks on the Washington National Mall.
In an effort to head off Not Born Yesterday, I am herewith announcing that I have temporarily suspended the Pundita Blogroll due to receiving hate mail from Rugby.
I had hoped that with the passage of time he'd forget I'd awarded a Pundita Prize to the Belmont Club blogger instead of Wretchard the Cat. But within 24 hours of posting a Pundita Prize category on the Blogroll and placing Belmont Club there, Rugby was on the warpath again.
This time he's turned quite venomous -- perhaps because his typing speed has picked up. He seems to have mastered using his nose, three paws and his tail. I will not inflict the missive on the reader because he's still not found the Spell Check key. But now Pundita is no longer just "human-centric." Now Pundita is a racist who is prejudiced against all mammalian beings except humans. Belmont Club is now not just a blogger with a puffy head. No, he's now plagiarizing the works of his devoted blind cat.
There is a way to blame all this on the Belmont Club blogger. If he wouldn't wander off the reservation and take pot shots at leftists, I could simply place him under the GWOT category. But I have a horror of some unsuspecting Japanese or Romanian Pundita reader, innocently in search of news about the war on terror, clicking onto Belmont Club while he's in the middle of shredding a kook such as Ward Churchill.
But there are other problems as well. Pundita has recalled that BCB was not the only person to be awarded a Pundita Prize. So now I've probably offended other bloggers by not fitting them under the category -- even though the prize for BCB was with regard to the 2005 Pundita Prize for Excellence in Journalism. This after an alert reader informed me that the Pulitzer Prize only applied to print journalism.
Well, I cannot put if off any longer. Time for the joyous ride to the beach.
Happy Fourth of July to everyone, and a special thanks to the US troops serving abroad. You are always in my thoughts and prayers.
Best regards to all,
Pundita
In an effort to head off Not Born Yesterday, I am herewith announcing that I have temporarily suspended the Pundita Blogroll due to receiving hate mail from Rugby.
I had hoped that with the passage of time he'd forget I'd awarded a Pundita Prize to the Belmont Club blogger instead of Wretchard the Cat. But within 24 hours of posting a Pundita Prize category on the Blogroll and placing Belmont Club there, Rugby was on the warpath again.
This time he's turned quite venomous -- perhaps because his typing speed has picked up. He seems to have mastered using his nose, three paws and his tail. I will not inflict the missive on the reader because he's still not found the Spell Check key. But now Pundita is no longer just "human-centric." Now Pundita is a racist who is prejudiced against all mammalian beings except humans. Belmont Club is now not just a blogger with a puffy head. No, he's now plagiarizing the works of his devoted blind cat.
There is a way to blame all this on the Belmont Club blogger. If he wouldn't wander off the reservation and take pot shots at leftists, I could simply place him under the GWOT category. But I have a horror of some unsuspecting Japanese or Romanian Pundita reader, innocently in search of news about the war on terror, clicking onto Belmont Club while he's in the middle of shredding a kook such as Ward Churchill.
But there are other problems as well. Pundita has recalled that BCB was not the only person to be awarded a Pundita Prize. So now I've probably offended other bloggers by not fitting them under the category -- even though the prize for BCB was with regard to the 2005 Pundita Prize for Excellence in Journalism. This after an alert reader informed me that the Pulitzer Prize only applied to print journalism.
Well, I cannot put if off any longer. Time for the joyous ride to the beach.
Happy Fourth of July to everyone, and a special thanks to the US troops serving abroad. You are always in my thoughts and prayers.
Best regards to all,
Pundita
Saturday, July 2
When varmits fall out: UK Guardian blasts Schroeder's poor ethics
"While The Guardian and Gerhard Schroeder may be ideological soulmates, the newspaper's editors are critical of the German Chancellor's shenanigans:
Yes, this is the same Guardian newspaper that called for the assassination of President Bush, tried to make the editorial disappear when they realized Drudge had gotten hold of it, failed, then had to print an apology -- a mealy-mouthed, whimpering one.
But let us not rake up the past. Pundita is just trying to understand how the Guardian can huff at Schroeder's ethics in the same breath that conveys it's okay to break a pact with a close ally.
.
Gerhard Schröder has always been a corner cutter, a politician ready to jettison rules and precedents when they do not suit him. He did it with the stability pact, and with Germany's relationship with the United States over Iraq, in both cases because he thought it would gain him votes, even though the latter decision, at least, was certainly the right one for Germany.click here here to read the rest of the report and Marc Schulman's comments at American Future.
Now he is doing it..."
Yes, this is the same Guardian newspaper that called for the assassination of President Bush, tried to make the editorial disappear when they realized Drudge had gotten hold of it, failed, then had to print an apology -- a mealy-mouthed, whimpering one.
But let us not rake up the past. Pundita is just trying to understand how the Guardian can huff at Schroeder's ethics in the same breath that conveys it's okay to break a pact with a close ally.
.
If you don't clearly define yourself, others will do it for you
"Pundita, I'm getting sick of the Brussels gang. I think they promoted anti-Americanism as a way to change the subject about their behavior during the European colonizing eras. Now they're starting in on democracy as a way to fight Bush. You wrote some time back about the US having program to help spread Western values among Muslims. Forget Operation Muslim Outreach; what we really need is Operation Europe Outreach.
Caesar in San Francisco"
Dear Caesar:
If you think you're sick of Brussels, you should talk with young Europeans -- the kind who rejected the EU Constitution. Pundita gets an earful every spring and summer, when we bounce around Washington, DC talking with tourists. This could be coincidental but since Bush's very strong, uncompromsing speeches about democracy after his reelection, I noted a change in the talk this spring, before the EU vote. They were no longer sounding resigned.
Previously I'd heard a lot of complaints about corrupt bureaucracy and a small minority making the decisions but this always finished with some version of, "What can you do?" They accepted the idea that government is inherently corrupt.
That shows how far their societies had drifted from the concept of democracy. They were looking at government as a ruling class -- an emperor's court -- and so believed themselves a long way from Rome. But that's ridiculous; in a democracy the government is the people. So, if you think the government is corrupt then get together and change it. Don't sit around in a wine bar or cafe rolling your eyes and shrugging.
I don't know how much the Brussels Sprouts crowd has done to promote anti-Americanism -- but I'll give you that it would be a clever way to deflect criticism from Brussels. If indeed it's a strategy, I suspect from conversations I had this spring, and from the Non and Neen votes, that it's not working well these days.
The weirdest thing about the European Union -- or at least the attempt to create a United States of Europe -- is that it's so much against the grain of the French. The French have always prized highly independent thought and discursive thinking. Remember this is the land that gave us a big batch of Enlightenment philosophers.
So for years Pundita has been wondering how the French are holding up with the push to merge themselves in a Great Motherland. Not terribly well it, seems, from the Non vote and the heat behind it.
In short, the French might be coming to their senses. If so, they can start applying their famous discursive thought to the issues. For example, there is a difference between cooperation and trying to become a blob to please everyone and offend no one. There is also a difference between multilaterialism and trying to merge with a group.
But many Americans are confused about these same points. So before we talk about Operation Europe Outreach, how about if we start with Operation America Outreach?
Instilling Western values in other lands is a really big job. You have to know Latin and ancient Greek, for starters. Then you have to begin with Thales and work up through the Western philosophy food chain.
So why don't we start with something simple? Why don't we try instilling more knowledge of American history and America's view on democracy in our own people? Because if we do not have a clear idea of who we are, peoples in other lands will supply the idea for us.
.
Caesar in San Francisco"
Dear Caesar:
If you think you're sick of Brussels, you should talk with young Europeans -- the kind who rejected the EU Constitution. Pundita gets an earful every spring and summer, when we bounce around Washington, DC talking with tourists. This could be coincidental but since Bush's very strong, uncompromsing speeches about democracy after his reelection, I noted a change in the talk this spring, before the EU vote. They were no longer sounding resigned.
Previously I'd heard a lot of complaints about corrupt bureaucracy and a small minority making the decisions but this always finished with some version of, "What can you do?" They accepted the idea that government is inherently corrupt.
That shows how far their societies had drifted from the concept of democracy. They were looking at government as a ruling class -- an emperor's court -- and so believed themselves a long way from Rome. But that's ridiculous; in a democracy the government is the people. So, if you think the government is corrupt then get together and change it. Don't sit around in a wine bar or cafe rolling your eyes and shrugging.
I don't know how much the Brussels Sprouts crowd has done to promote anti-Americanism -- but I'll give you that it would be a clever way to deflect criticism from Brussels. If indeed it's a strategy, I suspect from conversations I had this spring, and from the Non and Neen votes, that it's not working well these days.
The weirdest thing about the European Union -- or at least the attempt to create a United States of Europe -- is that it's so much against the grain of the French. The French have always prized highly independent thought and discursive thinking. Remember this is the land that gave us a big batch of Enlightenment philosophers.
So for years Pundita has been wondering how the French are holding up with the push to merge themselves in a Great Motherland. Not terribly well it, seems, from the Non vote and the heat behind it.
In short, the French might be coming to their senses. If so, they can start applying their famous discursive thought to the issues. For example, there is a difference between cooperation and trying to become a blob to please everyone and offend no one. There is also a difference between multilaterialism and trying to merge with a group.
But many Americans are confused about these same points. So before we talk about Operation Europe Outreach, how about if we start with Operation America Outreach?
Instilling Western values in other lands is a really big job. You have to know Latin and ancient Greek, for starters. Then you have to begin with Thales and work up through the Western philosophy food chain.
So why don't we start with something simple? Why don't we try instilling more knowledge of American history and America's view on democracy in our own people? Because if we do not have a clear idea of who we are, peoples in other lands will supply the idea for us.
.
Friday, July 1
Dadgummit if that don't beat all: EU bureacrat sniffs at democracy
Our intrepid European Union Correspondent, Marc Schulman at American Future, has just sent a post that has to be read to be believed. We need to start paying closer attention to our allies across the Pond. Here it is. One side benefit of the Bush democracy doctrine is that it's forcing the varmits into the open.
America do not break the Law of Leaving again
"Are you sufficiently recovered from Batchelor double whammy night to discuss the call for a timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq? The call is also coming from some on the GOP side of the congressional aisle.
Tom in Sioux City"
Dear Tom:
The calls are coming from Americans who are not in touch with how human nature impacts foreign relations. I could make this explanation easy by asking you to watch a 1970 film by Gillo Pontecorvo that got very little play in the United States, even though Marlon Brando had a lead role. The film is called "Burn!"
If you watch that film three times, then even if you know nothing about the Colonial period, you will know in your gut why the US would be loco to pull out of Iraq until that nation is fully on its feet.
More than any other film I've seen on the topic of Western colonialism, Burn! points up the profound sense of betrayal that colonized people felt when they realized the colonizers were cynically abusing the role of chieftain.
Peoples in old parts of the world are used to conquest. But in tribal societies the conquest is interpreted as saying, "I am the new chief." The chief has a father role; he can be a very cruel father but people accept conquest by according the conqueror the father role.
The European colonizers knew all that, but the colonizations were carried out greatly for business interests. So to the extent the colonizers adopted the chieftain role, it was a sham in many cases. They were intent on "managing" the locals, not being their dad.
I interject that I don't like to talk much about the Colonial period because we're in an era where it's important for peoples in the developing world to leave behind the Victim mentality. A lot of people in previously colonized lands have come to realize this. And it can be hard to talk about colonization without bringing up severe abuses of power, which distorts the real situation on the ground. Many of the tribes who were colonized probably wouldn't be here today without the Western imperialists stepping in.
However, it's critical for Americans to understand something of that period, and to realize that the worst anger against America has come not from our meddling but from a sense of betrayal when the US stepped in, then left before the job was done.
To this day, there are Pakistanis who cannot speak without their voices shaking in anger about the US leaving them in the lurch; this was after we finished with Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out. Of course from our side it wasn't leaving them in the lurch. But I remember a Pakistani general saying that he was so furious at the US "betrayal" that he went straight out and joined a terror organization. Many in the Pak military did the same. Repeat the same story in Iraq and other places.
The US was always not so much intent on managing the peoples of the Middle East as propping up dictators, even though we went along with the West European management approach. People in the Middle East are not naive -- again, that region has known countless conquests. So they 'got' the part about the US need to prop up dictators. What they didn't get was the US coming to play rescuer than saying, "Goodbye, good luck" after shoving Saddam back over the line.
That is what Prince Bandar bin Sultan warned Bush about; he told him at the outset that if the US was going to invade Iraq they needed to see the job through.
If we pull out before the Iraqis get on their feet, our name will go down in infamy in the Middle East. The European business interests in that part of the world know this, so they are doing everything in their power to encourage the US to leave. This includes lobbying hard with US congressionals who want a troop pullout and/or who pander to those interests.
Odd how these Europeans so perfectly understood the need for the US to keep bases in Europe during the post-WW2 period while they sorted themselves out, but imperfectly understand why the US should remain a military presence in Iraq.
Of course we're making mistakes in Iraq and there's a lot of grumbling there about this. But here is a tip: the more grumbling you hear from the Iraqis, the more that means they've come to trust that the US will see the job through.
If this makes no sense, look to your heart to understand. What use is it to grumble to people you know don't give a damn about you, and who are just passing through? But once you come to trust that someone is in your life for the long haul, then you feel more free to express complaints. Isn't it so?
What's a little harder for Americans to grasp, because we are not a tribal society, is the expectations that go along with the role of the chieftain. Americans don't consider the president to be a fatherly role. This is because we have many fine distinctions in our culture about relationships outside the family; colleague, coworker, acquaintance, and so on. In the old parts of the world, there are still basically two: the Other, and Family.
So, the leader has to be fit into the family structure. If he doesn't like that role, that's too bad. It's the way things are. So either stay away -- which we can't do in Iraq because we are already involved -- or pay attention to the currents and eddies of the human heart.
The greatest anger is always directed at those we have taken into our heart, who have professed that we are in their heart -- and then turn their back on us. This anger is atavistic and accounts for some of the most brutal murders. They are called crimes of passion.
Our society has developed safety valves, including psychotherapy, to diffuse that limbic rage. But people in old parts of the world don't have that outlet. If they take you into their heart -- which is saying they take you into their family -- you need to be very, very careful about how and when you say goodbye.
Ancient cultures had elaborate leave-taking rituals for those who for one reason or another had to leave the tribe. The rituals were to assure that distance did not mean that the tribe was cast from the leave-taker's heart. I call this the Law of Leaving. Individuals and governments can be at great peril if they break that atavistic law.
All this is hard for Americans to hear because our culture is not based on a colonizing impulse. Very few Americans want to be in the Middle East. But now we are striking out on a new path. We are making commitments to engage in Middle Eastern societies in ways we've never done before. We have to accept what that means to the people we engage with. It means we are asking to be adopted into people's hearts. That is a very profound request. If people in that land come to care for us, God help us if we throw that back in their face, as we did in Pakistan -- and Afghanistan.
Again, Americans didn't think of walking away from those countries in that light. But we have to also think from the other side to understand how to proceed.
And again and again one must factor human nature into modern methods of decision making, in particular when it comes to foreign relations.
Oceans of grief could be avoided if policy makers asked themselves, "How would I like that, if it were done to me?"
To return to Iraq, at least the US military gave air support to the Iraqi Kurds after Saddam Hussein attempted genocide. The Kurds responded to the help, which was a long-term and very expensive commmitment, with genuinely loyal feeling toward the US. We should remember that lesson and what it implies.
.
Tom in Sioux City"
Dear Tom:
The calls are coming from Americans who are not in touch with how human nature impacts foreign relations. I could make this explanation easy by asking you to watch a 1970 film by Gillo Pontecorvo that got very little play in the United States, even though Marlon Brando had a lead role. The film is called "Burn!"
If you watch that film three times, then even if you know nothing about the Colonial period, you will know in your gut why the US would be loco to pull out of Iraq until that nation is fully on its feet.
More than any other film I've seen on the topic of Western colonialism, Burn! points up the profound sense of betrayal that colonized people felt when they realized the colonizers were cynically abusing the role of chieftain.
Peoples in old parts of the world are used to conquest. But in tribal societies the conquest is interpreted as saying, "I am the new chief." The chief has a father role; he can be a very cruel father but people accept conquest by according the conqueror the father role.
The European colonizers knew all that, but the colonizations were carried out greatly for business interests. So to the extent the colonizers adopted the chieftain role, it was a sham in many cases. They were intent on "managing" the locals, not being their dad.
I interject that I don't like to talk much about the Colonial period because we're in an era where it's important for peoples in the developing world to leave behind the Victim mentality. A lot of people in previously colonized lands have come to realize this. And it can be hard to talk about colonization without bringing up severe abuses of power, which distorts the real situation on the ground. Many of the tribes who were colonized probably wouldn't be here today without the Western imperialists stepping in.
However, it's critical for Americans to understand something of that period, and to realize that the worst anger against America has come not from our meddling but from a sense of betrayal when the US stepped in, then left before the job was done.
To this day, there are Pakistanis who cannot speak without their voices shaking in anger about the US leaving them in the lurch; this was after we finished with Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out. Of course from our side it wasn't leaving them in the lurch. But I remember a Pakistani general saying that he was so furious at the US "betrayal" that he went straight out and joined a terror organization. Many in the Pak military did the same. Repeat the same story in Iraq and other places.
The US was always not so much intent on managing the peoples of the Middle East as propping up dictators, even though we went along with the West European management approach. People in the Middle East are not naive -- again, that region has known countless conquests. So they 'got' the part about the US need to prop up dictators. What they didn't get was the US coming to play rescuer than saying, "Goodbye, good luck" after shoving Saddam back over the line.
That is what Prince Bandar bin Sultan warned Bush about; he told him at the outset that if the US was going to invade Iraq they needed to see the job through.
If we pull out before the Iraqis get on their feet, our name will go down in infamy in the Middle East. The European business interests in that part of the world know this, so they are doing everything in their power to encourage the US to leave. This includes lobbying hard with US congressionals who want a troop pullout and/or who pander to those interests.
Odd how these Europeans so perfectly understood the need for the US to keep bases in Europe during the post-WW2 period while they sorted themselves out, but imperfectly understand why the US should remain a military presence in Iraq.
Of course we're making mistakes in Iraq and there's a lot of grumbling there about this. But here is a tip: the more grumbling you hear from the Iraqis, the more that means they've come to trust that the US will see the job through.
If this makes no sense, look to your heart to understand. What use is it to grumble to people you know don't give a damn about you, and who are just passing through? But once you come to trust that someone is in your life for the long haul, then you feel more free to express complaints. Isn't it so?
What's a little harder for Americans to grasp, because we are not a tribal society, is the expectations that go along with the role of the chieftain. Americans don't consider the president to be a fatherly role. This is because we have many fine distinctions in our culture about relationships outside the family; colleague, coworker, acquaintance, and so on. In the old parts of the world, there are still basically two: the Other, and Family.
So, the leader has to be fit into the family structure. If he doesn't like that role, that's too bad. It's the way things are. So either stay away -- which we can't do in Iraq because we are already involved -- or pay attention to the currents and eddies of the human heart.
The greatest anger is always directed at those we have taken into our heart, who have professed that we are in their heart -- and then turn their back on us. This anger is atavistic and accounts for some of the most brutal murders. They are called crimes of passion.
Our society has developed safety valves, including psychotherapy, to diffuse that limbic rage. But people in old parts of the world don't have that outlet. If they take you into their heart -- which is saying they take you into their family -- you need to be very, very careful about how and when you say goodbye.
Ancient cultures had elaborate leave-taking rituals for those who for one reason or another had to leave the tribe. The rituals were to assure that distance did not mean that the tribe was cast from the leave-taker's heart. I call this the Law of Leaving. Individuals and governments can be at great peril if they break that atavistic law.
All this is hard for Americans to hear because our culture is not based on a colonizing impulse. Very few Americans want to be in the Middle East. But now we are striking out on a new path. We are making commitments to engage in Middle Eastern societies in ways we've never done before. We have to accept what that means to the people we engage with. It means we are asking to be adopted into people's hearts. That is a very profound request. If people in that land come to care for us, God help us if we throw that back in their face, as we did in Pakistan -- and Afghanistan.
Again, Americans didn't think of walking away from those countries in that light. But we have to also think from the other side to understand how to proceed.
And again and again one must factor human nature into modern methods of decision making, in particular when it comes to foreign relations.
Oceans of grief could be avoided if policy makers asked themselves, "How would I like that, if it were done to me?"
To return to Iraq, at least the US military gave air support to the Iraqi Kurds after Saddam Hussein attempted genocide. The Kurds responded to the help, which was a long-term and very expensive commmitment, with genuinely loyal feeling toward the US. We should remember that lesson and what it implies.
.
European Union Dossier
Marc Schulman's post for today, EU: More Troubles for Chirac and Schroeder, covers the following topics:
1) Blair Turns Up the Heat on Chirac
2) France Will Block EU Reform
3) Spain's Zapatero Switches Sides
4) EU Farm Commissioner Wants To Cut Agricultural Spending, but . . .
5) Some Details on the Common Agricultural Policy
Pundita finds a certain irony about the observations made in #3.
1) Blair Turns Up the Heat on Chirac
2) France Will Block EU Reform
3) Spain's Zapatero Switches Sides
4) EU Farm Commissioner Wants To Cut Agricultural Spending, but . . .
5) Some Details on the Common Agricultural Policy
Pundita finds a certain irony about the observations made in #3.
Thursday, June 30
"Chirac Damns Blair"
"Pundita, Your readers might be interested in the piece I've titled, Chirac Damns Blair.
Marc Schulman
American Future"
Dear Marc:
So. You were holding out on Pundita. You send Pundita reports on German elections but save juicy news on EU doings for your readers."
"Pundita, You asked me to only send you pieces on the German election! I'll be glad to send you notice of reports on EU. Remember? You made me the Go-to Guy on Germany?"
Marc
"We did?"
"Yes, Pundita, look on your sidebar blogroll."
"Yes yes we're not senile, you know. But tell Pundita how can the readers understand the full import of the German elections without the reports on the EU? Never mind. All right, you are now the Official European Union Desk Reporter and Analyst if you don't mind. What is going on over there, anyhow? Pundita has been focused on China these past two weeks. Thank you."
"Pundita -- If you want everything EU-related I'll have to double my rate. [He is making a little joke].
Gleaneagles has a very nice golf course. Perhaps Tony could hit a wicked hook or two that would relieve Jacques and Gerhard of their miseries. Can you imagine a threesome composed of these guys! The Golf Channel would have to cover it. The ratings would be fabulous.
In case you can't tell, I think the EU is kaput. The bigger issue is whether the euro is kaput. That would have major worldwide economic repercussions."
Marc"
All right, that is enough Silly Time. Pundita is late returning and here it is 3:40, so I will rush this post into publication without doing the HTML thing to the links. I cannot suggest strongly enough to my readers that you check Marc's blogspot every day for the next few weeks because according to some of the reports he forwarded, things are moving very fast in Europe, and this will have an impact on many US related issues. Also, barring a near miracle, it seems that Schroeder is done for.
All the reports Marc sent in the past 24 hours are worth a careful read....fiddlesticks. Where is the link to Chirac Damns Blair? Never mind; kindly visit American Future and read through everything Marc has posted in the last 48 hours. He is finding the European/US reports that give a clear window on what's happening in Europe right now.
Thank you, Marc, for the time you've taken to send along the reports.
.
Marc Schulman
American Future"
Dear Marc:
So. You were holding out on Pundita. You send Pundita reports on German elections but save juicy news on EU doings for your readers."
"Pundita, You asked me to only send you pieces on the German election! I'll be glad to send you notice of reports on EU. Remember? You made me the Go-to Guy on Germany?"
Marc
"We did?"
"Yes, Pundita, look on your sidebar blogroll."
"Yes yes we're not senile, you know. But tell Pundita how can the readers understand the full import of the German elections without the reports on the EU? Never mind. All right, you are now the Official European Union Desk Reporter and Analyst if you don't mind. What is going on over there, anyhow? Pundita has been focused on China these past two weeks. Thank you."
"Pundita -- If you want everything EU-related I'll have to double my rate. [He is making a little joke].
Gleaneagles has a very nice golf course. Perhaps Tony could hit a wicked hook or two that would relieve Jacques and Gerhard of their miseries. Can you imagine a threesome composed of these guys! The Golf Channel would have to cover it. The ratings would be fabulous.
In case you can't tell, I think the EU is kaput. The bigger issue is whether the euro is kaput. That would have major worldwide economic repercussions."
Marc"
All right, that is enough Silly Time. Pundita is late returning and here it is 3:40, so I will rush this post into publication without doing the HTML thing to the links. I cannot suggest strongly enough to my readers that you check Marc's blogspot every day for the next few weeks because according to some of the reports he forwarded, things are moving very fast in Europe, and this will have an impact on many US related issues. Also, barring a near miracle, it seems that Schroeder is done for.
All the reports Marc sent in the past 24 hours are worth a careful read....fiddlesticks. Where is the link to Chirac Damns Blair? Never mind; kindly visit American Future and read through everything Marc has posted in the last 48 hours. He is finding the European/US reports that give a clear window on what's happening in Europe right now.
Thank you, Marc, for the time you've taken to send along the reports.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)