Friday, July 04, 2003
Now the EU finally gets serious
After two days spent arguing feverishly on how inappropriate and utterly, utterly inexcusable it is to "call a democrat a nazi", finally the wonderfully coherent and morally upstanding democrats in the EU decide to stop funding a nazi terrorist organisation.
No, they didn't (via LGF):
The United States has been demanding that the EU take broad action against Hamas, but while Italy supported this position, ambassadors from other countries, including France, said that such a move at the present time would likely harm the peace process. Thursday's EU meeting ended without a decision and no date was set for another discussion on the issue.
It figures. Such high lessons of democracy, really.
The above thanks to Cose Turche
After two days spent arguing feverishly on how inappropriate and utterly, utterly inexcusable it is to "call a democrat a nazi", finally the wonderfully coherent and morally upstanding democrats in the EU decide to stop funding a nazi terrorist organisation.
No, they didn't (via LGF):
The United States has been demanding that the EU take broad action against Hamas, but while Italy supported this position, ambassadors from other countries, including France, said that such a move at the present time would likely harm the peace process. Thursday's EU meeting ended without a decision and no date was set for another discussion on the issue.
It figures. Such high lessons of democracy, really.
The above thanks to Cose Turche
Thursday, July 03, 2003
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Here an interesting history of Arab regimes written by an Iranian. With a conclusion: they've all tried every kind of wild political solutions, perhaps the time has come to try out democracy!
No comment. A look at how the real right views the Bush administration: Neocons as fascists
An interesting view. How religion could help the Democratic Party. From the Washington Monthly Online.
Europe should learn to fend for itself
By Gordon Adams
Published: July 1 2003 20:02 | Last Updated: July 1 2003 20:02 in The Financial Times
Europeans are anxious, afraid that after 50 years of defending their continent and encouraging a common security capability, the US now wants to divide them and prevent that capability from emerging.
For a growing number of influential Europeans, US actions - the Iraq war, name-calling about "old Europe", scoffing about European defence capabilities, base relocation plans and a childish obsession with insulting France - all point towards a deliberate effort to hinder European unity and carve out a zone of friendly countries in the new democracies of central Europe.
The truth is even more disturbing. In reality the current administration is ignoring Europe. It has switched its attention to the fractious disputes in the "arc of conflict" that stretches from North Africa to Indonesia. Europeans need to face up to this change, not hanker after a return to more "normal" days.
This dynamic is not temporary. The Bush administration is focused on terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and determined to ensure long-term US global dominance as the strongest military power. A decade of thinking and activity has embedded this approach in every aspect of US strategy. Future administrations will retain this broad orientation, even if they are more "user-friendly".
Washington does not fear the emergence of a more united, independent and capable European defence, backed by a modern military; it simply doubts it will ever happen. To the Bush administration, Europe is in decline and America is on the rise. There is no point in dividing Europe; Europe is not a threat and is unlikely to become an equal partner.
Europeans can occasionally become allies of convenience. British expeditionary and Polish security forces can provide useful backing for American missions. A Nato reaction force might be helpful. Even the French may one day sail in a flotilla commanded by the US. But the Americans will not be teased back into the familiar transatlantic game. It is no longer "divide and conquer" but, for now, a global "high noon", with the US as sheriff.
What are Europe's options? First and foremost, strategic planning at the European Union level requires a clear vision of Europe's strategic interests: stability and equality in a global economy; preventing weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of potential adversaries; dismantling terrorist organisations; and peace in the eastern Mediterranean. The recent draft of a common security policy by Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, is a start, but remains vague.
Second, this vision should have a direct impact on EU military planning. An ambitious European diplomacy can succeed only if military forces are an integral part of the overall strategy. Today's pursuit of an EU military capability lacks any link to a common vision - what are its forces for?
Third, armed with a vision and forces to support it, Europeans must set priorities. Vague promises of future defence budget growth are an empty gesture. Governments must face the tough decisions together, with some countries specialising now. The French, for example, may need to reconsider their plan to modernise their nuclear force, while the Germans may at last have to abandon conscription. It also means putting a much higher priority on research and development investment.
Fourth, the European defence industry must be rationalised instead of being maintained as an employment programme. Europeans are wasting resources on sectors from the past: fighter aircraft, ships and land equipment. Projects such as the Galileo satellite system and the A400M transport aircraft, which will enable European forces to operate autonomously, should be a priority. Beyond that, industry restructuring is needed in areas such as precision-guided munitions, sensors, command and control systems and communications, where Europe has a significant technological base.
One day, the US government will recognise that it needs partners to manage the global challenges it faces. Europe's challenge is to become capable of filling such a role, not to stand by and wait for the US to "return to normal." It is time for Europe to show that it intends to be a serious and autonomous global player with clear strategic goals and proven military capabilities.
The writer is professor of security studies at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University and served in the White House 1993-97
By Gordon Adams
Published: July 1 2003 20:02 | Last Updated: July 1 2003 20:02 in The Financial Times
Europeans are anxious, afraid that after 50 years of defending their continent and encouraging a common security capability, the US now wants to divide them and prevent that capability from emerging.
For a growing number of influential Europeans, US actions - the Iraq war, name-calling about "old Europe", scoffing about European defence capabilities, base relocation plans and a childish obsession with insulting France - all point towards a deliberate effort to hinder European unity and carve out a zone of friendly countries in the new democracies of central Europe.
The truth is even more disturbing. In reality the current administration is ignoring Europe. It has switched its attention to the fractious disputes in the "arc of conflict" that stretches from North Africa to Indonesia. Europeans need to face up to this change, not hanker after a return to more "normal" days.
This dynamic is not temporary. The Bush administration is focused on terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and determined to ensure long-term US global dominance as the strongest military power. A decade of thinking and activity has embedded this approach in every aspect of US strategy. Future administrations will retain this broad orientation, even if they are more "user-friendly".
Washington does not fear the emergence of a more united, independent and capable European defence, backed by a modern military; it simply doubts it will ever happen. To the Bush administration, Europe is in decline and America is on the rise. There is no point in dividing Europe; Europe is not a threat and is unlikely to become an equal partner.
Europeans can occasionally become allies of convenience. British expeditionary and Polish security forces can provide useful backing for American missions. A Nato reaction force might be helpful. Even the French may one day sail in a flotilla commanded by the US. But the Americans will not be teased back into the familiar transatlantic game. It is no longer "divide and conquer" but, for now, a global "high noon", with the US as sheriff.
What are Europe's options? First and foremost, strategic planning at the European Union level requires a clear vision of Europe's strategic interests: stability and equality in a global economy; preventing weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of potential adversaries; dismantling terrorist organisations; and peace in the eastern Mediterranean. The recent draft of a common security policy by Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, is a start, but remains vague.
Second, this vision should have a direct impact on EU military planning. An ambitious European diplomacy can succeed only if military forces are an integral part of the overall strategy. Today's pursuit of an EU military capability lacks any link to a common vision - what are its forces for?
Third, armed with a vision and forces to support it, Europeans must set priorities. Vague promises of future defence budget growth are an empty gesture. Governments must face the tough decisions together, with some countries specialising now. The French, for example, may need to reconsider their plan to modernise their nuclear force, while the Germans may at last have to abandon conscription. It also means putting a much higher priority on research and development investment.
Fourth, the European defence industry must be rationalised instead of being maintained as an employment programme. Europeans are wasting resources on sectors from the past: fighter aircraft, ships and land equipment. Projects such as the Galileo satellite system and the A400M transport aircraft, which will enable European forces to operate autonomously, should be a priority. Beyond that, industry restructuring is needed in areas such as precision-guided munitions, sensors, command and control systems and communications, where Europe has a significant technological base.
One day, the US government will recognise that it needs partners to manage the global challenges it faces. Europe's challenge is to become capable of filling such a role, not to stand by and wait for the US to "return to normal." It is time for Europe to show that it intends to be a serious and autonomous global player with clear strategic goals and proven military capabilities.
The writer is professor of security studies at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University and served in the White House 1993-97
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Found while reading the WSJ's " Best of the Web " :
A Saudi Romance
"A young Saudi man is suing the father of a girl he had proposed to numerous times over the past eight years," the Arab News reports. It seems the girl wants to marry the boy, but her father refuses to bless the wedding. "Based on Islamic teachings that a girl should not be forced into a marriage and that a father does not have the right to prevent his daughter's marriage, the court ruled that the father should give his approval, since both his daughter and the young man wanted to marry each other." The father is appealing, so the case drags on.
"In 30 years, Saudi Arabia has changed from a desert kingdom into a modern nation," boasts a Saudi TV ad. We shudder to think what it was like before it was a modern nation.
A Saudi Romance
"A young Saudi man is suing the father of a girl he had proposed to numerous times over the past eight years," the Arab News reports. It seems the girl wants to marry the boy, but her father refuses to bless the wedding. "Based on Islamic teachings that a girl should not be forced into a marriage and that a father does not have the right to prevent his daughter's marriage, the court ruled that the father should give his approval, since both his daughter and the young man wanted to marry each other." The father is appealing, so the case drags on.
"In 30 years, Saudi Arabia has changed from a desert kingdom into a modern nation," boasts a Saudi TV ad. We shudder to think what it was like before it was a modern nation.
On Afghanistan today. In the NYT www.nyt.com
Desperation in Kabul
By KHALED HOSSEINI
ABUL, Afghanistan
I n Kabul, dying once is not enough," a young man said to me. We were staring at the remnants of the tombstone of a long-dead Afghan singer that had been blasted by Taliban soldiers. It was a clear day, and I had just arrived in Kabul after a 27-year absence. For days afterward, as I rode through the clogged, rubble-strewn streets of the city where I grew up, I thought of the young man's words.
And I thought of my father, who two years ago, after hearing that the Taliban had blown up the giant Buddha statues in Bamiyan, shook his head and muttered, "Afghanistan is dead." But that was before 9/11, before the Americans rode in and drove out the Taliban. That was before liberation and before Afghanistan got a new lease on life.
But now, after seeing Kabul, I am left to wonder: is Afghanistan dying again?
One morning I met a policeman named Nasser directing traffic near the Haji Yaghoub Mosque, and I asked him how his life had changed since the fall of the Taliban. "Well, I am allowed to shave now," he said, shrugging. He told me he was supposed to make $40 a month, but the government hadn't paid him in three months. And he needed to feed a family of 12: his wife and four children, and his dead brother's two wives and five children. As he spoke, a crowd of burqa-clad women and barefoot children with rotten teeth were begging for money in front of the mosque.
"The world had promised us so much and yet . . ." Nasser said, trailing off, as a black Land Cruiser blew by. "N.G.O.," he said, as if it were a dirty word. He complained that millions of dollars in aid money had gone to nongovernmental organizations and United Nations agencies that spent it on fancy cars and fancy offices, a belief that I found was common in Kabul. "What have they done for us?" he said. "I have yet to see them put two bricks together."
I visited the grimy Aliabad Hospital, one of Kabul's main medical centers, where I met a 15-year-old boy with brain tumors who was rapidly going blind because fluid in his skull was pressing on his optic nerves. As the overhead light bulb flickered, the neurosurgeon on call told me the boy needed a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt, an ordinary plastic catheter used to drain fluid from the brain. But the hospital did not have one.
So a nurse and I drove around town until sundown, hospital to hospital, clinic to clinic. Finally, we met a doctor who drove us to a dark alley and sold us a shunt for triple what he had paid. I didn't even have the satisfaction of getting angry with him; he probably had children to feed too.
When the Taliban fell, Afghans around the world rejoiced. In December 2001, a United Nations-sponsored conference in Bonn resulted in the formation of an interim government. A month later, the international donor community gathered in Tokyo and pledged nearly $5 billion over five years to rebuild the country. Afghanistan was reborn.
But the hopes and dreams of those giddy days are a distant memory in the Kabul of 2003. Security is the most urgent problem. It is tenuous at best outside Kabul. Taliban forces are regrouping. Disarmament is a distant dream. Afghanistan last year was once again the world's leading opium producer. One child in four still dies before the age of 5. Major roads remain unbuilt. Women are still harassed and threatened. The provincial warlords battle one another while scoffing at the central government.
And for brutalized Afghans hoping for a better life, disillusionment is slowly seeping in.
I talked to a man who sold cheap goods from the dried Kabul River bed, a bazaar lovingly called "Titanic City" by the locals. I asked him if he thought the world was serious about rebuilding Afghanistan. He took a deep breath, held it, let it out. Then he smiled and said nothing.
Is Afghanistan dying again?
I pray not.
Khaled Hosseini, an internist in Mountain View, Calif., is author of "The Kite Runner," a novel.
Desperation in Kabul
By KHALED HOSSEINI
ABUL, Afghanistan
I n Kabul, dying once is not enough," a young man said to me. We were staring at the remnants of the tombstone of a long-dead Afghan singer that had been blasted by Taliban soldiers. It was a clear day, and I had just arrived in Kabul after a 27-year absence. For days afterward, as I rode through the clogged, rubble-strewn streets of the city where I grew up, I thought of the young man's words.
And I thought of my father, who two years ago, after hearing that the Taliban had blown up the giant Buddha statues in Bamiyan, shook his head and muttered, "Afghanistan is dead." But that was before 9/11, before the Americans rode in and drove out the Taliban. That was before liberation and before Afghanistan got a new lease on life.
But now, after seeing Kabul, I am left to wonder: is Afghanistan dying again?
One morning I met a policeman named Nasser directing traffic near the Haji Yaghoub Mosque, and I asked him how his life had changed since the fall of the Taliban. "Well, I am allowed to shave now," he said, shrugging. He told me he was supposed to make $40 a month, but the government hadn't paid him in three months. And he needed to feed a family of 12: his wife and four children, and his dead brother's two wives and five children. As he spoke, a crowd of burqa-clad women and barefoot children with rotten teeth were begging for money in front of the mosque.
"The world had promised us so much and yet . . ." Nasser said, trailing off, as a black Land Cruiser blew by. "N.G.O.," he said, as if it were a dirty word. He complained that millions of dollars in aid money had gone to nongovernmental organizations and United Nations agencies that spent it on fancy cars and fancy offices, a belief that I found was common in Kabul. "What have they done for us?" he said. "I have yet to see them put two bricks together."
I visited the grimy Aliabad Hospital, one of Kabul's main medical centers, where I met a 15-year-old boy with brain tumors who was rapidly going blind because fluid in his skull was pressing on his optic nerves. As the overhead light bulb flickered, the neurosurgeon on call told me the boy needed a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt, an ordinary plastic catheter used to drain fluid from the brain. But the hospital did not have one.
So a nurse and I drove around town until sundown, hospital to hospital, clinic to clinic. Finally, we met a doctor who drove us to a dark alley and sold us a shunt for triple what he had paid. I didn't even have the satisfaction of getting angry with him; he probably had children to feed too.
When the Taliban fell, Afghans around the world rejoiced. In December 2001, a United Nations-sponsored conference in Bonn resulted in the formation of an interim government. A month later, the international donor community gathered in Tokyo and pledged nearly $5 billion over five years to rebuild the country. Afghanistan was reborn.
But the hopes and dreams of those giddy days are a distant memory in the Kabul of 2003. Security is the most urgent problem. It is tenuous at best outside Kabul. Taliban forces are regrouping. Disarmament is a distant dream. Afghanistan last year was once again the world's leading opium producer. One child in four still dies before the age of 5. Major roads remain unbuilt. Women are still harassed and threatened. The provincial warlords battle one another while scoffing at the central government.
And for brutalized Afghans hoping for a better life, disillusionment is slowly seeping in.
I talked to a man who sold cheap goods from the dried Kabul River bed, a bazaar lovingly called "Titanic City" by the locals. I asked him if he thought the world was serious about rebuilding Afghanistan. He took a deep breath, held it, let it out. Then he smiled and said nothing.
Is Afghanistan dying again?
I pray not.
Khaled Hosseini, an internist in Mountain View, Calif., is author of "The Kite Runner," a novel.
Monday, June 30, 2003
A must read:
http://www.thepublicinterest.com/current/article1.html<a href="http://www.thepublicinterest.com/current/article1.html">
A history of the roots of anti-Americanism. Extremely intersting.
http://www.thepublicinterest.com/current/article1.html<a href="http://www.thepublicinterest.com/current/article1.html">
A history of the roots of anti-Americanism. Extremely intersting.
An amazing development in France: how a 21 year old girl is leading a cultural revolution on the streets of Europe's most problematic nation:
<strong> http://news.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2003/06/26/ftsab26.xml
<strong> http://news.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2003/06/26/ftsab26.xml
On integration while we sleep. How the world goes on no matter what and on how new challenges are born " while we were out "
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/opinion/29FRIE.html?th
Is Google God?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
ince 9/11 the world has felt increasingly fragmented. Reading the papers, one senses that many Americans are emotionally withdrawing from the world and that the world is drifting away from America. The powerful sense of integration that the go-go-globalizing 1990's created, the sense that the world was shrinking from a size medium to a size small, feels over now.
The reality, though, is quite different. While you were sleeping after 9/11, not only has the process of technological integration continued, it has actually intensified — and this will have profound implications. I recently went out to Silicon Valley to visit the offices of Google, the world's most popular search engine. It is a mind-bending experience. You can actually sit in front of a monitor and watch a sample of everything that everyone in the world is searching for. (Hint: sex, God, jobs and, oh my word, professional wrestling usually top the lists.)
In the past three years, Google has gone from processing 100 million searches per day to over 200 million searches per day. And get this: only one-third come from inside the U.S. The rest are in 88 other languages. "The rate of the adoption of the Internet in all its forms is increasing, not decreasing," says Eric Schmidt, Google's C.E.O. "The fact that many [Internet companies] are in a terrible state does not correlate with users not using their products."
VeriSign, which operates much of the Internet's infrastructure, was processing 600 million domain requests per day in early 2000. It's now processing nine billion per day. A domain request is anytime anyone types in .com or .net. And you ain't seen nothin' yet. Within the next few years you will be able to be both mobile and totally connected, thanks to the pending explosion of Wi-Fi, or wireless fidelity. Using radio technology, Wi-Fi will provide high-speed connection from your laptop computer or P.D.A. to the Internet from anywhere — McDonald's, the beach or your library.
Says Alan Cohen, a V.P. of Airespace, a new Wi-Fi provider: "If I can operate Google, I can find anything. And with wireless, it means I will be able to find anything, anywhere, anytime. Which is why I say that Google, combined with Wi-Fi, is a little bit like God. God is wireless, God is everywhere and God sees and knows everything. Throughout history, people connected to God without wires. Now, for many questions in the world, you ask Google, and increasingly, you can do it without wires, too."
In other words, once Wi-Fi is in place, with one little Internet connection I can download anything from anywhere and I can spread anything from anywhere. That is good news for both scientists and terrorists, pro-Americans and anti-Americans.
And that brings me to the point of this column: While we may be emotionally distancing ourselves from the world, the world is getting more integrated. That means that what people think of us, as Americans, will matter more, not less. Because people outside America will be able to build alliances more efficiently in the world we are entering and they will be able to reach out and touch us — whether with computer viruses or anthrax recipes downloaded from the Internet — more than ever.
"The key point is not just whether people hate us," says Robert Wright, the author of "Nonzero," a highly original book on the integrated world. "The key point is that it matters more now whether people hate us, and will keep mattering more, for technological reasons. I don't mean just homemade W.M.D.'s. I am talking about the way information technology — everyone using e-mail, Wi-Fi and Google — will make it much easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallize diffuse hatreds and mobilize lethal force. And wait until the whole world goes broadband. Broadband — a much richer Internet service that brings video on demand to your PC — will revolutionize recruiting, because video is such an emotionally powerful medium. Ever seen one of Osama bin Laden's recruiting videos? They're very effective, and they'll reach their targeted audience much more efficiently via broadband."
None of this means we, America, just have to do what the world wants, but we do have to take it seriously, and we do have to be good listeners. We, America, "have to work even harder to build bridges," argues Mr. Wright, because info-tech, left to its own devices, will make it so much easier for small groups to build their own little island kingdoms. And their island kingdoms, which may not seem important or potent now, will be able to touch us more, not less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/opinion/29FRIE.html?th
Is Google God?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
ince 9/11 the world has felt increasingly fragmented. Reading the papers, one senses that many Americans are emotionally withdrawing from the world and that the world is drifting away from America. The powerful sense of integration that the go-go-globalizing 1990's created, the sense that the world was shrinking from a size medium to a size small, feels over now.
The reality, though, is quite different. While you were sleeping after 9/11, not only has the process of technological integration continued, it has actually intensified — and this will have profound implications. I recently went out to Silicon Valley to visit the offices of Google, the world's most popular search engine. It is a mind-bending experience. You can actually sit in front of a monitor and watch a sample of everything that everyone in the world is searching for. (Hint: sex, God, jobs and, oh my word, professional wrestling usually top the lists.)
In the past three years, Google has gone from processing 100 million searches per day to over 200 million searches per day. And get this: only one-third come from inside the U.S. The rest are in 88 other languages. "The rate of the adoption of the Internet in all its forms is increasing, not decreasing," says Eric Schmidt, Google's C.E.O. "The fact that many [Internet companies] are in a terrible state does not correlate with users not using their products."
VeriSign, which operates much of the Internet's infrastructure, was processing 600 million domain requests per day in early 2000. It's now processing nine billion per day. A domain request is anytime anyone types in .com or .net. And you ain't seen nothin' yet. Within the next few years you will be able to be both mobile and totally connected, thanks to the pending explosion of Wi-Fi, or wireless fidelity. Using radio technology, Wi-Fi will provide high-speed connection from your laptop computer or P.D.A. to the Internet from anywhere — McDonald's, the beach or your library.
Says Alan Cohen, a V.P. of Airespace, a new Wi-Fi provider: "If I can operate Google, I can find anything. And with wireless, it means I will be able to find anything, anywhere, anytime. Which is why I say that Google, combined with Wi-Fi, is a little bit like God. God is wireless, God is everywhere and God sees and knows everything. Throughout history, people connected to God without wires. Now, for many questions in the world, you ask Google, and increasingly, you can do it without wires, too."
In other words, once Wi-Fi is in place, with one little Internet connection I can download anything from anywhere and I can spread anything from anywhere. That is good news for both scientists and terrorists, pro-Americans and anti-Americans.
And that brings me to the point of this column: While we may be emotionally distancing ourselves from the world, the world is getting more integrated. That means that what people think of us, as Americans, will matter more, not less. Because people outside America will be able to build alliances more efficiently in the world we are entering and they will be able to reach out and touch us — whether with computer viruses or anthrax recipes downloaded from the Internet — more than ever.
"The key point is not just whether people hate us," says Robert Wright, the author of "Nonzero," a highly original book on the integrated world. "The key point is that it matters more now whether people hate us, and will keep mattering more, for technological reasons. I don't mean just homemade W.M.D.'s. I am talking about the way information technology — everyone using e-mail, Wi-Fi and Google — will make it much easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallize diffuse hatreds and mobilize lethal force. And wait until the whole world goes broadband. Broadband — a much richer Internet service that brings video on demand to your PC — will revolutionize recruiting, because video is such an emotionally powerful medium. Ever seen one of Osama bin Laden's recruiting videos? They're very effective, and they'll reach their targeted audience much more efficiently via broadband."
None of this means we, America, just have to do what the world wants, but we do have to take it seriously, and we do have to be good listeners. We, America, "have to work even harder to build bridges," argues Mr. Wright, because info-tech, left to its own devices, will make it so much easier for small groups to build their own little island kingdoms. And their island kingdoms, which may not seem important or potent now, will be able to touch us more, not less.
I found this quite compelling, specially in view of the fact that it was written by someone so close to the action : http://www.lt-smash.us/
IT’S NOT OVER YET
The United States of America is at war. We didn’t realize it for a long time—several years, in fact—but two years ago, the war came to our shores in a way that we could no longer ignore.
After the September 2001 terror attacks, we were faced with two options.
The first option was to look within ourselves, to attempt to understand what had happened and how it had occurred. We would examine not just the intelligence and security failures, but how our foreign and defense policies had provoked such rage against us. We would then invest heavily in intelligence and homeland defense, to make sure it would Never Happen Again™. We might launch surgical strikes against those who attacked us, but only when we had sufficient evidence of guilt or complicity and could be certain that collateral damage would be minimal or non-existent. Finally, we would re-tool our foreign policy to be less offensive to the Islamic world, encourage Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians, and pull back our military from the Arabian Peninsula and Persian Gulf. Hopefully, this would remove any incentive for terrorism against the United States, and we could go on with our happy and peaceful lives.
I call this option “withdrawal.” It is exactly what our enemies hoped that we would do.
The second option was to carry the fight to the enemy. We would take away their sanctuaries, force them to go deep underground, and hunt them to the ends of the Earth. We would undermine or overthrow governments that supported them. We would sever them from their networks of financial support, disrupt their planning, and arrest their leaders in the dark of night. We would humiliate and discredit them. Rather than wait for them to strike at our weak points, we would force them to confront our strength. We would draw them into battle, and slaughter them. We would sow discord and division amongst their ranks. Finally, we would bring the war to their homes, and kill them where they live.
I call this strategy “engagement.” This is how we win wars.
Less than two years later, it is very clear which path we have chosen. Within a month of the terror strikes, we were bombing al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Within two months, we had overthrown the Taliban government and forced the terrorists to hide in caves. Then we bombed the caves.
We proceeded to hunt down those who had escaped the onslaught. We seized their assets, and arrested their financial chief. We chased their chief of operations all over Pakistan, capturing him in a pre-dawn raid outside Islamabad. A photograph of him, handcuffed and humiliated, was beamed around the globe.
We launched a campaign to liberate Iraq, and thousands of Bin Laden disciples were urged to come to the defense of Baghdad. But terrorists armed with Kalishnikovs and RPGs were no match for laser-guided bombs and heavy armor. We slaughtered them by the thousands.
The surprising ease with which Coalition Forces took Baghdad has discredited our enemies and caused many of their would-be supporters to question their leadership. There are now well over 100,000 battle-tested US troops in the heart of Arab civilization, and all that our enemies have been able to do about it is launch an occasional sniper attack. At their current rate of assault, it will take about 800 years for them to take back Iraq.
In the meantime, the government of Syria has been “convinced” to shut down the offices of Hamas and Hezbollah in their capital. Students demonstrating across Iran are no longer simply demanding reform—they are now calling for the death of “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Khameini. The US military is moving out of Saudi Arabia, because we no longer need those bases—and the House of Saud is beginning to feel a much cooler breeze blowing in from Washington.
Suddenly, the regional leaders appear very eager to discuss peace plans with Israel.
Al Qaeda has not remained quiet through all of this. Terrorist attacks have occurred in Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Jordan, Tunisia, and Morocco. But these countries are their home, not ours. By going on the offensive, we have seized the initiative and moved the front lines back to their neighborhood. Indeed, many of these recent terror attacks have killed more local Muslims than Westerners, creating animosity between the terrorists and the local populations.
But this is no time to rest on our laurels. This war is not over yet. We continue to hunt terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is still some fighting to be done in Iraq. And there are other havens that must be visited.
The peace process in Israel and Palestine must continue, but terrorists will be given no quarter. Syria must be further “encouraged” to eliminate all support to Hamas and Hezbollah. Their puppets in Lebanon must do the same, and the training camps in the Bekaa Valley must be dismantled. The Palestinian Authority must begin to take responsibility for its own security, and purge terrorist influence from their government. The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict is the single largest source of animosity in the Islamic world towards the United States. We will not achieve victory in this war until there is a reasonable level of peace and stability between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.
We must also continue to express moral support for those who oppose the teetering theocracy in Teheran. The best possible outcome in Iran would be a bloodless revolution, where the people seize power and force the mullahs to step aside. Semi-democratic institutions already exist in that country, they merely need to be freed from the shackles of theocratic oversight. There is still hope that such an outcome can be achieved—but it could just as easily turn into a bloody mess. While foreign intervention would most likely undermine the legitimacy of any future Iranian government, we must be prepared to provide such assistance if it is requested. To do otherwise would constitute a betrayal.
We must remember that we are the good guys. We cannot continue to indefinitely support despotic regimes in the region simply because we have common strategic interests. We must encourage them to reform—or they can try their hand at ruling without our assistance. If we are viewed by the people of the region as an obstacle to reform, we will never win their hearts and minds.
Finally, the rebuilding of Iraq is critical. It will not be enough to restore Iraq to its prewar level of misery. It must become the civil and economic model for the rest of the Islamic world. This is not something we can do for the Iraqis—they must do the bulk of it themselves—but we can help (and are helping) to show them the way. This will give the Arab and Islamic peoples hope that a better future is possible. Given a choice between hope and death, most people will choose hope.
This is how we will win the peace.
IT’S NOT OVER YET
The United States of America is at war. We didn’t realize it for a long time—several years, in fact—but two years ago, the war came to our shores in a way that we could no longer ignore.
After the September 2001 terror attacks, we were faced with two options.
The first option was to look within ourselves, to attempt to understand what had happened and how it had occurred. We would examine not just the intelligence and security failures, but how our foreign and defense policies had provoked such rage against us. We would then invest heavily in intelligence and homeland defense, to make sure it would Never Happen Again™. We might launch surgical strikes against those who attacked us, but only when we had sufficient evidence of guilt or complicity and could be certain that collateral damage would be minimal or non-existent. Finally, we would re-tool our foreign policy to be less offensive to the Islamic world, encourage Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians, and pull back our military from the Arabian Peninsula and Persian Gulf. Hopefully, this would remove any incentive for terrorism against the United States, and we could go on with our happy and peaceful lives.
I call this option “withdrawal.” It is exactly what our enemies hoped that we would do.
The second option was to carry the fight to the enemy. We would take away their sanctuaries, force them to go deep underground, and hunt them to the ends of the Earth. We would undermine or overthrow governments that supported them. We would sever them from their networks of financial support, disrupt their planning, and arrest their leaders in the dark of night. We would humiliate and discredit them. Rather than wait for them to strike at our weak points, we would force them to confront our strength. We would draw them into battle, and slaughter them. We would sow discord and division amongst their ranks. Finally, we would bring the war to their homes, and kill them where they live.
I call this strategy “engagement.” This is how we win wars.
Less than two years later, it is very clear which path we have chosen. Within a month of the terror strikes, we were bombing al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Within two months, we had overthrown the Taliban government and forced the terrorists to hide in caves. Then we bombed the caves.
We proceeded to hunt down those who had escaped the onslaught. We seized their assets, and arrested their financial chief. We chased their chief of operations all over Pakistan, capturing him in a pre-dawn raid outside Islamabad. A photograph of him, handcuffed and humiliated, was beamed around the globe.
We launched a campaign to liberate Iraq, and thousands of Bin Laden disciples were urged to come to the defense of Baghdad. But terrorists armed with Kalishnikovs and RPGs were no match for laser-guided bombs and heavy armor. We slaughtered them by the thousands.
The surprising ease with which Coalition Forces took Baghdad has discredited our enemies and caused many of their would-be supporters to question their leadership. There are now well over 100,000 battle-tested US troops in the heart of Arab civilization, and all that our enemies have been able to do about it is launch an occasional sniper attack. At their current rate of assault, it will take about 800 years for them to take back Iraq.
In the meantime, the government of Syria has been “convinced” to shut down the offices of Hamas and Hezbollah in their capital. Students demonstrating across Iran are no longer simply demanding reform—they are now calling for the death of “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Khameini. The US military is moving out of Saudi Arabia, because we no longer need those bases—and the House of Saud is beginning to feel a much cooler breeze blowing in from Washington.
Suddenly, the regional leaders appear very eager to discuss peace plans with Israel.
Al Qaeda has not remained quiet through all of this. Terrorist attacks have occurred in Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Jordan, Tunisia, and Morocco. But these countries are their home, not ours. By going on the offensive, we have seized the initiative and moved the front lines back to their neighborhood. Indeed, many of these recent terror attacks have killed more local Muslims than Westerners, creating animosity between the terrorists and the local populations.
But this is no time to rest on our laurels. This war is not over yet. We continue to hunt terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is still some fighting to be done in Iraq. And there are other havens that must be visited.
The peace process in Israel and Palestine must continue, but terrorists will be given no quarter. Syria must be further “encouraged” to eliminate all support to Hamas and Hezbollah. Their puppets in Lebanon must do the same, and the training camps in the Bekaa Valley must be dismantled. The Palestinian Authority must begin to take responsibility for its own security, and purge terrorist influence from their government. The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict is the single largest source of animosity in the Islamic world towards the United States. We will not achieve victory in this war until there is a reasonable level of peace and stability between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.
We must also continue to express moral support for those who oppose the teetering theocracy in Teheran. The best possible outcome in Iran would be a bloodless revolution, where the people seize power and force the mullahs to step aside. Semi-democratic institutions already exist in that country, they merely need to be freed from the shackles of theocratic oversight. There is still hope that such an outcome can be achieved—but it could just as easily turn into a bloody mess. While foreign intervention would most likely undermine the legitimacy of any future Iranian government, we must be prepared to provide such assistance if it is requested. To do otherwise would constitute a betrayal.
We must remember that we are the good guys. We cannot continue to indefinitely support despotic regimes in the region simply because we have common strategic interests. We must encourage them to reform—or they can try their hand at ruling without our assistance. If we are viewed by the people of the region as an obstacle to reform, we will never win their hearts and minds.
Finally, the rebuilding of Iraq is critical. It will not be enough to restore Iraq to its prewar level of misery. It must become the civil and economic model for the rest of the Islamic world. This is not something we can do for the Iraqis—they must do the bulk of it themselves—but we can help (and are helping) to show them the way. This will give the Arab and Islamic peoples hope that a better future is possible. Given a choice between hope and death, most people will choose hope.
This is how we will win the peace.
