Tuesday, June 17, 2003
More Iran today. More struggle, more people hoping for freedom. An artcle from NRO at www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen061603.asp :
June 16, 2003, 9:00 a.m.
The Iranian Revolution, 2003
Regime change in the air.
you never know what will provide the spark for revolution. The most you can expect from a good analyst is the recognition of what the Marxists used to call a "revolutionary situation," but the crucial ingredient is impossible to measure (which is why the so-called social scientists have never been very good at predicting revolutions). It can only be sniffed out, and the revolutionaries are the first to know. They smell rot and fear coming from the corridors of power. They smell tell-tale odors coming from the undergarments of the doomed leaders. And they sense a wavering of will, a growing pattern of panicky response.
Those odors are beginning to waft through the air of the central squares of Iran's major cities, and have stimulated the people to an increasingly open challenge to the reigning mullahs. There have now been six consecutive nights of demonstrations all over Iran, and although Western reporters there are on a tight leash — the regime has banned all journalists and photographers from the sites of demonstrations, so the "reports" are almost always based on second-hand information — and although there do not seem to be any Western reporters covering events outside Tehran itself, several facts are dramatically clear.
First, the demonstrators are not just "students" (the word itself is rather misleading in context, since many of them are in their thirties or forties). Some estimates reckon that up to 90 percent of the demonstrators are non-students.
Second, the regime is flustered, and misjudged its response. It reminds me of Gorbachev's ham-handed response to demonstrations in Lithuania towards the end of the Soviet era. He sent in just enough soldiers to enrage the Lithuanians, but not enough to put an end to the protests. The mullahs in Tehran did just the same, unleashing the most unruly and undisciplined members of the vigilante security forces, the Basiji. But the demonstrators fought back effectively, which was an enormous boost to the morale of the democratic forces. As of Sunday night, the regime had sent in some of the shock troops of the Revolutionary Guards, who were more effective, but the situation may well have gotten out of hand.
Third, the brutal assaults on the demonstrators (female students were hurled out of dormitory windows, and survivors were beaten savagely as they lay on the street) provoked the police to intervene against the Basiji, showing once again that the regime cannot count on its own security personnel to put down the freedom movement. This is one of the prime reasons for the smell of fear coming out of the mullahs' mosques and palaces.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, the anti-regime demonstrations are not limited to Tehran. On Sunday night, for example, the biggest demonstrations to date — anywhere in the country — reportedly took place in Isfahan (where my informant said virtually the entire city was mobilized against the regime), and other protests were staged in Mashad, Shiraz (where three distinguished scholars were thrown in jail last Thursday, following an extorted "confession" from a 14-year old) and Ahvaz. This is doubly significant, both because it shows the national character of the rebellion, and because Isfahan has historically been the epicenter of revolutionary movements (and indeed some of the harshest critics of the regime are in and from Isfahan).
Fifth, the leaders of the regime are acting with open incoherence. While Supreme Leader Khamenei and Information Minister Yunesi accused the United States of financing the uprising, strongman Rafsanjani publicly offered assistance to America in fighting terrorism. He announced that Iran had abundant information on various terrorist groups (now there's a real revelation for you) and would be willing to share it with us in exchange for a friendlier attitude. Put in simple terms, he's negotiating for his survival. Meanwhile, the speaker of parliament, Mehdi Karrubi, demanded that Yunesi document the regime's claim that Iranian officials had been paid off by the Americans, and threatened to impeach the information minister if he didn't carry out an exhaustive investigation. To be sure, Karrubi is a mere figurehead, but his willingness to openly and melodramatically challenge the regime speaks volumes about the determination of the opposition and the contempt held for the leadership.
Sixth, there is mounting violence against the regime. We are no longer talking about purely peaceful demonstrations. The protesters know they are going to be attacked with guns, clubs, knives, machetes and chains, and they are responding with Molotov cocktails and guns of their own. In some of the recent street fighting, the demonstrators strung wires across the streets to bring down the Basiji, who were on motorcycles.
The regime is in a real jam. The mullahs know the people hate them — even the timorous correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor in Tehran says that 90 percent of Iranians want democratic change, and 70 percent want drastic change — and they also know that their own instruments of repression are insufficient to deal with a massive insurrection. Many leaders of the armed forces have openly said they will side with the people if there is open civil conflict. Members of some of the most powerful institutions in the country have said that they believe more than half of the Revolutionary Guards will support the people in a frontal showdown. Ergo, the mullahs have had to import foreign thugs — described as "Afghan Arabs" in the popular press — to put down demonstrations.
On the other side of the barricades, the pro-democracy forces seem to have passed the point of no return. They know that if they stop now, many of them will be subjected to terrible tortures and summary execution. Kamenei and Rafsanjani are not likely to embark on a domestic peace process. Just as they have sensed the rot within the regime, the mullahs are desperately sniffing the air for similar odors from the university areas and the homes and offices of the other leaders of the insurrection.
As usual, President Bush has been letter perfect in his praise for the freedom fighters and his condemnation of the repression in Iran. And the State Department spoke in similar terms through its spokesman, Richard Boucher. It would be good if Secretary Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, threw their prestige openly behind democracy (and hence regime change) in the next few days. There has been considerable criticism — which I have joined — of the administration's lack of a formal Iran policy, but it seems that the president himself has clearly formulated it. He should now ensure that the whole choir is chanting from his hymnal.
Part of the reason for the failure to agree upon an explicit endorsement of Iranian democracy is a lack of good information from inside Iran, and a consequent lack of accurate analysis. At this point, there is nothing that can be done about the failure of the intelligence community to obtain an accurate picture of the forces in play within Iran. It is not to be blamed on the current CIA, or on its personable leader, George Tenet. The truth is that the United States has had rotten intelligence on Iran ever since the run-up to the 1979 revolution that removed the shah and brought the awful mullahs to power. But even so, there is no excuse for the misunderstanding of revolutionary change that dominates the thinking of the intelligence and diplomatic communities.
The spooks and dips believe that democratic revolution in Iran is unlikely because the revolutionary forces have no charismatic leader — no Walesa, no Havel, no Robespierre, no Jefferson — and without revolutionary leaders, revolutions do not occur. Our deep thinkers fear that if we supported the rebels, we would risk a replay of the abortive uprisings in Poland and Hungary in the 1950s and 1960s.
But Iran today is not at all comparable to Central Europe half a century ago, or for that matter to revolutionary France of America in the 18th century, or Russia on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution. In all those cases, the revolutionaries were a distinct minority, and only a combination of dynamic leadership and foreign support could bring down the regimes. In Iran today, the revolutionaries constitute the overwhelming majority of the population, while the tyrants only glean minimal support. Thus, the Iranian people hold their destiny in their own hands. They share a common dream of freedom, and need only transform it into a common mission to liberate themselves.
Finally, our analysts should be more modest when they pronounce on the lack of revolutionary leaders in Iran today. The democracy movement has been growing for years, and has clearly attracted mass support. That does not take place without good leadership. The leaders are there, we just don't know their names and faces. But if we stick to our own guiding principles, and support the democratic revolution under way in the streets of Iran — and if the revolutionary momentum is as strong as it now appears — we will get to know them soon enough.
— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen, Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
AND also Andrew Sullivan argues here
<a href="http://andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030614"> that the US should try to oppose the new EU " Consitution " becomming reality. I frankly do not think it is the right approach, nor possible at this point in time, but the reading is interesting. This BLOG is for actively supporting our friends and actively fighting the French.
June 16, 2003, 9:00 a.m.
The Iranian Revolution, 2003
Regime change in the air.
you never know what will provide the spark for revolution. The most you can expect from a good analyst is the recognition of what the Marxists used to call a "revolutionary situation," but the crucial ingredient is impossible to measure (which is why the so-called social scientists have never been very good at predicting revolutions). It can only be sniffed out, and the revolutionaries are the first to know. They smell rot and fear coming from the corridors of power. They smell tell-tale odors coming from the undergarments of the doomed leaders. And they sense a wavering of will, a growing pattern of panicky response.
Those odors are beginning to waft through the air of the central squares of Iran's major cities, and have stimulated the people to an increasingly open challenge to the reigning mullahs. There have now been six consecutive nights of demonstrations all over Iran, and although Western reporters there are on a tight leash — the regime has banned all journalists and photographers from the sites of demonstrations, so the "reports" are almost always based on second-hand information — and although there do not seem to be any Western reporters covering events outside Tehran itself, several facts are dramatically clear.
First, the demonstrators are not just "students" (the word itself is rather misleading in context, since many of them are in their thirties or forties). Some estimates reckon that up to 90 percent of the demonstrators are non-students.
Second, the regime is flustered, and misjudged its response. It reminds me of Gorbachev's ham-handed response to demonstrations in Lithuania towards the end of the Soviet era. He sent in just enough soldiers to enrage the Lithuanians, but not enough to put an end to the protests. The mullahs in Tehran did just the same, unleashing the most unruly and undisciplined members of the vigilante security forces, the Basiji. But the demonstrators fought back effectively, which was an enormous boost to the morale of the democratic forces. As of Sunday night, the regime had sent in some of the shock troops of the Revolutionary Guards, who were more effective, but the situation may well have gotten out of hand.
Third, the brutal assaults on the demonstrators (female students were hurled out of dormitory windows, and survivors were beaten savagely as they lay on the street) provoked the police to intervene against the Basiji, showing once again that the regime cannot count on its own security personnel to put down the freedom movement. This is one of the prime reasons for the smell of fear coming out of the mullahs' mosques and palaces.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, the anti-regime demonstrations are not limited to Tehran. On Sunday night, for example, the biggest demonstrations to date — anywhere in the country — reportedly took place in Isfahan (where my informant said virtually the entire city was mobilized against the regime), and other protests were staged in Mashad, Shiraz (where three distinguished scholars were thrown in jail last Thursday, following an extorted "confession" from a 14-year old) and Ahvaz. This is doubly significant, both because it shows the national character of the rebellion, and because Isfahan has historically been the epicenter of revolutionary movements (and indeed some of the harshest critics of the regime are in and from Isfahan).
Fifth, the leaders of the regime are acting with open incoherence. While Supreme Leader Khamenei and Information Minister Yunesi accused the United States of financing the uprising, strongman Rafsanjani publicly offered assistance to America in fighting terrorism. He announced that Iran had abundant information on various terrorist groups (now there's a real revelation for you) and would be willing to share it with us in exchange for a friendlier attitude. Put in simple terms, he's negotiating for his survival. Meanwhile, the speaker of parliament, Mehdi Karrubi, demanded that Yunesi document the regime's claim that Iranian officials had been paid off by the Americans, and threatened to impeach the information minister if he didn't carry out an exhaustive investigation. To be sure, Karrubi is a mere figurehead, but his willingness to openly and melodramatically challenge the regime speaks volumes about the determination of the opposition and the contempt held for the leadership.
Sixth, there is mounting violence against the regime. We are no longer talking about purely peaceful demonstrations. The protesters know they are going to be attacked with guns, clubs, knives, machetes and chains, and they are responding with Molotov cocktails and guns of their own. In some of the recent street fighting, the demonstrators strung wires across the streets to bring down the Basiji, who were on motorcycles.
The regime is in a real jam. The mullahs know the people hate them — even the timorous correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor in Tehran says that 90 percent of Iranians want democratic change, and 70 percent want drastic change — and they also know that their own instruments of repression are insufficient to deal with a massive insurrection. Many leaders of the armed forces have openly said they will side with the people if there is open civil conflict. Members of some of the most powerful institutions in the country have said that they believe more than half of the Revolutionary Guards will support the people in a frontal showdown. Ergo, the mullahs have had to import foreign thugs — described as "Afghan Arabs" in the popular press — to put down demonstrations.
On the other side of the barricades, the pro-democracy forces seem to have passed the point of no return. They know that if they stop now, many of them will be subjected to terrible tortures and summary execution. Kamenei and Rafsanjani are not likely to embark on a domestic peace process. Just as they have sensed the rot within the regime, the mullahs are desperately sniffing the air for similar odors from the university areas and the homes and offices of the other leaders of the insurrection.
As usual, President Bush has been letter perfect in his praise for the freedom fighters and his condemnation of the repression in Iran. And the State Department spoke in similar terms through its spokesman, Richard Boucher. It would be good if Secretary Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, threw their prestige openly behind democracy (and hence regime change) in the next few days. There has been considerable criticism — which I have joined — of the administration's lack of a formal Iran policy, but it seems that the president himself has clearly formulated it. He should now ensure that the whole choir is chanting from his hymnal.
Part of the reason for the failure to agree upon an explicit endorsement of Iranian democracy is a lack of good information from inside Iran, and a consequent lack of accurate analysis. At this point, there is nothing that can be done about the failure of the intelligence community to obtain an accurate picture of the forces in play within Iran. It is not to be blamed on the current CIA, or on its personable leader, George Tenet. The truth is that the United States has had rotten intelligence on Iran ever since the run-up to the 1979 revolution that removed the shah and brought the awful mullahs to power. But even so, there is no excuse for the misunderstanding of revolutionary change that dominates the thinking of the intelligence and diplomatic communities.
The spooks and dips believe that democratic revolution in Iran is unlikely because the revolutionary forces have no charismatic leader — no Walesa, no Havel, no Robespierre, no Jefferson — and without revolutionary leaders, revolutions do not occur. Our deep thinkers fear that if we supported the rebels, we would risk a replay of the abortive uprisings in Poland and Hungary in the 1950s and 1960s.
But Iran today is not at all comparable to Central Europe half a century ago, or for that matter to revolutionary France of America in the 18th century, or Russia on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution. In all those cases, the revolutionaries were a distinct minority, and only a combination of dynamic leadership and foreign support could bring down the regimes. In Iran today, the revolutionaries constitute the overwhelming majority of the population, while the tyrants only glean minimal support. Thus, the Iranian people hold their destiny in their own hands. They share a common dream of freedom, and need only transform it into a common mission to liberate themselves.
Finally, our analysts should be more modest when they pronounce on the lack of revolutionary leaders in Iran today. The democracy movement has been growing for years, and has clearly attracted mass support. That does not take place without good leadership. The leaders are there, we just don't know their names and faces. But if we stick to our own guiding principles, and support the democratic revolution under way in the streets of Iran — and if the revolutionary momentum is as strong as it now appears — we will get to know them soon enough.
— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen, Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
AND also Andrew Sullivan argues here
<a href="http://andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030614"> that the US should try to oppose the new EU " Consitution " becomming reality. I frankly do not think it is the right approach, nor possible at this point in time, but the reading is interesting. This BLOG is for actively supporting our friends and actively fighting the French.
Monday, June 16, 2003
Great thoughts from LT-smash at www.LT-Smash.us.
Four IconsThere’s not much to do here in the desert, but we all have our own ways of keeping ourselves entertained. Some guys play video games on their computers, and some read books. Many others are avid exercisers, spending hours each week lifting weights in the gym.
I’m I thinker. During those “down times,” such as when I’m riding in a vehicle from here to there, or standing in line at the chow tent, I ponder various topics, such as sports, current events, or politics. For the past several days, I’ve been mentally developing an essay that has been percolating in my brain for a while now. I was outlining it in my head all during my road trip on Friday, and I started writing it down on Saturday afternoon. After getting some initial feedback from Dean, I polished it up on Sunday. Much to my surprise, it turned out to be quite a bit longer than I had expected. I hope you enjoy it.
Last week I wrote about how the United States views itself in respect to the rest of the world. Today, I am taking a look at the global big picture, as I examine the ideological battlefield of the twenty-first century.
Rather than view the world as a mish-mash of whatever-isms, I look at it from a slightly different perspective. The major ideologies of the modern world can be viewed in terms of four major icons--God, Caesar, Justice, and Liberty—each of which reflects a unique set of values.
God - The belief in a Supreme Being (or beings) continues to shape the lives of billions, and forms the cultural and social framework of most modern societies—even those that recognize religious freedom and diversity. Believers will tell you that faith can provide comfort in times of sorrow, hope in moments of desperation, and strength against temptation. But religion also defines the common values of many societies, and provides a sense of group identity. Religious law often forms the basis for civil law, helping to provide order, structure, and a sense of community values.
Houses of worship the world over serve as central meeting places, where members of large and small communities gather to exchange news and discuss politics. Religious leaders often wield great influence over their congregations, influencing and informing their opinions on the critical questions of the day. Followers are urged or encouraged to contribute money or labor to the faith, thereby increasing and maintaining the power and prestige of their religious leaders.
Since the dawn of civilization, societal leaders have sought to wield even greater power by declaring themselves to be super-believers, high priests, or even minor gods. The pharaohs of ancient Egypt were worshipped as earthly embodiments of various gods, and the Kings and Queens of medieval Europe claimed to rule by “Divine Right.” Conversely, Roman Catholic Popes have led armies in battle, lived in luxurious apartments, kept mistresses, and even had children—behaving very much like earthly kings.
Even in the most secular modern societies, religion continues to play a major role in politics. One of the largest political parties in Germany is the Christian Democrats. The national flags of most Northern European nations are based on the Christian Cross. The British monarch is also the titular head of the Church of England. In America, where freedom of religion is Constitutionally guaranteed, politicians continue to visit churches to make political speeches, and religious leaders sometimes run for public office. Indeed, after the terrorist attacks in September 2001, President George W. Bush addressed a grieving nation with a stirring address from Washington’s National Cathedral.
When piety and religious identity are raised as virtues above all others, however, the effects can be poisonous and divisive. Religious wars were the curse of medieval Europe, when heretics and unbelievers were often tortured or burned at the stake. Christian Crusaders visited terror upon the Arab Muslims in the Levant for centuries. Strife between Anglicans and Catholics in England led to many bloody conflicts, and still haunts Northern Ireland to this day. Muslim imams and mullahs declare jihad against the “Zionists and Crusaders” that occupy lands they consider holy. The fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed centuries-old Buddhist statues, oppressed the local populace, and harbored anti-western terrorists. A theocratic government in Iran continues to arrest and brutalize those who dare to oppose their rule.
All things considered, it’s a mixed bag.
Caesar - Since the first tribe of early humans went to battle with their neighbors to win control over their resources, societies have recognized the value of having a strong, decisive leader to guide and protect them. Tribal chieftains rose up from the warrior class, the strongest and wiliest man in the clan often seizing the mantle of leadership by coercion or murder. These strongmen provided the people of the community with a heightened sense of security, allowing them to concentrate their efforts on other tasks, like construction and agriculture. Leadership was often passed down from father to son—but the son would have to be on guard lest someone else in the tribe prove to be slightly stronger or wilier. Dynasties lasted only as long as the latest king could avoid assassination. Thus, survival of the fittest insured that unfit rulers did not remain in power indefinitely.
Alexander the Great, a Macedonian Greek, conquered Asia Minor, Egypt, and much of the Middle East in an incredible feat of military conquest. He was credited with spreading the influence of Greek Civilization throughout much of the then-known world. But upon his death the empire was divided up amongst his sons, who proved to be less capable rulers. Much of the lands he had conquered were, over time, absorbed into the Roman Empire.
Julius Caesar, the Roman general who conquered Gaul (modern France), became so revered by the Roman people that he returned to the capital and declared himself dictator—only to be assassinated shortly thereafter. His adopted son Octavius became the first Roman Emperor, and expanded the empire even further through military conquest.
Following the example of the Romans, such European leaders as Charlemagne, Napoleon, and Frederick of Prussia ruled through military might and power of personality. In the twentieth century, an Italian tyrant named Mussolini extolled the benefits of absolute dictatorship and the glory of war—his template was the Roman Empire, and his philosophy was called fascism. His disciple and eventual puppet-master, an Austrian named Adolf Hitler, carried the ideology to its frightening conclusion, creating a bloody cult of charisma, fear, and military conquest, before he was defeated by an alliance between a handful of liberal democracies and a communist dictatorship. It is a bitter historical irony that the communist, who called himself Josef Stalin (“Man of Steel”), applied many of the same measures as Hitler to maintain his own bloody reign.
Despite the fall of their respective empires, the philosophies of these strongmen are not dead--they merely live on under other names. Kim Jong Il, the “Dear Leader” of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, obliges his famine-stricken subjects to sing praises to him every morning at sunrise. Fidel Castro recently arrested and imprisoned several dozen Cubans for the unforgivable crime of running private libraries and petitioning for democratic reform. In Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist Iraq, it was difficult to travel very far without encountering a mural, poster, or statue of the brutal dictator.
Most of Saddam’s monuments have now been reduced to rubble. Sic semper tyrannus.
Justice - Most cultures recognize that life isn’t fair. But many people believe that given the right tools, human institutions can help to make the playing field a bit more level. Before such institutions existed, justice was the responsibility of the aggrieved party or a surviving relative, and could be more accurately described as “vengeance.” But such blood debts often resulted in unending feuds between families and other forms of cyclical violence, which interfered with the harmony of a productive society. Therefore, rulers would often “hold court” to referee disputes between their subjects, much in the manner of the Biblical King Solomon. Eventually, advanced agricultural societies grew too large for rulers to mete out justice effectively, so they appointed “judges” to handle such matters in subordinate courts. This provided a means whereby even the most humble citizen could get a hearing with his government.
While Justice is often represented as a blindfolded woman holding scales, she has not always been seen to be totally impartial. Indeed, it has often been observed that those with greater wealth and influence sometimes have the scales tipped in their favor. This disturbing disparity has resulted in much animosity between the haves and the have-nots. Thus, the concepts of “social justice” and “class warfare” were born.
Observing the plight of European coal miners and factory workers who toiled day and night to enrich men who never got dirt under their fingernails, a nineteenth century German philosopher named Karl Marx penned his Communist Manifesto. Marx prophesized that one day the workers would rise up and seize control over the means of production, thereby creating an ideal society where every man and woman benefited directly from the fruits of their own labor. Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work out the way that Marx expected. Communism invariably devolved into bloody despotism, with tens of millions of peasants slaughtered and only the party elite ever experiencing any real benefits.
But the idea of social justice did not disappear with the fall of communism. Social democracy (also simply called socialism), involving large welfare systems and national control of vital industries, emerged as a dominant form of governance across Europe in the late twentieth century. Social democracies place a premium on the elimination of class distinctions, heavily taxing their wealthier citizens in an effort to mitigate--or even eliminate--poverty and other social ills. Citizens of social democracies enjoy a wide array of government-supplied or supported benefits, including free medical care, shortened work weeks, and subsidized vacations--but providing these services invariably places a significant drag on economic growth, keeping the overall standard of living relatively low.
The quest for greater justice has also lead to the development of a new political philosophy called transnationalism. Also know as transnational progressivism (say that five times fast), this ideology declares nation states obsolete, and calls for international organs of governance to be established in order to rectify the inequalities of the modern world. The European Union is the first example of a transnationalist super-state, where an unelected bureaucracy issues regulations with the force of law over all of its member states.
Transnationalists ultimately seek to create a body of international law that will be superior to the legal systems of all nations. National citizenship will become irrelevant, and immigrants will enjoy legal rights, such as voting, in both their home country and their nation of residence. International bodies such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court will be strengthened, and even given jurisdiction beyond their membership. Historical injustices, such as the issue of reparations for the descendants of slaves or other displaced persons, will be addressed in super-national courts, whose rulings will be binding on all parties.
But don’t worry, your Big Brother will take good care of you.
Liberty - A relatively new concept in political philosophy is the belief that every human is a sovereign being, born with a set of fundamental rights that must be respected. This concept began to seriously emerge during the Age of Enlightenment, when philosophers such as the John Locke promoted radical ideas about Natural Rights, arguing that governments only rightfully existed with the consent of those they governed.
In 1776, a cluster of English colonies on the Eastern Seaboard of North America were suffering under heavy taxes, military occupation, and a distant monarch who was unresponsive to their pleas for relief. That summer, representatives from each of the thirteen colonies gathered in the city of Philadelphia and appointed a committee headed by Thomas Jefferson, a farmer from Virginia, to draft a Declaration of Independence. Echoing the philosophy of Locke, Jefferson penned the following memorable words:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident; that all Men are created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
With these words, the United States of America--the world’s first Liberal Democracy--was born. Thirteen years later, the former colonists drafted a Constitution that reflected the values of the new age, creating a government with limited powers designed to be responsive to the people. But the Revolution was incomplete, as several of the newly independent states refused to ratify the Constitution without some guarantee that the rights of their citizens could never be taken away.
Thus, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were drafted. But the Bill of Rights did not grant specific rights to individuals, as is commonly believed. Instead, it recognized the inherent existence of these rights, and expressly forbade the government from infringing upon them. This was, indeed, a novel concept—that the people were placing restrictions on the government, and not vice versa.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Eventually, the ideals that gave birth to the United States returned to infect the mother country, and power in Britain gradually devolved from the Monarchy to Parliament. As the British Empire spanned the globe, it brought with it the tenets of English Civil Law and the concept of individual rights. Like a benevolent virus, the ideals of liberty infected societies around the world.
In the nineteenth century, a war was fought in America that ended with the abolition of slavery, bringing the promise of liberty to men of all races. In the twentieth century, that promise was extended to women, when they were granted the right to vote.
At the close of the First World War, American President Woodrow Wilson introduced a new doctrine to the wider world: Self-Determination. Wilson argued that no group of people should live under the domination of another, and that every nation had the right to determine their own form of government. At a time when the great European Empires still dominated much of the world, this was considered to be quite a radical idea.
In the late twentieth century the fall of the European empires accelerated, and many people around the world got their first taste of liberty. Unfortunately for most, that experience was short-lived, as the tyrants and theocrats quickly moved in to fill the power vacuum.
There are, of course, other icons; Peace, and Nature, for instance, are powerful ideas in their own right, with millions of dedicated followers. But neither of these movements has by itself achieved enough stature to form the basis for a modern nation state.
None of these four major icons are mutually exclusive—each one exists in every society, even where they are suppressed. Sometimes they can be complementary, but they are just as frequently at odds with one another—as is often the case today.
We live in an age where the conflict between these ideas appears to be approaching a pivotal point. The United States, which views itself as a defender of Liberty, has become the world’s leading military and economic power. Meanwhile, the European Union is beginning to promote an image of itself as a champion of Justice—one that is often at odds with the American Colussus. At the same time, a global conflict between Islamic extremists and the West is broiling, and third world Caesars are attempting to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
Interesting times, indeed.
Posted by LT Smash at 1414Z
Four IconsThere’s not much to do here in the desert, but we all have our own ways of keeping ourselves entertained. Some guys play video games on their computers, and some read books. Many others are avid exercisers, spending hours each week lifting weights in the gym.
I’m I thinker. During those “down times,” such as when I’m riding in a vehicle from here to there, or standing in line at the chow tent, I ponder various topics, such as sports, current events, or politics. For the past several days, I’ve been mentally developing an essay that has been percolating in my brain for a while now. I was outlining it in my head all during my road trip on Friday, and I started writing it down on Saturday afternoon. After getting some initial feedback from Dean, I polished it up on Sunday. Much to my surprise, it turned out to be quite a bit longer than I had expected. I hope you enjoy it.
Last week I wrote about how the United States views itself in respect to the rest of the world. Today, I am taking a look at the global big picture, as I examine the ideological battlefield of the twenty-first century.
Rather than view the world as a mish-mash of whatever-isms, I look at it from a slightly different perspective. The major ideologies of the modern world can be viewed in terms of four major icons--God, Caesar, Justice, and Liberty—each of which reflects a unique set of values.
God - The belief in a Supreme Being (or beings) continues to shape the lives of billions, and forms the cultural and social framework of most modern societies—even those that recognize religious freedom and diversity. Believers will tell you that faith can provide comfort in times of sorrow, hope in moments of desperation, and strength against temptation. But religion also defines the common values of many societies, and provides a sense of group identity. Religious law often forms the basis for civil law, helping to provide order, structure, and a sense of community values.
Houses of worship the world over serve as central meeting places, where members of large and small communities gather to exchange news and discuss politics. Religious leaders often wield great influence over their congregations, influencing and informing their opinions on the critical questions of the day. Followers are urged or encouraged to contribute money or labor to the faith, thereby increasing and maintaining the power and prestige of their religious leaders.
Since the dawn of civilization, societal leaders have sought to wield even greater power by declaring themselves to be super-believers, high priests, or even minor gods. The pharaohs of ancient Egypt were worshipped as earthly embodiments of various gods, and the Kings and Queens of medieval Europe claimed to rule by “Divine Right.” Conversely, Roman Catholic Popes have led armies in battle, lived in luxurious apartments, kept mistresses, and even had children—behaving very much like earthly kings.
Even in the most secular modern societies, religion continues to play a major role in politics. One of the largest political parties in Germany is the Christian Democrats. The national flags of most Northern European nations are based on the Christian Cross. The British monarch is also the titular head of the Church of England. In America, where freedom of religion is Constitutionally guaranteed, politicians continue to visit churches to make political speeches, and religious leaders sometimes run for public office. Indeed, after the terrorist attacks in September 2001, President George W. Bush addressed a grieving nation with a stirring address from Washington’s National Cathedral.
When piety and religious identity are raised as virtues above all others, however, the effects can be poisonous and divisive. Religious wars were the curse of medieval Europe, when heretics and unbelievers were often tortured or burned at the stake. Christian Crusaders visited terror upon the Arab Muslims in the Levant for centuries. Strife between Anglicans and Catholics in England led to many bloody conflicts, and still haunts Northern Ireland to this day. Muslim imams and mullahs declare jihad against the “Zionists and Crusaders” that occupy lands they consider holy. The fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed centuries-old Buddhist statues, oppressed the local populace, and harbored anti-western terrorists. A theocratic government in Iran continues to arrest and brutalize those who dare to oppose their rule.
All things considered, it’s a mixed bag.
Caesar - Since the first tribe of early humans went to battle with their neighbors to win control over their resources, societies have recognized the value of having a strong, decisive leader to guide and protect them. Tribal chieftains rose up from the warrior class, the strongest and wiliest man in the clan often seizing the mantle of leadership by coercion or murder. These strongmen provided the people of the community with a heightened sense of security, allowing them to concentrate their efforts on other tasks, like construction and agriculture. Leadership was often passed down from father to son—but the son would have to be on guard lest someone else in the tribe prove to be slightly stronger or wilier. Dynasties lasted only as long as the latest king could avoid assassination. Thus, survival of the fittest insured that unfit rulers did not remain in power indefinitely.
Alexander the Great, a Macedonian Greek, conquered Asia Minor, Egypt, and much of the Middle East in an incredible feat of military conquest. He was credited with spreading the influence of Greek Civilization throughout much of the then-known world. But upon his death the empire was divided up amongst his sons, who proved to be less capable rulers. Much of the lands he had conquered were, over time, absorbed into the Roman Empire.
Julius Caesar, the Roman general who conquered Gaul (modern France), became so revered by the Roman people that he returned to the capital and declared himself dictator—only to be assassinated shortly thereafter. His adopted son Octavius became the first Roman Emperor, and expanded the empire even further through military conquest.
Following the example of the Romans, such European leaders as Charlemagne, Napoleon, and Frederick of Prussia ruled through military might and power of personality. In the twentieth century, an Italian tyrant named Mussolini extolled the benefits of absolute dictatorship and the glory of war—his template was the Roman Empire, and his philosophy was called fascism. His disciple and eventual puppet-master, an Austrian named Adolf Hitler, carried the ideology to its frightening conclusion, creating a bloody cult of charisma, fear, and military conquest, before he was defeated by an alliance between a handful of liberal democracies and a communist dictatorship. It is a bitter historical irony that the communist, who called himself Josef Stalin (“Man of Steel”), applied many of the same measures as Hitler to maintain his own bloody reign.
Despite the fall of their respective empires, the philosophies of these strongmen are not dead--they merely live on under other names. Kim Jong Il, the “Dear Leader” of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, obliges his famine-stricken subjects to sing praises to him every morning at sunrise. Fidel Castro recently arrested and imprisoned several dozen Cubans for the unforgivable crime of running private libraries and petitioning for democratic reform. In Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist Iraq, it was difficult to travel very far without encountering a mural, poster, or statue of the brutal dictator.
Most of Saddam’s monuments have now been reduced to rubble. Sic semper tyrannus.
Justice - Most cultures recognize that life isn’t fair. But many people believe that given the right tools, human institutions can help to make the playing field a bit more level. Before such institutions existed, justice was the responsibility of the aggrieved party or a surviving relative, and could be more accurately described as “vengeance.” But such blood debts often resulted in unending feuds between families and other forms of cyclical violence, which interfered with the harmony of a productive society. Therefore, rulers would often “hold court” to referee disputes between their subjects, much in the manner of the Biblical King Solomon. Eventually, advanced agricultural societies grew too large for rulers to mete out justice effectively, so they appointed “judges” to handle such matters in subordinate courts. This provided a means whereby even the most humble citizen could get a hearing with his government.
While Justice is often represented as a blindfolded woman holding scales, she has not always been seen to be totally impartial. Indeed, it has often been observed that those with greater wealth and influence sometimes have the scales tipped in their favor. This disturbing disparity has resulted in much animosity between the haves and the have-nots. Thus, the concepts of “social justice” and “class warfare” were born.
Observing the plight of European coal miners and factory workers who toiled day and night to enrich men who never got dirt under their fingernails, a nineteenth century German philosopher named Karl Marx penned his Communist Manifesto. Marx prophesized that one day the workers would rise up and seize control over the means of production, thereby creating an ideal society where every man and woman benefited directly from the fruits of their own labor. Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work out the way that Marx expected. Communism invariably devolved into bloody despotism, with tens of millions of peasants slaughtered and only the party elite ever experiencing any real benefits.
But the idea of social justice did not disappear with the fall of communism. Social democracy (also simply called socialism), involving large welfare systems and national control of vital industries, emerged as a dominant form of governance across Europe in the late twentieth century. Social democracies place a premium on the elimination of class distinctions, heavily taxing their wealthier citizens in an effort to mitigate--or even eliminate--poverty and other social ills. Citizens of social democracies enjoy a wide array of government-supplied or supported benefits, including free medical care, shortened work weeks, and subsidized vacations--but providing these services invariably places a significant drag on economic growth, keeping the overall standard of living relatively low.
The quest for greater justice has also lead to the development of a new political philosophy called transnationalism. Also know as transnational progressivism (say that five times fast), this ideology declares nation states obsolete, and calls for international organs of governance to be established in order to rectify the inequalities of the modern world. The European Union is the first example of a transnationalist super-state, where an unelected bureaucracy issues regulations with the force of law over all of its member states.
Transnationalists ultimately seek to create a body of international law that will be superior to the legal systems of all nations. National citizenship will become irrelevant, and immigrants will enjoy legal rights, such as voting, in both their home country and their nation of residence. International bodies such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court will be strengthened, and even given jurisdiction beyond their membership. Historical injustices, such as the issue of reparations for the descendants of slaves or other displaced persons, will be addressed in super-national courts, whose rulings will be binding on all parties.
But don’t worry, your Big Brother will take good care of you.
Liberty - A relatively new concept in political philosophy is the belief that every human is a sovereign being, born with a set of fundamental rights that must be respected. This concept began to seriously emerge during the Age of Enlightenment, when philosophers such as the John Locke promoted radical ideas about Natural Rights, arguing that governments only rightfully existed with the consent of those they governed.
In 1776, a cluster of English colonies on the Eastern Seaboard of North America were suffering under heavy taxes, military occupation, and a distant monarch who was unresponsive to their pleas for relief. That summer, representatives from each of the thirteen colonies gathered in the city of Philadelphia and appointed a committee headed by Thomas Jefferson, a farmer from Virginia, to draft a Declaration of Independence. Echoing the philosophy of Locke, Jefferson penned the following memorable words:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident; that all Men are created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
With these words, the United States of America--the world’s first Liberal Democracy--was born. Thirteen years later, the former colonists drafted a Constitution that reflected the values of the new age, creating a government with limited powers designed to be responsive to the people. But the Revolution was incomplete, as several of the newly independent states refused to ratify the Constitution without some guarantee that the rights of their citizens could never be taken away.
Thus, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were drafted. But the Bill of Rights did not grant specific rights to individuals, as is commonly believed. Instead, it recognized the inherent existence of these rights, and expressly forbade the government from infringing upon them. This was, indeed, a novel concept—that the people were placing restrictions on the government, and not vice versa.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Eventually, the ideals that gave birth to the United States returned to infect the mother country, and power in Britain gradually devolved from the Monarchy to Parliament. As the British Empire spanned the globe, it brought with it the tenets of English Civil Law and the concept of individual rights. Like a benevolent virus, the ideals of liberty infected societies around the world.
In the nineteenth century, a war was fought in America that ended with the abolition of slavery, bringing the promise of liberty to men of all races. In the twentieth century, that promise was extended to women, when they were granted the right to vote.
At the close of the First World War, American President Woodrow Wilson introduced a new doctrine to the wider world: Self-Determination. Wilson argued that no group of people should live under the domination of another, and that every nation had the right to determine their own form of government. At a time when the great European Empires still dominated much of the world, this was considered to be quite a radical idea.
In the late twentieth century the fall of the European empires accelerated, and many people around the world got their first taste of liberty. Unfortunately for most, that experience was short-lived, as the tyrants and theocrats quickly moved in to fill the power vacuum.
There are, of course, other icons; Peace, and Nature, for instance, are powerful ideas in their own right, with millions of dedicated followers. But neither of these movements has by itself achieved enough stature to form the basis for a modern nation state.
None of these four major icons are mutually exclusive—each one exists in every society, even where they are suppressed. Sometimes they can be complementary, but they are just as frequently at odds with one another—as is often the case today.
We live in an age where the conflict between these ideas appears to be approaching a pivotal point. The United States, which views itself as a defender of Liberty, has become the world’s leading military and economic power. Meanwhile, the European Union is beginning to promote an image of itself as a champion of Justice—one that is often at odds with the American Colussus. At the same time, a global conflict between Islamic extremists and the West is broiling, and third world Caesars are attempting to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
Interesting times, indeed.
Posted by LT Smash at 1414Z
PRESIDENT BUSH PLEASE HELP US
Ali M., Iran
And again from the BBC, the best news of the day:
Iranian protesters remain resolute
Crowds of students in the Iranian capital Tehran have staged nights of protests to express anger about the slow pace of reform in the country.
The rare show of defiance against the power of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been harshly suppressed by conservative vigilantes and the Iranian authorities.
BBC News Online has received e-mails from some of the demonstrators and others affected by the action. The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
Freedom is not very far away from us
Siavosh, Iran
I'm very hopeful about what's going on and I think freedom is not very far away from us.
Siavosh, Iran
I hope this protest is one which changes the whole regime.
A student seeking freedom, Iran
I read your comments about the Iranian students and their protests against the regime of the mullahs. I was in Teheran at the weekend, some policemen hit me, but I fought for Iran. I wish that Mr Bush would help us in our fight for freedom. I have a dream! Maybe one day, every Iranian man and woman will be free. In a country without Mullahs, without radical groups. Until this day has come, we'll fight for our right to live freely. Freedom for Iran.
Yanic Meier, Germany
I had the chance to flee Iran and escape to the US. Here I was able to get an education that would not have been allowed to me because of my faith. What scares me most is that I fear I cannot escape the strict enforcement of beliefs even here in the US. As more people become accepting of strict followings of Islam, I feel I may even have to flee here for my safety.
Ali, USA
I have protested for six straight nights and I am not going to stop now - this regime has to leave for me to stop.
Navid F, Iran
I had a telephone conversation with my nephew who is 22 and lives in Tehran. He told me that he had never in his life run the way he did two nights ago when he went to the demonstrations in Tehran. The vigilantes had ran after him with chains and clubs, the reason being that he saw them beating a girl to death and she was bleeding. He said four of them were at her and kicking her in the head, stomach and another one was beating her with the chain he had. So he shouted you sons of the bitches, leave her alone, you animals..... Then they ran after him and luckily he managed to escape from them.
Shahrokh Biniaz, Kuwait
PRESIDENT BUSH PLEASE HELP US
Ali M., Iran
I am one of the students of Tehran university. i am studying law. let me tell you that the protesters are not students. they are some workless people that all the time looking for trouble. nobody from our own faculty has been participating in this protest.
Mena, Iran
The ruling party in Iran must start sharing power with the pro-democracy now before is too little too late like the former ruler, the shah.
Mike Bargani, Iran
The vigilantes once beat me up because I was taking part in a protest. They didn't use weapons because I am 13. But they punched and kicked me in a violent manner.
Paya, Iran
The Iranian people have shown their urgent tendency for freedom. Now the US must start to support the demonstration by warning the Iran government not to act against the people. This enforcement from the outside and people's demonstration inside, will finally down the Iran regime. We are waiting for immediate support of the US.
Farshad, Iran
Despite the past, all the family members are taking part in the protests. I can see all ages among the people. The women's presence is so amazing. I can see fathers hand in hand with their wives and children in the streets. They seem both frightened and happy. I can see the traces of opposite feelings in the eyes. It is great that I can see my country fellows finding a way - a peaceful way - to show their opposition. The perfume of old days - the days of revolution - is in the atmosphere. The people are kind to each other. They give help and open the doors to shelter the young ones running away from police and plain clothes' attacks. It is beautiful, encouraging.
Name withheld, Iran
I was at home when I heard the noises. Outside, people were running everywhere, and were trying to hide somewhere, I could hear the guns, and although we are living 3 streets away from the place, we could hardly open our eyes and breathe because of the tear gas. I could see about 20 motorcycles riding here and there shouting and trying to catch people in the street. Mothers were crying and trying to find their sons, cars in traffic were pushing their horns to show their partnership in the protest, but motorcyclists tried to stop them by threatening them.....
Name withheld, Iran
I am a student, I was involved. I think it is my duty, but my parents are frightened because I have been arrested before on Students Day, now if they arrest me again only God can help me! But I will continue - not only me, but all of my friends in Tehran University - will continue our protest to show the whole world we want out freedom!
Behnam k, Iran
The police are now arresting everyone and mistreating everybody, even those not participating in the protests.
Mukiibi, Iran
I have been demonstrating from Tuesday. We talk about this at university. I am very tired with this government and we want freedom like the world in the 21st century. Everybody knows that this government is all liars, and it is just about power and control of wealth. We are cut off from rest of the world, I will not have a job after university. I am a woman and I hate this society, it is abuse of authority. It is very dangerous on the streets, and we are all doing this at risk. When the police, military and Basij open fire, they never care and if you go to prison, you don't know how far they can go. But we have to do this, and so many more people now than ever. It is time for change now.
Nastaran W Iran
I was not among the protesters but was just walking towards the university campus where a crowd of protesters had gathered, when I heard a shot on my left hand side and found myself in a pool of blood. I was rescued by a group of campus students who rushed me to hospital with a broken arm. The police are now arresting everyone and mistreating everybody, even those not participating in the protests.
Mukiibi, Iran
I am very happy but I am afraid to join the protest. I am hopeful that this regime will change within two years and we will get rid of this nonsense regime
Parviz, Iran
Protesters were shouting slogans but if we compare quantity and number of protesters with other demonstrations they do not have enough power to do something . I think elections in Iran are the first and last method to change things.
Mary, Iran
I am very happy but I am afraid to join the protest. I am hopeful that this regime will change within two years and we will get rid of this nonsense regime.
Parviz, Iran
I was there tonight along with more than 20,000 people, counting those in cars who had come there for the students. People of all types - those with chador, from downtown, people with expensive cars, young and old. It was very nice. I hope the demonstrations get organised, and don't get to aggressive - we lose when it gets to aggressive, but we will win if this goes on at the current level for a few weeks. I hope the US attacks with cruise missiles some Sepah/Intelligence ministry buildings! And I hope at least some of MPs who have signed the letter against Khamenei, stand up strongly for people.
Hadi, Iran
I absolutely reject the concept of "democracy" and "freedom" as nakedly false phantoms of the west. Who would ever want to be "free" when they could instead live in the glorious order and sanctified grace of Sharia? Why does anyone need to have an opinion for himself?
Shahin Shahida, Iran
The Basij militiamen are like wild animals. They beat women and children. The special police forces are even worse. I saw a young man being hit by them while keeping on shouting "Down with Khamenei!" He didn't stop until he was arrested. Some might say this is the same as what happened in 1999, but this time is not going to be the same for Iranians. Nothing will stop us but a referendum for a regime change. We are tired of Mullahs. A new mullah like Khatami will never ever be able to kid us again. We seek freedom and we will gain it.
Farshad, Iran
I was in Tehran in 1999 and involved in the student protests. My experience is that the police do not protect the students. They would stand by and watched as militia men would come and beat the students. Some of them even threw students out of the dormitory windows to their deaths and police just watched and did not arrest them. Students blocked the streets and filtered traffic. The people around and inside the area were very supportive and helped feed and heal the students for those few days.
Nima S Panahi, USA
Twenty-five years ago when I was in my 20s , we protested against the Shah and brought in these maniacs (religious leaders). Now the students are finishing the job and hopefully will finally bring democracy into our country. Please remember this struggle started in 1915 so we are very patient nation.
Alex Far, Australia
When I was 10 years old, the revolution was imposing itself upon the repressed Iranian society ...Like many Iranians at that time, I have experienced that the truth can be manipulated in the name of freedom. I lost dear relatives, friends and part of my life due to the manipulation of revolution and have lived in horror of anarchy, disorder and chaos when the change was taking place in my country. And I also have lived under the cruel ruling of the present regime of Iran. My experiences are not that pleasant, but I have learnt to live with them and keep my hope for freedom, because Iran is my home and my identity, and being an Iranian in exile makes me to be proud of all my experiences.
Kathy, Canada
Have you been involved in the protests? Have they affected you in any way? Tell us your experiences
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/2989778.stm
Published: 2003/06/14 08:13:12 GMT
© BBC MMIII
I'm finally back. Good thing. Today I have a few articles to post, which I found interesting and wish to share:
U.S.: However Impolitic, Rumsfeld's Remarks May Reflect NATO Readjustment
By Jeremy Bransten
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stoked divisions in NATO anew yesterday. He said Washington may have to stop funding the construction of new NATO headquarters in Brussels and stop sending U.S. officials and soldiers to Belgium unless the country changes its controversial war crimes legislation. Belgium today replied that there is no need to alter the law since it has already been adequately amended. At a time when the alliance has been trying to repair divisions caused by the Iraq war, do Rumsfeld's words signal that effort is failing?
Prague, 13 June 2003 (RFE/RL) -- With characteristic bluntness, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has blasted Belgium for a controversial law that allows the country to prosecute war crimes suspects, regardless of their residence or citizenship. And he warned that Belgium could pay a heavy price unless it abolishes the measure.
Rumsfeld, speaking yesterday in Brussels, said lawsuits based on Belgium's universal competence law are "absurd." The law gives Belgian courts the authority to prosecute individuals accused of war crimes, regardless of the crimes' connection to Belgium or the accused's presence on Belgian soil.
He added that the existence of the law calls into question Belgium's ability to host NATO headquarters.
The U.S. defense secretary went one step further, announcing that Washington is suspending funding for the construction of a new NATO building in Brussels.
"Until this matter is resolved, we will have to oppose any further spending for construction for a new NATO headquarters here in Brussels until we know with certainty that Belgium intends to be a hospitable place for NATO to conduct its business, as it has been over so many years," Rumsfeld said.
The disputed law has already led to lawsuits against former U.S. President George Bush Sr., Vice President Dick Cheney, and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, dating from the 1991 Gulf War, and more recently against General Tommy Franks, the U.S. commander in Iraq this year.
Confusion has now emerged in Belgium as to how the country will respond.
Earlier today, Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel noted that a recent amendment to the law limits its powers, allowing for cases to be sent to the defendants' country of origin, if that nation is deemed to have a fair and democratic legal system. That is what Belgium did in the case against Franks last month, although the other suits are still pending.
Michel said there is no reason to change the law any further or to abolish it.
But Andre Flahaut, Belgium's defense minister, said a further change in the law might be subject to negotiation.
One thing appears certain. Rumsfeld's comments will open further divisions at a time when NATO is trying to mend internal relations disrupted by the Iraq war. Although he is known for his frequent undiplomatic remarks, there is evidence that the U.S. defense secretary was not speaking off-the-cuff.
Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a little-noticed amendment that asks the U.S. Defense Department to research the potential costs and logistics of moving NATO's military headquarters out of Belgium.
With the administration of President George W. Bush giving increased emphasis to NATO's newer members, such as Poland, some argue that the alliance should move its center eastward to reflect new realities. Many others ask whether NATO could, in fact, survive such a move.
Military analyst Timothy Garden of Britain's Royal Institute for International Affairs points out that since NATO works by consensus, reaching unanimous agreement on moving the alliance's headquarters out of Belgium would be nearly impossible. Garden believes that if the United States seriously pursues this goal, it could endanger the alliance's very viability.
"There are lots of strains in NATO and the threat either to push the headquarters presumably to the East -- which would be re-centering, if you like, the American perception of the 'new Europe' or interfering, as it would be seen, in the internal affairs of a NATO member, that is Belgium, trying to get it to change its laws to suit the United States -- either of those looks as though they would be intensely damaging to what already is a very bruised organization," Garden says.
Despite the increasingly high-profile role of countries like Poland in NATO, Garden says that if you look at the facts, Rumsfeld's so-called "new Europe" is big on enthusiasm but low on the military capabilities and financial resources that it can contribute to the alliance.
"The new European members that have come into NATO are, although very willing to give vocal support to U.S. policy, very limited [in their capabilities]. They may have some niche capabilities. If we take the example of the Polish proposal for looking after a sector of Iraq, the Poles during the Iraq conflict provided 200 support troops in a conflict which needed 200,000. And now that they're going into the post-conflict period, they're saying that they would welcome taking the headquarters role for this small sector, but they can only provide about 2,000 troops. And yet, the numbers that are needed are much greater than that," Garden says.
Aside from Britain, he says France and Germany continue to form essential military pillars for NATO and that will not change for quite some time.
"If you look now in Afghanistan, the biggest contribution is from Germany, and France has expeditionary capabilities. So, freezing them out is in nobody's interest because they have real capabilities that are useful to NATO, to the U.S. and to international stability, however it is flagged," he says.
Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin, an independent think tank devoted to international affairs and trans-Atlantic relations. He agrees that the likelihood of NATO moving its headquarters out of Brussels in the near future is very slim. But he says Rumsfeld's statement -- however undiplomatic -- reflects the fact that a certain readjustment is taking place both within Europe and between certain countries of Europe and the United States and that this will have a long-term impact on NATO.
"This is an alliance which is in flux. The Cold War, we could say, is really, really, really over now, and I think we're at the beginning of asking the hard questions in a practical sort of way. To answer your question: I don't think NATO is moving anytime soon. But I think issues are going to be raised, not only about cost but strategic relevance, proximity to regions where we're going to be operating in the next 10, 20, 30 years, the interests of the West Europeans and the interests of the Central and East Europeans," Gedmin says.
Gedmin notes that the impetus for redefining the trans-Atlantic relationship comes as much from the United States as it does from countries like Germany and France, which are seeking to create pan-European structures that will give the continent a new, more robust political identity and likely change long-term ties with Washington.
"We're both in the process of renegotiating this relationship. It doesn't mean full-blown strategic divorce, but it's not the same kind of tightly integrated unit that we used to have," he says. "It's different now. And I think people are poking around and tapping around, sometimes even in the dark, trying to find out what is still relevant and in what ways. If we look at a map of Europe, we see that Western Europe is fixed, Central and Eastern Europe is being fixed and the likeliest hot spots and conflicts of the next 10 and 20 and 30 years will not be where I'm sitting here today in Berlin. And maybe it does make sense to contemplate moving some of our structures, institutions, and forces elsewhere, where they are closer to those regions."
If that happens, then perhaps Rumsfeld's words will be remembered as prescient -- not just impolitic.
More from the NYT:
June 14, 2003
The Boys Who Cried Wolfowitz
By BILL KELLER
e're now up to Day 87 of the largely fruitless hunt for Iraq's unconventional weapons. Allegations keep piling up that the Bush administration tried to scam the world into war by exaggerating evidence of the Iraqi threat. One critic has pronounced it "arguably the worst scandal in American political history." So you might reasonably ask a supporter of the war, How do you feel about that war now?
Thanks for asking.
One easy answer is that between the excavation of mass graves, which confirms that we have rid the world of a horror, and President Bush's new willingness to engage the thankless tangle of Middle East diplomacy, which raises the hope that Iraq was more than a hit-and-run exercise, the war seems to have changed some important things for the better. This is true, but not quite enough.
Another easy answer is that it's not over yet. Just as we have yet to prove that we can transform a military conquest into a real Mission Accomplished, we have yet to complete our search of a country that, as Californians must be very tired of hearing, is the size of California. This is also true, but likewise inadequate.
I supported the war, with misgivings about the haste, the America-knows-best attitude and our ability to win the peace. The deciding factor for me was not the monstrosity of the regime (routing tyrants is a noble cause, but where do you stop?), nor the opportunity to detoxify the Middle East (another noble cause, but dubious justification for a war when hardly anyone else in the world supports you). No, I supported it mainly because of the convergence of a real threat and a real opportunity.
The threat was a dictator with a proven, insatiable desire for dreadful weapons that would eventually have made him, or perhaps one of his sadistic sons, a god in the region. The fact that he gave aid and at least occasional sanctuary to practitioners of terror added to his menace. And at the end his brazen defiance made us seem weak and vulnerable, an impression we can ill afford. The opportunity was a moment of awareness and political will created by Sept. 11, combined with the legal sanction reaffirmed by U.N. Resolution 1441. The important thing to me was never that Saddam Hussein's threat was "imminent" — although Sept. 11 taught us that is not such an easy thing to know — but that the opportunity to do something about him was finite. In a year or two, we would be distracted and Iraq would be back in the nuke-building business.
Even if you throw out all the tainted evidence, there was still what prosecutors call probable cause to believe that Saddam was harboring frightful weapons, and was bent on acquiring the most frightful weapons of all. The Clinton administration believed so. Two generations of U.N. inspectors believed so. It was not a Bush administration fabrication that Iraq had, and failed to account for, massive quantities of anthrax and VX nerve gas and other biological and chemical weapons. Saddam was under an international obligation to say where the poisons went, but did not.
What the Bush administration did was gild the lily — disseminating information that ranged from selective to preposterous. The president himself gave credence to the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa, a story that (as Seymour Hersh's investigations leave little doubt) was based on transparently fraudulent information. Colin Powell in his February performance at the U.N. insisted that those famous aluminum tubes Iraq bought were intended for bomb-making, although the technical experts at the Department of Energy had made an awfully strong case that the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers. And as James Risen disclosed in The Times this week, two top Qaeda planners in custody told American interrogators — one of them well before the war was set in motion — that Osama bin Laden had rejected the idea of working with Saddam. That inconclusive but potent evidence was kept quiet in the administration's zeal to establish a meaningful Iraqi connection to the fanatical war on America.
The motives for the dissembling varied. The hawks hyped the case (profusely) to prove we were justified in going to war, with or without allies. Mr. Powell hyped it (modestly) in the hope that the war, which he knew the president had already decided to wage, would not be a divisive, unilateral exercise. The president either believed what he wanted to believe or was given a stacked deck of information, and it's a close call which of those possibilities is scarier.
Those who say flimflam intelligence drove us to war, though, have got things backward. It seems much more likely that the decision to make war drove the intelligence.
The origins of this may be well intentioned. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the most dogged proponent of war against Iraq, is also a longtime skeptic of American institutional intelligence-gathering. He has argued over the years, from within the government and from outside, that the C.I.A. and its sister agencies often fail to place adequate emphasis on what they don't know, and that they "mirror-image" — make assumptions about what foreign regimes will do based on what we would do.
One tempting solution has been to deputize smart thinkers from outside the intelligence fraternity — a Team B — to second-guess the analysis of the A Team professionals. Mr. Wolfowitz was part of a famous 1976 Team B that attacked the C.I.A. for underestimating the Soviet threat. These days the top leadership of the Defense Department is Team B. Mr. Wolfowitz and his associates have assembled their own trusted analysts to help them challenge the established intelligence consensus.
Who would argue that the spooks' work should not stand up to rigorous cross-examination? But in practice, B-Teaming is often less a form of intellectual discipline than of ideological martial arts.
Here's how it might have worked in the Bush administration:
The A Team (actually, given the number of spy agencies that pool intelligence on major problems, it's more like the A-through-M team) prepares its analysis of, let's say, the Iraqi nuclear program. The report is cautious, equivocal and — particularly since U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998 — based on close calls about defector reports, commercial transactions and other flimsy evidence.
The B Team comes in with fresh eyes, and fresh assumptions. One assumption, another Wolfowitz mantra, is that more weight should be given to the character of the regime — in Saddam's case, his transcendent evil and megalomania. While the C.I.A. may say that we have insufficient evidence to conclude that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program, Team B starts from the premise that it is just the kind of thing Saddam would do, and it is dangerous to assume he didn't.
Then Team B dips into the raw intelligence and fishes out information that supports its case, tidbits that the A Team may have rejected as unreliable. The Pentagon takes this ammo to an interagency review, where it is used to beat the A Team (the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency) into submission. Maybe the agencies put up a fight, but (1) much of their own evidence is too soft to defend with great conviction, and (2) by this time the president has announced his version of the facts, and the political tide is all running in one direction.
When Team B seems to have the blessing of the boss, it goes from being a source of useful dissent to being an implement of intimidation. As formidable a figure as Mr. Powell, who resisted pressure to include the most arrant nonsense in his U.N. briefing, still ended up arguing a case he told confidants he did not entirely believe, specifically on the questions of Iraq's nuclear program and connections with Al Qaeda.
By the time a Team B version of events has been debunked, it has already served its purpose. That 1976 Team B, by assuming the most dire of Soviet intentions and overlooking the slow collapse of the Soviet economy, came up with estimates of Soviet military strength that we later learned to be ridiculously inflated. But the cold warriors who ran it succeeded in setting back détente and helped to elect Ronald Reagan. The 2003 Team B seems to have convinced most Americans that Saddam had nuclear arms and was in bed with Osama bin Laden.
But the consequences of crying wolf — and the belief is widespread among the dispirited spies of the A Team that the administration did exactly that — are grave. Honest, careful intelligence is our single most important weapon in the global effort against terrorism. It is also critical to winning the support of allies against nuclear proliferation, most urgently in North Korea and Iran. Already rather compelling evidence of Iran's development of nuclear weaponry is being dismissed as just more smoke from the Bush propaganda machine.
So far, the passion to investigate the integrity of American intelligence-gathering belongs mostly to the doves, whose motives are subject to suspicion and who, in any case, do not set the agenda. The pro-war Democrats are dying to change the subject to the economy. The Republicans are in no mood to second-guess a victory. Just when we really need some of that Team B spirit, the hawks have chickened out.
The truth is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our leaders in matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted. To my mind, this is a worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war we won. It is a problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face.
U.S.: However Impolitic, Rumsfeld's Remarks May Reflect NATO Readjustment
By Jeremy Bransten
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stoked divisions in NATO anew yesterday. He said Washington may have to stop funding the construction of new NATO headquarters in Brussels and stop sending U.S. officials and soldiers to Belgium unless the country changes its controversial war crimes legislation. Belgium today replied that there is no need to alter the law since it has already been adequately amended. At a time when the alliance has been trying to repair divisions caused by the Iraq war, do Rumsfeld's words signal that effort is failing?
Prague, 13 June 2003 (RFE/RL) -- With characteristic bluntness, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has blasted Belgium for a controversial law that allows the country to prosecute war crimes suspects, regardless of their residence or citizenship. And he warned that Belgium could pay a heavy price unless it abolishes the measure.
Rumsfeld, speaking yesterday in Brussels, said lawsuits based on Belgium's universal competence law are "absurd." The law gives Belgian courts the authority to prosecute individuals accused of war crimes, regardless of the crimes' connection to Belgium or the accused's presence on Belgian soil.
He added that the existence of the law calls into question Belgium's ability to host NATO headquarters.
The U.S. defense secretary went one step further, announcing that Washington is suspending funding for the construction of a new NATO building in Brussels.
"Until this matter is resolved, we will have to oppose any further spending for construction for a new NATO headquarters here in Brussels until we know with certainty that Belgium intends to be a hospitable place for NATO to conduct its business, as it has been over so many years," Rumsfeld said.
The disputed law has already led to lawsuits against former U.S. President George Bush Sr., Vice President Dick Cheney, and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, dating from the 1991 Gulf War, and more recently against General Tommy Franks, the U.S. commander in Iraq this year.
Confusion has now emerged in Belgium as to how the country will respond.
Earlier today, Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel noted that a recent amendment to the law limits its powers, allowing for cases to be sent to the defendants' country of origin, if that nation is deemed to have a fair and democratic legal system. That is what Belgium did in the case against Franks last month, although the other suits are still pending.
Michel said there is no reason to change the law any further or to abolish it.
But Andre Flahaut, Belgium's defense minister, said a further change in the law might be subject to negotiation.
One thing appears certain. Rumsfeld's comments will open further divisions at a time when NATO is trying to mend internal relations disrupted by the Iraq war. Although he is known for his frequent undiplomatic remarks, there is evidence that the U.S. defense secretary was not speaking off-the-cuff.
Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a little-noticed amendment that asks the U.S. Defense Department to research the potential costs and logistics of moving NATO's military headquarters out of Belgium.
With the administration of President George W. Bush giving increased emphasis to NATO's newer members, such as Poland, some argue that the alliance should move its center eastward to reflect new realities. Many others ask whether NATO could, in fact, survive such a move.
Military analyst Timothy Garden of Britain's Royal Institute for International Affairs points out that since NATO works by consensus, reaching unanimous agreement on moving the alliance's headquarters out of Belgium would be nearly impossible. Garden believes that if the United States seriously pursues this goal, it could endanger the alliance's very viability.
"There are lots of strains in NATO and the threat either to push the headquarters presumably to the East -- which would be re-centering, if you like, the American perception of the 'new Europe' or interfering, as it would be seen, in the internal affairs of a NATO member, that is Belgium, trying to get it to change its laws to suit the United States -- either of those looks as though they would be intensely damaging to what already is a very bruised organization," Garden says.
Despite the increasingly high-profile role of countries like Poland in NATO, Garden says that if you look at the facts, Rumsfeld's so-called "new Europe" is big on enthusiasm but low on the military capabilities and financial resources that it can contribute to the alliance.
"The new European members that have come into NATO are, although very willing to give vocal support to U.S. policy, very limited [in their capabilities]. They may have some niche capabilities. If we take the example of the Polish proposal for looking after a sector of Iraq, the Poles during the Iraq conflict provided 200 support troops in a conflict which needed 200,000. And now that they're going into the post-conflict period, they're saying that they would welcome taking the headquarters role for this small sector, but they can only provide about 2,000 troops. And yet, the numbers that are needed are much greater than that," Garden says.
Aside from Britain, he says France and Germany continue to form essential military pillars for NATO and that will not change for quite some time.
"If you look now in Afghanistan, the biggest contribution is from Germany, and France has expeditionary capabilities. So, freezing them out is in nobody's interest because they have real capabilities that are useful to NATO, to the U.S. and to international stability, however it is flagged," he says.
Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin, an independent think tank devoted to international affairs and trans-Atlantic relations. He agrees that the likelihood of NATO moving its headquarters out of Brussels in the near future is very slim. But he says Rumsfeld's statement -- however undiplomatic -- reflects the fact that a certain readjustment is taking place both within Europe and between certain countries of Europe and the United States and that this will have a long-term impact on NATO.
"This is an alliance which is in flux. The Cold War, we could say, is really, really, really over now, and I think we're at the beginning of asking the hard questions in a practical sort of way. To answer your question: I don't think NATO is moving anytime soon. But I think issues are going to be raised, not only about cost but strategic relevance, proximity to regions where we're going to be operating in the next 10, 20, 30 years, the interests of the West Europeans and the interests of the Central and East Europeans," Gedmin says.
Gedmin notes that the impetus for redefining the trans-Atlantic relationship comes as much from the United States as it does from countries like Germany and France, which are seeking to create pan-European structures that will give the continent a new, more robust political identity and likely change long-term ties with Washington.
"We're both in the process of renegotiating this relationship. It doesn't mean full-blown strategic divorce, but it's not the same kind of tightly integrated unit that we used to have," he says. "It's different now. And I think people are poking around and tapping around, sometimes even in the dark, trying to find out what is still relevant and in what ways. If we look at a map of Europe, we see that Western Europe is fixed, Central and Eastern Europe is being fixed and the likeliest hot spots and conflicts of the next 10 and 20 and 30 years will not be where I'm sitting here today in Berlin. And maybe it does make sense to contemplate moving some of our structures, institutions, and forces elsewhere, where they are closer to those regions."
If that happens, then perhaps Rumsfeld's words will be remembered as prescient -- not just impolitic.
More from the NYT:
June 14, 2003
The Boys Who Cried Wolfowitz
By BILL KELLER
e're now up to Day 87 of the largely fruitless hunt for Iraq's unconventional weapons. Allegations keep piling up that the Bush administration tried to scam the world into war by exaggerating evidence of the Iraqi threat. One critic has pronounced it "arguably the worst scandal in American political history." So you might reasonably ask a supporter of the war, How do you feel about that war now?
Thanks for asking.
One easy answer is that between the excavation of mass graves, which confirms that we have rid the world of a horror, and President Bush's new willingness to engage the thankless tangle of Middle East diplomacy, which raises the hope that Iraq was more than a hit-and-run exercise, the war seems to have changed some important things for the better. This is true, but not quite enough.
Another easy answer is that it's not over yet. Just as we have yet to prove that we can transform a military conquest into a real Mission Accomplished, we have yet to complete our search of a country that, as Californians must be very tired of hearing, is the size of California. This is also true, but likewise inadequate.
I supported the war, with misgivings about the haste, the America-knows-best attitude and our ability to win the peace. The deciding factor for me was not the monstrosity of the regime (routing tyrants is a noble cause, but where do you stop?), nor the opportunity to detoxify the Middle East (another noble cause, but dubious justification for a war when hardly anyone else in the world supports you). No, I supported it mainly because of the convergence of a real threat and a real opportunity.
The threat was a dictator with a proven, insatiable desire for dreadful weapons that would eventually have made him, or perhaps one of his sadistic sons, a god in the region. The fact that he gave aid and at least occasional sanctuary to practitioners of terror added to his menace. And at the end his brazen defiance made us seem weak and vulnerable, an impression we can ill afford. The opportunity was a moment of awareness and political will created by Sept. 11, combined with the legal sanction reaffirmed by U.N. Resolution 1441. The important thing to me was never that Saddam Hussein's threat was "imminent" — although Sept. 11 taught us that is not such an easy thing to know — but that the opportunity to do something about him was finite. In a year or two, we would be distracted and Iraq would be back in the nuke-building business.
Even if you throw out all the tainted evidence, there was still what prosecutors call probable cause to believe that Saddam was harboring frightful weapons, and was bent on acquiring the most frightful weapons of all. The Clinton administration believed so. Two generations of U.N. inspectors believed so. It was not a Bush administration fabrication that Iraq had, and failed to account for, massive quantities of anthrax and VX nerve gas and other biological and chemical weapons. Saddam was under an international obligation to say where the poisons went, but did not.
What the Bush administration did was gild the lily — disseminating information that ranged from selective to preposterous. The president himself gave credence to the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa, a story that (as Seymour Hersh's investigations leave little doubt) was based on transparently fraudulent information. Colin Powell in his February performance at the U.N. insisted that those famous aluminum tubes Iraq bought were intended for bomb-making, although the technical experts at the Department of Energy had made an awfully strong case that the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers. And as James Risen disclosed in The Times this week, two top Qaeda planners in custody told American interrogators — one of them well before the war was set in motion — that Osama bin Laden had rejected the idea of working with Saddam. That inconclusive but potent evidence was kept quiet in the administration's zeal to establish a meaningful Iraqi connection to the fanatical war on America.
The motives for the dissembling varied. The hawks hyped the case (profusely) to prove we were justified in going to war, with or without allies. Mr. Powell hyped it (modestly) in the hope that the war, which he knew the president had already decided to wage, would not be a divisive, unilateral exercise. The president either believed what he wanted to believe or was given a stacked deck of information, and it's a close call which of those possibilities is scarier.
Those who say flimflam intelligence drove us to war, though, have got things backward. It seems much more likely that the decision to make war drove the intelligence.
The origins of this may be well intentioned. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the most dogged proponent of war against Iraq, is also a longtime skeptic of American institutional intelligence-gathering. He has argued over the years, from within the government and from outside, that the C.I.A. and its sister agencies often fail to place adequate emphasis on what they don't know, and that they "mirror-image" — make assumptions about what foreign regimes will do based on what we would do.
One tempting solution has been to deputize smart thinkers from outside the intelligence fraternity — a Team B — to second-guess the analysis of the A Team professionals. Mr. Wolfowitz was part of a famous 1976 Team B that attacked the C.I.A. for underestimating the Soviet threat. These days the top leadership of the Defense Department is Team B. Mr. Wolfowitz and his associates have assembled their own trusted analysts to help them challenge the established intelligence consensus.
Who would argue that the spooks' work should not stand up to rigorous cross-examination? But in practice, B-Teaming is often less a form of intellectual discipline than of ideological martial arts.
Here's how it might have worked in the Bush administration:
The A Team (actually, given the number of spy agencies that pool intelligence on major problems, it's more like the A-through-M team) prepares its analysis of, let's say, the Iraqi nuclear program. The report is cautious, equivocal and — particularly since U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998 — based on close calls about defector reports, commercial transactions and other flimsy evidence.
The B Team comes in with fresh eyes, and fresh assumptions. One assumption, another Wolfowitz mantra, is that more weight should be given to the character of the regime — in Saddam's case, his transcendent evil and megalomania. While the C.I.A. may say that we have insufficient evidence to conclude that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program, Team B starts from the premise that it is just the kind of thing Saddam would do, and it is dangerous to assume he didn't.
Then Team B dips into the raw intelligence and fishes out information that supports its case, tidbits that the A Team may have rejected as unreliable. The Pentagon takes this ammo to an interagency review, where it is used to beat the A Team (the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency) into submission. Maybe the agencies put up a fight, but (1) much of their own evidence is too soft to defend with great conviction, and (2) by this time the president has announced his version of the facts, and the political tide is all running in one direction.
When Team B seems to have the blessing of the boss, it goes from being a source of useful dissent to being an implement of intimidation. As formidable a figure as Mr. Powell, who resisted pressure to include the most arrant nonsense in his U.N. briefing, still ended up arguing a case he told confidants he did not entirely believe, specifically on the questions of Iraq's nuclear program and connections with Al Qaeda.
By the time a Team B version of events has been debunked, it has already served its purpose. That 1976 Team B, by assuming the most dire of Soviet intentions and overlooking the slow collapse of the Soviet economy, came up with estimates of Soviet military strength that we later learned to be ridiculously inflated. But the cold warriors who ran it succeeded in setting back détente and helped to elect Ronald Reagan. The 2003 Team B seems to have convinced most Americans that Saddam had nuclear arms and was in bed with Osama bin Laden.
But the consequences of crying wolf — and the belief is widespread among the dispirited spies of the A Team that the administration did exactly that — are grave. Honest, careful intelligence is our single most important weapon in the global effort against terrorism. It is also critical to winning the support of allies against nuclear proliferation, most urgently in North Korea and Iran. Already rather compelling evidence of Iran's development of nuclear weaponry is being dismissed as just more smoke from the Bush propaganda machine.
So far, the passion to investigate the integrity of American intelligence-gathering belongs mostly to the doves, whose motives are subject to suspicion and who, in any case, do not set the agenda. The pro-war Democrats are dying to change the subject to the economy. The Republicans are in no mood to second-guess a victory. Just when we really need some of that Team B spirit, the hawks have chickened out.
The truth is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our leaders in matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted. To my mind, this is a worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war we won. It is a problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face.
