May 13, 2008
Ignoring the noise from next door
The problems that the obsolescent U.S. drug prohibition policy exacerbate along the Texas-Mexico border are a frequent topic on this blog, so this Mary Anastasia O'Grady/W$J article on the latest developments in the drug war just south of the border caught my eye:
American nonchalance about drug use stands in sharp contrast to what is happening across the border in Mexico. There lawmen are taking heavy casualties in a showdown with drug-running crime syndicates. On Thursday the chief of the Mexican federal police, Edgar Millán Gómez, was assassinated by men waiting for him when he came home, becoming the latest and most prominent victim of the syndicates. [. . .]
It's no secret that the narcotics trade is like a roach infestation. If you see one shipment or dealer, you can be sure that there are many others that go undetected. That's why such brazen behavior at [San Diego State University] should be disturbing to America's drug warriors. The signs of an infestation are everywhere, making a joke of their 40-year claim that any day now they will wipe out American drug use. [. . .]
The upshot: Americans underwrite Mexico's vicious organized crime syndicates. The gringos get their drugs and the Mexican mafia gets weapons, technology and the means to buy off or intimidate anyone who gets in their way. Caught in the middle is a poor country striving to develop sound institutions for law enforcement.
The trouble for Mexico is that, even if it understands that U.S. demand is not going away, it cannot afford to cede large swaths of the country to the drug cartels. Thus Mexican President Felipe Calderón has made confronting organized crime a priority since taking office in December 2006. His attorney general, Eduardo Medina Mora, told me in February that the goal is to reclaim the state's authority where it has been lost to the mafias.
But after 17 months of engagement, while San Diego students party on, victory remains elusive and the Mexican death toll is mounting. Most of the drug-related killings since Mr. Calderón took office seem to be a result of battles between rival cartels. Still, the escalating violence is troubling. The official death toll attributable to organized crime since the Calderón crackdown began now stands at 3,995. Of that, 1,170 have died this year.
Especially alarming are the number of assassinations among military personnel and municipal, state and federal police officers. The total is 439 for the 17 months and 109 so far this year. Many of these victims have been ordinary police officers whose refusal to be bought off or back off cost them their lives.
But as the murder of police chief Millan makes clear, high rank offers no safety. Two weeks before he was gunned down, Roberto Velasco, the head of the organized crime division of the federal police, was shot in the head. The assailants took his car, which leaves open the possibility that it was a random event, but most Mexicans are not buying that theory. Eleven federal law enforcement agents have been killed in ambushes and executions in the last four weeks alone.
If U.S. law enforcement agencies were losing their finest at such a rate, you can bet Americans would give greater thought to the violence generated by high demand and prohibition. Our friends in Mexico deserve equal consideration.
The most troubling aspect of all this is that spillover violence toward U.S. authorities would probably just be met with beefed-up prohibition efforts. Are the vested interests who benefit from the outmoded-but-lucrative prohibition policy simply too entrenched for there to be serious Congressional consideration given to a more humane and cost-effective drug policy?
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
April 29, 2008
Fueling food riots
Peter Gordon observed the other day that "politicians are better at creating problems than addressing them. Schools, housing, health care, transportation and others suffer from too much political attention."
Echoing that idea, Clear Thinkers favorite James Hamilton writes about one of the underlying economic reasons for food riots that are occurring in developing nations in some parts of the world:
As a result of ethanol subsidies and mandates, the dollar value of what we ourselves throw away in order to produce fuel in this fashion could be 50% greater than the value of the fuel itself. In other words, we could have more food for the Haitians, more fuel for us, and still have something left over for your other favorite cause, if we were simply to use our existing resources more wisely.
We have adopted this policy not because we want to drive our cars, but because our elected officials perceive a greater reward from generating a windfall for American farmers.
But the food price increases are now biting ordinary Americans as well. That could make those political calculations change, and may present be an opportunity for a nimble politician to demonstrate a bit of real leadership. I notice, for example, that although Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was among those who voted in favor of the monstrous 2005 Energy Bill that began these mandates, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ) were among the 26 senators who bravely voted against it.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if one of them actually tried to make this a campaign issue?
Sigh. Read the entire post.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 24, 2008
"The sand trap from hell"
Don't miss this entertaining José de Córdoba/W$J article on the dour legacy of golf in Communist Cuba and the attempt to revive the game to attract more tourism. Turns out that the game flagged in Cuba after Che' Guevara kicked Fidel Castro's ass in a big golf game shortly after Castro seized power:
In 1962, Mr. Castro lost a round of golf to Ernesto "Che" Guevara, who had been a caddy in his Argentine hometown before he became a guerrilla icon. Mr. Castro's defeat may have had disastrous consequences for the sport. He had one Havana golf course turned into a military school, another into an art school. A journalist who wrote about the defeat of Cuba's Maximum Leader, who was a notoriously bad loser, was fired the next day. [. . .]
The famous game between Messrs. Castro and Guevara took place shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis, according to José Lorenzo Fuentes, Mr. Castro's former personal scribe, who covered the game. Mr. Lorenzo Fuentes says the match was supposed to send a friendly signal to President Kennedy. "Castro told me that the headline of the story the next day would be 'President Castro challenges President Kennedy to a friendly game of golf,'" he says.
But the game became a competitive affair between two men who did not like to lose, says Mr. Lorenzo Fuentes, who recalls that Mr. Guevara "played with a lot of passion." Mr. Lorenzo Fuentes says he felt he couldn't lie about the game's outcome, so he wrote a newspaper story saying Fidel had lost. Mr. Lorenzo Fuentes says he lost his job the next day, eventually fell afoul of the regime and now lives in Miami.
At any rate, Raul Castro has jumped started efforts to rebuild Cuba's golf infrastructure for tourism purposes. But it's not going to be easy. First, there is that whole "private property is a bad thing" problem:
To make golf tourism work, Cuba, which does not recognize the right to buy and sell property, will have to permit leases of as long as 75 years for foreigners, to entice them to invest in the villas and condos on which modern golf development depends. Some believe those leases are the tip of the spear that will, over time, reinstate full property rights. [. . .]
If history is any guide, bringing back golf won't be easy. "Cuba is the sand trap from hell," says John Kavulich, senior policy adviser at the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, who has followed the travails of entrepreneurs trying to develop golf projects in Cuba.
On the other hand, given how the U.S. golf industry is going, maybe investing in the sand trap from hell is not looking all that bad.
Speaking of Cuba, don't miss this Michael Stasny post (with pictures) on his recent trip to Cuba. He notes at the end of the post:
Cubans don't have access to "world news" (no foreign newspapers, no internet, no satellite dishes), so the people I talked with were actually quite happy with their situation ("We don't earn much, but as opposed to other countries education and health care is for free!" (translation mine)) and couldn't see that people in developed countries who are considered as dirt poor have a way higher living standard (I didn't have the impression that they were afraid to speak openly).
The rest of the trip I stayed on the beach in Varadero, a tourist zone that is closed for Cubans (only those who work there can enter). The hotel was really nice (Iberostar Varadero) and the service was excellent. In case you like being on the beach and food and a fast and cheap internet connection isn't your highest priority, it's the place to be.
Posted by Tom at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
January 19, 2008
China Road
Clear Thinkers favorite James Fallows, who is currently working in China for The Atlantic, posts a recommendation for China Road (Random House 2007), a new book about China by NPR's long-time China correspondent Rob Gifford. Inasmuch as one of the best books that I read last year was Adrian Goldsworthy's extraordinary biography of Julius Caesar, Caesar: Life of a Colossus (Yale 2006), one passage from Gifford's book that Fallows includes in his blog post intrigued me, particularly given the West's difficulties over the centuries in maintaining normalized political relations with various Chinese governments:
Chairman Mao was just the most recent of a long line of re-unifiers, and if Emperor Qin were to return to China today, he would recognize the mode of government used by the Communist Party. I have to say that I find this idea rather scary, that two thousand years of history might have done nothing to change the political system of a country. Imagine a Europe today where the Roman Empire had never fallen, that still covered an area from England to North Africa and the Middle East and was run by one man based in Rome, backed by a large army. There you have, roughly, ancient and modern China. The fact that this setup has not changed, or been able to change, in two thousand years must also have huge implications for the question Can China ever change its political system.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 3, 2008
The Waziristan problem
Stanley Kurtz provides this must read op-ed on the safe haven for al Qaeda and the Taliban in northwest Pakistan that Lord Curzon once observed will not be pacified "until the military steam-roller has passed over the country from end to end . . . But I do not want to be the person to start that machine."
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
December 16, 2007
The continuing horror that is North Korea
Amidst the slow progress of the United States' diplomatic efforts to bring North Korea into the community of the world's civilized nations (previous posts on North Korea are here), this recent W$J op-ed by Shin Dong-Hyok -- who lived the first 23 years of his life in a North Korean gulag -- reminds us of the stakes to humanity involved in finding a way to release the North Korean government's death grip on North Koreans:
I was born a prisoner on Nov. 19, 1982, and until two years ago, North Korea's Political Prison Camp No. 14 was the only place I had ever called home. [. . .]I was a slave under club and fist. It was a world where love, happiness, joy or resistance found no meaning. This was the situation I found myself in until I escaped to China, and then South Korea. There, I was told why I was imprisoned by my distant relatives, who had escaped to the South during the Korean War.
In the midst of that conflict, two of my father's brothers fled to freedom. Because of this "traitorous" crime, my grandparents, father and uncle back in the North were found guilty of treason and crimes against the state, and were arrested. My father and uncle were separated from each other and my grandparents, and were stripped of all identification and property.
I am still not sure why my mother was incarcerated. While serving their sentences in Kaechon, my parents were allowed to marry. (Sometimes, inmates are given permission to marry if they work very hard and find favor in the eyes of the State Security agents). This was how both my brother and I were born as political prisoners.Although we were a family by fiat, there was nothing familial about us. We showed no affection for one another, nor was that even possible.
When I was 14 years old, my mother and brother were arrested while trying to escape. Although I had no idea they were planning to run away, I was detained in another part of prison. The State Security agents there demanded that I reveal what my family was conspiring to do. I was tortured severely for seven months. To this day, I still carry the scars on my back and shudder at the memory of that time.
On Nov. 29, 1996, my mother and brother were found guilty of treason and sentenced to public execution. I was taken outside and forced to witness their deaths. [. . .]
As I sit here writing this op-ed comfortably in Seoul, I can't help but wonder at the vastly different lives South Koreans and inmates of Political Prison Camp No. 14 live. In South Korea, although there is disappointment and sadness, there is also so much joy, happiness and comfort. In Kaechon, I did not even know such emotions existed. The only emotion I ever knew was fear: fear of beatings, fear of starvation, fear of torture and fear of death. [. . .]
These political prisoners live with no dignity as human beings. They are treated, and taught, that they are merely beasts without intelligence, emotions or dreams. If a prisoner attempts to escape, he is severely punished and will most likely be publicly executed.
Humans should never be treated this way. It is time for us to stand up for those being persecuted in North Korean gulags. They do not deserve to die in silence. We must protest these violent acts against humanity. We must become their voice.
Read the entire incredible op-ed.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
December 7, 2007
The world according to Americans
This map would be funnier if it wasn't so darn accurate.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
October 6, 2007
Rosett on the Wyatt trial
Claudia Rosett is a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has written extensively about the U.S. Oil-for-Food program and resulting scandal that recently snared the plea bargain conviction of longtime Houston oilman, Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr. (previous posts here). Rosett attended Wyatt's trial in New York and this Wall Street Journal op-ed on the aftermath of Wyatt's plea bargain pretty much confirms my earlier speculation that Wyatt cut a good deal for himself under the circumstances:
Star witnesses facing Wyatt from the stand included two former Iraqi officials, Mubdir Al-Khudair and Yacoub Y. Yacoub. They have never before been questioned in a public setting, and were relocated to the U.S. by federal authorities this past year to protect them against retaliation in Iraq for cooperating in this probe.Messrs. Khudair and Yacoub described a system corrupt to the core. Their duties inside Saddam Hussein's bureaucracy consisted largely, and officially, of handling and keeping track of kickbacks. That included who had paid and how much, and via which front companies. When Saddam's regime systematized its Oil for Food kickback demands across the board in 2000, keeping track of the graft flowing into Saddam's secret coffers became a job so extensive that the marketing arm of Iraq's Ministry of Oil, known as SOMO (State Oil Marketing Organization) developed an electronic database to track the flow of the "surcharges," as they were called.
To show how this worked, prosecutors last week produced a silver laptop onto which Saddam's entire oil kickback database had been downloaded by Mr. Yacoub, from backup copies he made just before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. With the laptop display projected onto a big screen before the jury, Mr. Yacoub booted up the system and into a query box typed "Coastal," the name of Wyatt's former oil company. Up came itemized lists of millions of dollars worth of surcharges he testified that Wyatt's company, or affiliated fronts, had paid to the Iraqi regime. These were broken down not only chronologically, but according to which front companies Mr. Yacoub said had channeled the money.
Read the entire piece. Brett Clanton of the Chronicle adds this report on how the Wyatt case highlights the perils of doing business in foreign hotspots. Interesting stuff.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 3, 2007
Hersh on the plan for Iran
In this New Yorker article, Seymour Hersh lays out his theory on the Bush Administration's plans for neutralizing Iran. As with most of Hersh's work, it is a fascinating read. He concludes with the following story about tensions between Allied forces:
Another recent incident, in Afghanistan, reflects the tension over intelligence. In July, the London Telegraph reported that what appeared to be an SA-7 shoulder-launched missile was fired at an American C-130 Hercules aircraft. The missile missed its mark. Months earlier, British commandos had intercepted a few truckloads of weapons, including one containing a working SA-7 missile, coming across the Iranian border. But there was no way of determining whether the missile fired at the C-130 had come from Iran—especially since SA-7s are available through black-market arms dealers.Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. officer who has worked closely with his counterparts in Britain, added to the story: “The Brits told me that they were afraid at first to tell us about the incident—in fear that Cheney would use it as a reason to attack Iran.” The intelligence subsequently was forwarded, he said.
The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.”
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
September 24, 2007
Jaffa on Tyranny
In the magnificent penultimate scene in Steven Spielberg's 1997 film, Amistad, John Quincy Adams (played brilliantly by Anthony Hopkins) concludes his oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court with the following abnomition regarding the curse of slavery that is a central issue in the case::
"We desperately need your strength and wisdom to triumph over our fears, our prejudices, ourselves. Give us the courage to do what is right. And if it means civil war, then let it come. And when it does, may it be, finally, the last battle of the American Revolution.""That's all I have to say."
Harry V. Jaffa, a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute and the author of the well-known study of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (University of Chicago Press, 1959) pens this interesting blog post in which he makes the following observation about President Bush's goal of eliminating tyranny in the world:
. . . [T]he president has . . . [declared] that it is our intention to eliminate tyranny from the world. These pronouncements show a profound ignorance, both of history and of political philosophy.Our own government, by constitutional majorities, became possible only when sectarian religious differences were removed from the political process. The Constitution declares in Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Such a provision could not be found in any instrument of government in all of human history. (The Toleration Act of 1689 in England was full of religious tests.) In the aftermath of the religious wars in Europe, in which Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other without restraint, our Founding Fathers recognized that majority rule was not possible if Protestants could thereby determine the religion of Catholics, or Catholics of Protestants, or Christians of Jews, or Jews of Christians. Government by majority rule —democracy in any sense — is not possible unless sectarian religious differences are kept out of the political process. But in Iraq, in the Middle East generally, there are no political differences that are not sectarian.
According to Abraham Lincoln, “The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society.” By this he meant the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence. It was fidelity to these principles that led Lincoln in “the great secession winter” of 1860 and 1861 to refuse any compromise that permitted the extension of slavery. Compromises are possible only among those who share principles more fundamental than the interests they are asked to compromise. As a practical historical fact, when compromises are not possible war is the alternative, as it was in our Civil War. John Stuart Mill, an admirer of Lincoln, declared that “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians.” The dominant forms of political life throughout the Middle East are, with only one exception, as barbaric as those of Europe during the wars of religion. Only a despotism, as benign as we can find, and one that can begin turning people away from sectarian fanaticism, will answer our purpose. Otherwise, they will have to fight it out among themselves, as we did.
Posted by Tom at 12:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
August 9, 2007
Solzhenitsyn speaks
When you have a few minutes, don't miss this Speigel Online interview with prominent Russian writer and Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Check out Solzhenitsyn's overview of Russia's political leaders since the fall of Communism:
Gorbachev's administration was amazingly politically naïve, inexperienced and irresponsible towards the country. It was not governance but a thoughtless renunciation of power. The admiration of the West in return only strengthened his conviction that his approach was right. But let us be clear that it was Gorbachev, and not Yeltsin, as is now widely being claimed, who first gave freedom of speech and movement to the citizens of our country.Yeltsin's period was characterized by a no less irresponsible attitude to people's lives, but in other ways. In his haste to have private rather than state ownership as quickly as possible, Yeltsin started a mass, multi-billion-dollar fire sale of the national patrimony. Wanting to gain the support of regional leaders, Yeltsin called directly for separatism and passed laws that encouraged and empowered the collapse of the Russian state. This, of course, deprived Russia of its historical role for which it had worked so hard, and lowered its standing in the international community. All this met with even more hearty Western applause.
Putin inherited a ransacked and bewildered country, with a poor and demoralized people. And he started to do what was possible -- a slow and gradual restoration. These efforts were not noticed, nor appreciated, immediately. In any case, one is hard pressed to find examples in history when steps by one country to restore its strength were met favorably by other governments.
Read the entire interview.
Posted by Tom at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 23, 2007
Dalrymple on Tony Blair
The recent resignation of U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair provides an opportunity for British psychiatrist and author, Anthony Daniels (who writes under the pen name of Theodore Dalrymple), to provide this interesting early appraisal of the Blair years:
There undoubtedly were things to be grateful for during the Blair years. His support for American policy in Iraq won him much sympathy in the U.S., of course. He was often eloquent in defense of liberty. And under Mr. Blair's leadership, Britain enjoyed 10 years of uninterrupted economic growth, leaving large parts of the country prosperous as never before. London became one of the world's richest cities, vying with New York to be the global economy's financial center. Mr. Blair did inherit a strapping economy from his predecessor, and he left its management more or less to the man who succeeds him, Gordon Brown. Still, unlike previous Labour prime ministers, he did not preside over an economic crisis: in itself, something to be proud of.But how history will judge him overall, and whether it will absolve him (to adapt slightly a phrase coined by a famous, though now ailing, Antillean dictator), is another matter [. . .]
Tony Blair was the perfect politician for an age of short attention spans. What he said on one day had no necessary connection with what he said on the following day: and if someone pointed out the contradiction, he would use his favorite phrase, "It's time to move on," as if detecting contradictions in what he said were some kind of curious psychological symptom in the person detecting them.
Many have surmised that there was an essential flaw in Mr. Blair's makeup that turned him gradually from the most popular to the most unpopular prime minister of recent history. The problem is to name that essential flaw. As a psychiatrist, I found this problem peculiarly irritating (bearing in mind that it is always highly speculative to make a diagnosis at a distance). But finally, a possible solution arrived in a flash of illumination. Mr. Blair suffered from a condition previously unknown to me: delusions of honesty.
Check out the entire op-ed. It's worth the time.
Posted by Tom at 12:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 13, 2007
Myths of the war
My nephew Richard and I had a good laugh about the new Homeland Security Threat Level on the left that resulted from Michael Chertoff's ill-advised warning regarding the terror threat from earlier in the week. But kidding aside, following on this earlier post regarding James Fallows' Atlantic Monthly piece, this Steve Chapman RCP op-ed provides a level-headed analysis of the actual threat of an attack from Islamic fascists and the counterproductive nature of the Bush Administration's characterization of the conflict as a global "war on terror." Check it out.
Posted by Tom at 12:19 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 12, 2007
But what about Pakistan?
Senator Joe Lieberman's hawkish comments from over the weekend regarding Iran received much media attention, but Gregory Scoblete in this TCS op-ed makes the case that Pakistan is actually the more toubling foreign policy problem:
While the 2008 presidential candidates are busy fielding questions about how they would confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, few seem interested in addressing a much more pressing issue: Pakistan. [. . .]The truth is Pakistan represents a far greater danger to the U.S. than Iran, at least for the foreseeable future. Let us count the ways. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Iran is not. Pakistan has a proven track record of proliferation, including a dalliance with al Qaeda. It was Pakistani nuclear scientists, after all, who met with bin Laden. Indeed, it was a Pakistani scientist, A. Q. Khan, whose black-market network significantly expanded the reach of nuclear equipment and know-how. Meanwhile, Iranian scientists are still laboring to master the basic elements of the nuclear fuel cycle (though progress continues).
Pakistan was one of three countries prior to 9/11 to recognize and provide significant material support to the Taliban - the one regime whose accommodation made 9/11 possible. Iran opposed the Taliban. Elements within the Pakistani military continue to support rump Taliban elements as they battle NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported that Pakistani army elements have gone so far as to directly fire on Afghan forces (though Pakistan denies it).
Ideologically, Pakistan is vastly more sympathetic to al Qaeda than Iran. Its religious schools preach the extremist variety of Sunni Islam that animates bin Laden's jihad. While Iran's Shiite theocrats preach "death to America," few Iranians have actually embraced the mantra. There are, for instance, 65 Pakistanis in Guantanamo Bay; there are zero Iranians. Unlike al Qaeda, Iran's Shiite proxy Hezbollah has not embraced mass-causality suicide terrorism against American civilian targets. Indeed, Hezbollah's most significant anti-American strike was against a military target 24 years ago: a Marine barracks in Lebanon.
The single most important element, however, is the presence of a reconstituted al Qaeda leadership network in Pakistan. The country plays host (whether willingly or not) to the architects of the largest massacre on U.S. soil in history: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. In contrast, Iran reportedly harbors a small number of lesser al Qaeda figures.
In Senate testimony earlier this year, intelligence chief John Negroponte described Pakistan as a "secure hide-out" within which al Qaeda plots further carnage. In February, the New York Times reported that al Qaeda "had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan" including full-fledged terror training camps. In Waziristan, al Qaeda inhabits a failed state within a functioning, nuclear-armed one.
In sum, the danger to Americans in America is emanating principally from Pakistan, not Iran. . .
Read the entire article. Scoblete makes a compelling case.
Posted by Tom at 4:15 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 5, 2007
The importance of the images of war
Following on recent posts here and here on the seemingly intractable problems in Iraq, this David Carr/NY Times op-ed comments on the efforts of the U.S. military to control the publication of images of injured or killed soldiers from the Iraq War. Carr's op-ed prompted this letter to the Times editor by University of Houston Professor Bill Monroe, who you may recall had the best line at the Memorial Service for the late Ross M. Lence. Professor Monroe's letter provides as follows:
To the Editor:“Not to See the Fallen Is No Favor,” by David Carr (The Media Equation, May 28), suggests that the reigning assumption among leaders in Iraq is that we can’t handle the truth. In a curious way, it may well be the duty of fallen soldiers to let us see them — wounded, dying and dead.
If we have the temerity to ask them to risk life and limb protecting American interests, we must ask them to help us know what it looks like, what it feels like, so that we can decide, as a Republic and a people, whether we in fact want to exact that private and public cost.
“It is well,” Robert E. Lee is reported to have said, “that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it.”
We can’t handle the truth? We had better.
William Monroe
Houston, May 30, 2007
Posted by Tom at 4:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 4, 2007
Life in Baghdad
Further in line with this sobering analysis from last week on the obstacles that U.S. Armed Forces face in training the Iraqi Army, Terry McCarthy -- Baghdad correspondent for ABC News -- provides this equally daunting report on day-to-day life in Baghdad:
Danger is everywhere in Baghdad; life here is a continuous series of risk assessments. From the moment people wake up, they have to check whether it is safe to leave the house. Is there an unusual amount of gunfire? Have strangers been seen driving through the neighborhood? Is there something new to be afraid of?Anything out of the ordinary is cause for fear. A friend who lives in southwest Baghdad says a man recently parked a car on the main street across from his apartment block, then ran away. He was spotted by a butcher, who summoned a U.S. patrol. The troops cordoned off the area and defused what turned out to be a massive bomb inside the suspicious car. The brave butcher was taking a risk either way: He could have had his store blown up, but now he risks a bullet from insurgents for informing the Americans about the car.
Read the entire intriguing piece. And also this one on the status of the current U.S. "push" to stabilize Baghdad.
Posted by Tom at 4:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
May 29, 2007
Training the enemy
Regardless of one's position on the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, this does not sound good:
Staff Sgt. David Safstrom does not regret his previous tours in Iraq, not even a difficult second stint when two comrades were killed while trying to capture insurgents. [. . .]But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.
“I thought, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.” [. . .]
On April 29, a Delta Company patrol was responding to a tip at Al Sadr mosque, a short distance from its base. The soldiers saw men in the distance erecting burning barricades, and the streets emptied out quickly. Then a militia, believed to be the Mahdi Army, which is affiliated with the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, began firing at them from rooftops and windows.
[Sgt. Kevin O’Flarity] and his squad maneuvered their Humvees through alleyways and side streets, firing back at an estimated 60 insurgents during a gun battle that raged for two and a half hours. . . .When the battle was over, Delta Company learned that among the enemy dead were at least two Iraqi Army soldiers that American forces had helped train and arm.
Read the entire troubling article.
Posted by Tom at 4:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
April 27, 2007
Not your typical obituary
Based on this Rolling Stone obituary, it's a safe bet that the family of Boris Yeltsin will not be hiring Matt Tabbi to write the official biography of the late former Russian premier:
Boris Yeltsin was literally born in mud and raised in shit. He was descended from a long line of drunken peasants who in hundreds of years of non-trying had failed to escape the stinky-ass backwater of the Talitsky region, a barren landscape of mud and weeds whose history is so undistinguished that even the most talented Russian historians struggle to find mention of it in imperial documents. They did find Yeltsins here and there in the Czarist censuses, but until the 20th century none made any mark in history. The best of the lot turned out to be Boris's grandfather, a legendarily mean and greedy old prick named Ignatiy Yeltsin, who achieved what was considered great wealth by village standards, owning a mill and a horse. Naturally, the flesh-devouring Soviet government, the government that would later make Boris Yeltsin one of its favored and feared vampires, liquidated Ignatiy for the crime of affluence, for the crime of having a mill and a horse. [. . .]The communist government found its leaders among the meanest and greediest of the children who survived and thrived in places like this. Boris Yeltsin was such a child. As a teenager he only knew two things; how to drink vodka and smash people in the face. At the very first opportunity he joined up with the communists who had liquidated his grandfather and persecuted his father and became a professional thief and face-smasher, rising quickly through the communist ranks to become a boss of the Sverdlovsk region, where he was again famous for two things: his heroic drinking and his keen political sense in looting and distributing the booty from Soviet highway and construction contracts. If Boris Yeltsin ever had a soul, it was not observable in his early biography. He sold out as soon as he could and was his whole life a human appendage of a rotting, corrupt state, a crook who would emerge even from the hottest bath still stinking of booze, concrete and sausage.
There is much more.
Posted by Tom at 4:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
April 9, 2007
Wolfowitz at the World Bank
This New Yorker profile provides some interesting information on influential neo-con and World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz and also on the work of the World Bank, which is not well-understood generally. Definitely recommended reading.
By the way, did you know that Wolfowitz taught himself Arabic in the 1980's while working at the State Department, and that he also speaks French, German, Hebrew, and Indonesian?
Posted by Tom at 4:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 16, 2007
How much do they charge him for making copies?
Speaking of Rudy Giuliani, it looks as if his recent association with Houston-based Bracewell & Giuliani is making for some rather interesting associations:
Rudolph W. Giuliani’s law firm has lobbied for years on behalf of an oil company controlled by the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, a strident critic of President Bush and American-style capitalism.Bracewell & Giuliani, the firm based in Houston that Mr. Giuliani joined as a name partner two years ago, handles lobbying in the Texas capital for the Citgo Petroleum Corporation of Houston. Citgo is the American subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, the state-owned oil company that Mr. Chávez controls.
This is really a mountain of a molehill as Giuliani doesn't have anything to do with the small amount of business that his law firm does on behalf of Chavez and Citgo. But then again, it doesn't seem all that unfair for folks to trump up charges of hypocrisy against Candidate Giuliani.
Posted by Tom at 4:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 18, 2007
Missing in Baghdad
If there is only one newspaper article that you read this weekend, then make it this fascinating Wall Street Journal ($) article written by Sarmad Ali, an Iraqi-born student reporter for the Journal who somehow made his way from Iraq to Columbia University two years ago to study journalism. Ali had taught himself English while growing up in Baghdad during the turbulent period that included the Iraq-Iran War, Desert Storm in 1991 and the present Iraqi War.
The subject of the article is the desperate search of Ali's family for their father, a car mechanic who was recently reported missing after a bombing in Baghdad. The story is not only a riveting first-hand account of how a normal Iraqi family deals with the civil strife that has become commonplace in Baghdad, but also an excellent example of why the U.S. should always keep its arms open for immigrants who seek to improve their lives. Columbia and the WSJ should be proud for helping make that happen for Ali.
Posted by Tom at 6:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 27, 2006
More trouble across the border
Following up from this post from a year ago regarding the increased drug-related violence along the Texas-Mexico border, this NY Times article reports on a particularly gruesome uptick in the violence -- beheadings of rival gang members:
An underworld war between drug gangs is raging in Mexico, medieval in its barbarity, its foot soldiers operating with little fear of interference from the police, its scope and brutality unprecedented, even in a country accustomed to high levels of drug violence.In recent months the violence has included a total of two dozen beheadings, a raid on a local police station by men with grenades and a bazooka, and daytime kidnappings of top law enforcement officials. At least 123 law enforcement officials, among them 2 judges and 3 prosecutors, have been gunned down or tortured to death. Five police officers were among those beheaded.
In all, the violence has claimed more than 1,700 civilian lives this year, and federal officials say the killings are on course to top the estimated 1,800 underworld killings last year. Those death tolls compare with 1,304 in 2004 and 1,080 in 2001, these officials say.
By the way, a fence will not stop this particular problem from spilling over the border.
Posted by Tom at 4:49 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
October 16, 2006
What to do about North Korea?
With last week's confirmation that North Korea had tested a nuclear device, The Atlantic Monthly has put online Robert D. Kaplan's cover article from the October print edition, When North Korea Falls, a stark analysis of the disaster that could occur when the fragile North Korean society finally collapses. Kaplan sums up the problem that North Korea's inevitable collapse presents to the US:
Middle- and upper-middle-level U.S. officers based in South Korea and Japan are planning for a meltdown of North Korea that, within days or even hours of its occurrence, could present the world—meaning, really, the American military—with the greatest stabilization operation since the end of World War II. “It could be the mother of all humanitarian relief operations,” Army Special Forces Colonel David Maxwell told me. On one day, a semi-starving population of 23 million people would be Kim Jong Il’s responsibility; on the next, it would be the U.S. military’s, which would have to work out an arrangement with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (among others) about how to manage the crisis.
Read the entire article, which is essential reading for understanding the motivations of North Korea's current nuclear brinksmanship. Which, by the way, generated the best crack of last week, from David Letterman:
"The North Koreans are starting to gloat a little bit. The test was a big success, and to celebrate, today Kim Jong-il is wearing his hair in the shape of a mushroom cloud."
Posted by Tom at 4:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
August 16, 2006
On the Iraqi counterinsurgency and radical Islam
In this short review of Thomas Ricks' new book, Fiasco (Penguin July, 2006), renowned British military historian and author Sir John Keegan (previous posts here) provides a typically lucid explanation of "how a brilliantly executed invasion turned into a messy counterinsurgency struggle." Keegan concludes with the following observation:
[W]hat may underlie the whole insurgency, . . . is the rise of Islamic militancy across the Muslim world.America was so certain that what it had to offer--modern government in an incorrupt and democratic form--was so obviously desirable that it failed altogether to understand that the Iraqis wanted something else, which is self-government in an Islamic form. It is too late now to start again.
All that can be hoped is that the U.S. Army will prevail in its counterinsurgency and, as Mr. Ricks's gripping accounts of the troops in action suggest, it may still. His description of Marines "attacking into an ambush" leaves one in no doubt that American soldiers know combat secrets that their enemies do not and cannot match. Whether pure military skills will win the war, however, cannot be predicted.
Meanwhile, in this NY Times op-ed, Yale fellow Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith (St. Martin's 2004) reminds us that radical Islamic jihadists do not require foreign policy grievances to justify their violence, and that support of responsible Islamic leadership is the key to success in the Middle East:
Whether in Britain or America, those who claim to speak for Muslims have a responsibility to the majority, which wants to reconcile Islam with pluralism. Whatever their imperial urges, it is not for Tony Blair or George W. Bush to restore Islam’s better angels. That duty — and glory — goes to Muslims.
And finally, Will Wilkinson points to this wonderful, short Bertrand Russell essay that identifies one of the key human dynamics underlying not only radical Muslin jihadists, but demagogues in any culture:
Ignore fact and reason, live entirely in the world of your own fantastic and myth-producing passions; do this whole-heartedly and with conviction, and you will become one of the prophets of your age.
Posted by Tom at 5:08 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
August 11, 2006
James Fallows -- "We've won the War on Terror"
One of the unfortunate results of the news regarding the latest foiled terrorist attack in London is that it will inevitably distract from a point that James Fallows (previous posts here) makes in this excellent Atlantic Monthly article -- we've won the War on Terror.
In preparing the AM article, Fallows -- who is of America's most gifted investigative reporters on foreign policy and military issues -- interviewed over 60 leading terrorism analysts and concludes that “terrorists, through their own efforts, can damage, but not destroy us. Their real destructive power lies in what they can provoke us to do.” Fallows goes on to observe that if we allow fear rather than reason to control our reaction to terrorism, then groups such as Al Qaeda can provoke the US into launching unnecessary wars that are far more damaging to our ultimate cause than the terrorist attack that provoked the war in the first place. Accordingly, Fallows urges in the article that the US drop the war metaphor in continuing its fight against groups such as Al Qaeda.
As we assess further information regarding the London airline terrorist plot, Fallows' cogent optimism reminds us that fear is the fuel for demagogic threats to the freedom that we most cherish. Check it out.
Update: Stratfor echos Fallows' optimism in his pre-London terrorist plot article with this post-plot analysis:
There are four takeaway lessons from this incident:First, while there obviously remains a threat from those not only sympathetic to al Qaeda, but actually participating in planning with those in the al Qaeda apex leadership, their ability to launch successful attacks outside of the Middle East is severely degraded.
Second, if the cell truly does have 50 people and 21 have already been detained, then al Qaeda might have lost its ability to operate below the radar of Western -- or at least U.K. -- intelligence agencies. Al Qaeda's defining characteristic has always been its ability to maintain operational security. If that has been compromised, then al Qaeda's importance as a force has diminished greatly.
Third, though further attacks could occur, it appears al Qaeda has lost the ability to alter the political decision-making of its targets. The Sept. 11 attack changed the world. The Madrid train attacks changed a government. This failed airliner attack only succeeded in closing an airport temporarily.
Fourth, the vanguard of militant Islamism appears to have passed from Sunni/Wahhabi al Qaeda to Shiite Iran and Hezbollah. It is Iran that is shaping Western policies on the Middle East, and Hezbollah who is directly engaged with Israel. Al Qaeda, in contrast, appears unable to do significantly more than issue snazzy videos.
Will Wilkinson agrees and notes that the response in terms of airline security needs to be proportionate to the true risk.
Posted by Tom at 6:38 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
August 5, 2006
The view from the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan
Scottish author and diplomat Rory Stewart has packed a lifetime of fascinating experiences into his 33 years. In this interesting interview tucked into the weekend Wall Street Journal ($), the WSJ's Jeffrey Trachtenberg talks with Stewart, who has become one of the foremost authorities on the day-to-day problems involved in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan after years of brutal totalitarian governments.
Born in Hong Kong, Stewart went on to receive undergraduate and master's degrees in Modern History and Politics, Philosophy and Economics from Balliol College, Oxford University, and has written for the New York Times Magazine, Granta and the London Review of Books. After college, Stewart served in the British Army and Foreign Office in a variety of capacities before electing in 2000 to set off on a two-year, 6,000 mile walking journey through Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Nepal. He chronicled his journey through Afghanistan during the the winter of 2002 in The Places in Between (Picador/Macmillan 2004), which Harcourt Harvest published this past May in paperback.
Stewart returned to public service in late 2003 as Deputy Governorate Coordinator (Amara/Maysan) and Senior Adviser and Deputy Governorate Coordinator (Nasiriyah/Dhi Qar) in which Stewart established the governance structures of Maysan province, resolved tribal disputes to restore security and consolidate the authority of the Iraqi government and the police, set up NGOs and civil society organizations, ran municipal elections, inaugurated a new Provincial Council in Dhi Qar and saw the province through to the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004. Stewart was awarded the Order of the British Empire (OBE) by the British Government for his service in Iraq.
Last week, Harcourt published Stewart's second book -- The Prince of the Marshes -- in which Stewart describes his recent experiences in Iraq, including the troubling problem of persuading the Iraqis to embrace the Coalition's mission there and the abject failure of a Coalition military unit from Italy to come to Mr. Stewart's rescue when his compound came under a brutal mortar attack. During the WSJ interview, Stewart provides many insights into the practical problems involved in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, including the following:
Q: Did you expect to find the Afghanistan you describe in your first book -- poor, hungry and feudalistic?A: No, I was surprised. I wasn't prepared for how poor and remote from the rest of the world Afghanistan turned out to be.
Q: Is Afghanistan going to be a perpetual war zone?
A: For the next generation it will be fragile and unstable. You're unlikely to have much government control of the tribal areas. People have a very strong sense of honor and admiration for courage. Particularly young men can become quite excitable and sympathetic towards violence. The older generation would like peace. But half the population is under 18, and that's where a lot of the trouble is coming from.
Q: Very few people you met [in Afghanistan] seemed opposed to the Taliban. Does this suggest that fundamentalism is part of the country's culture?
A: Rural communities are much more conservative in their Islamic beliefs than we acknowledge. If they had problems with the Taliban it had to do with burning their village, or stealing a donkey. But they were in favor of the social codes. In Kabul, there is a lot of unhappiness that people are allowed to drink alcohol. Outside the urban areas you'll find people are surprisingly xenophobic.
Q: Near the end of book, you describe a mortar and small arms attack on your compound in Nasiriyah. Is Iraq the new Yugoslavia, a country that only a tyrant could govern?
A: I don't know the answer to that question. Certain Iraqis seem to want a more authoritarian government. We were pushing for gentler policing, but a lot of Iraqis were suspicious of that. Iraq probably needs a very firm government to restore security. What it needs above all are good politicians flexible enough to restore a sense of national identity.
Q: In light of the behavior of the Italian Quick Reaction Force when your compound was attacked, what chance is there that a multinational armed force can successfully serve as a buffer between Israel and Lebanon?
A: This is a real problem. I don't believe in multinational armed forces except as a symbol. As a fighting force they are often inadequate militarily. Their strength is political; their presence spreads the blame. A coalition says a broader section of the international community is involved. The interesting thing is that the Nasiriyah province is looking better than some other parts of Iraq. Perhaps the Italian approach of doing very little turned out to have positive consequences, in that the Iraqis sorted themselves out rather than relying on foreigners.
Jonathan Tepperman, deputy managing editor of Foreign Affairs, has more on the folly of relying on a multinational force to resolve the ongoing Hezbollah-Israeli conflict.
Posted by Tom at 8:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 27, 2006
Islam's real struggle
The current escalation of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah is currenly getting most of the attention on the world stage, but NYU Islamic Studies professor Bernard Haykel reminds us in this NY times op-ed that an even knottier problem than Islamic hatred of Israel is the conflict within Islam between Sunni and the Shiite ideologies.
Sunni ideology regards Shiites as heretics and Sunni groups such as Al Qaeda profoundly distrust Shiite groups such as Hezbollah (Al Qaeda reportedly gave the green light months ago to Sunni extremists in Iraq to attack Shiite civilians and holy sites). But if Hezbollah is successful in its current attack on Israel -- and "success" may only necessitate survival -- Haykel sees ominous signs for the West:
What will such a victory [by Hezbollah over Israel] mean? Perhaps Hezbollah’s ascendancy among Sunnis will make it possible for Shiites and Sunnis to stop the bloodletting in Iraq — and to focus instead on their “real” enemies, namely the United States and Israel. Rumblings against Israeli actions in Lebanon from both Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq already suggest such an outcome.That may be good news for Iraqis, but it marks a dangerous turn for the West. And there are darker implications still. Al Qaeda, after all, is unlikely to take a loss of status lying down. Indeed, the rise of Hezbollah makes it all the more likely that Al Qaeda will soon seek to reassert itself through increased attacks on Shiites in Iraq and on Westerners all over the world — whatever it needs to do in order to regain the title of true defender of Islam.
Read the entire piece. And don't miss Dan Senor's Opinion Journal op-ed that explains how the militant Shiite forces in Iraq are shaping domestic and foreign policy there.
Posted by Tom at 6:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 24, 2006
Thinking about foreign policy
Inasmuch as foreign affairs issues are simmering all over the place right now, I pass along the following items that I've come across recently:
In this Investor’s Business Daily article, Claremont Institute President Brian Kennedy evaluates the US missle defense capabilities and explains why it is wholly indequate. Most interestingly, Kennedy describes an admittedly "fanciful" scenario under which North Korea would hit Seattle with a nuclear missle and an aftermath that is foreboding. The Claremont Institute is also maintaining this site that updates America's vulnerability to ballistic missile attack as the proliferation of ballistic missile technology increases.We haven't checked in with Victor Davis Hanson in awhile, so this National Review op-ed provides a welcome contrary view to the gloom and doom of most media reports regarding the current Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.
For up-to-the-minute updates on the situation in the Middle East, the Truth Laid Bare provides this useful page of bloggers categorized by region and this NY Times article passes along several online diaries from the front of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.
Finally, Foreign Affairs magazine is providing this excellent online forum on the question of "What to Do in Iraq." Take a few minutes to review the give-and-take from the various experts particpating in the forum.
Posted by Tom at 5:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 5, 2006
The big problem with Mexico
The presidential election in Mexico garners more interest in Texas than many places because of the increasing problems that the state faces in regard to the influx of immigrants and violence on the border. Calderon's apparent victory is almost certainly better economically for Mexico, and Opinion Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady observes that the handling of the election is a hopeful sign for Mexico's emerging multi-party political system. However, the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson identifies in this column the problem that continues to vex Mexico's economic development -- inefficient big businesses that are protected by the government and vibrant small businesses that are threatened by it:
[Mexico's] economy consists of two vast sectors, each slow to adopt better technology and business practices.One sector involves large, modern firms in semi-protected markets that limit the pressure to improve efficiency or lower prices. "Mexico's business sector is risk-averse. It's never had to operate in a true competitive environment," says Pamela Starr, an analyst for the Eurasia Group, a consulting firm. "It's operated with monopolies and oligopolies encouraged by the government."...
The other part of the economy is usually called the "informal sector." It consists of thousands of small firms -- street vendors, stores, repair shops, tiny manufacturers -- that theoretically aren't legal, because they haven't registered with the government and often don't pay taxes or comply with regulations on wages and hiring and firing. Almost two-thirds of Mexico's workers may be employed in the informal sector, according to one rough estimate by the International Monetary Fund.
The sector's size might suggest great entrepreneurial vitality. The trouble is that these firms are virtually compelled to remain small and inefficient. Because they're technically illegal, they can't easily get bank loans and can't grow too large without being forced to pay taxes or comply with government regulations.
Read the entire column.
Posted by Tom at 7:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 14, 2006
Fukuyama's pivot on Iraq
Francis Fukuyama is a professor at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins, an award-winning author and a former neoconservative supporter of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy (previous post here).
As a result, Fukuyama's new book -- America at the Crossroads (Yale 2006) -- that summarizes Fukuyama's views on neoconservatism, why he parted ways with other neocons on the Iraq war, and where we go from here is causing quite a stir in foreign policy circles. The NY Times' Michiko Kakutani has this favorable review of Fukuyama's book while the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens weighs in with this critical one. Finally, in this NPO piece, Victor Davis Hanson makes the case for holding the line in Iraq.
Posted by Tom at 5:47 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)
February 1, 2006
John Keegan on the Iraq policy
John Keegan is England's foremost military historian and, for many years, was the Senior Lecturer at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. His book -- The Second World War -- is arguably the best single volume book on World War II and his book The Face of Battle is essential reading for anyone seeking an understanding of the history of warfare. In short, when John Keegan writes about war, it is wise to take note.
In this London Telegraph op-ed, Mr. Keegan provides an overview of what the U.S. and Britain have accomplished in Iraq, and then makes a persuasive case for following through with what is an increasingly unpopular role in that country:
Critics should remember that, in nine tenths of Iraq, peace reigns. Thousands of Iraqi towns and villages are untroubled by insurrection and continue to regard the British and Americans as liberators. They cannot be abandoned to terrorists, fanatics and friends of the defunct dictatorship. To urge that we should go on as we are is an unpopular line of argument. That it is unpopular does not, however, mean it is wrong.There is a final consideration. The Middle East is exceedingly complex, and one of its complexities is formed by Iran's determination to become a nuclear power. To withdraw the Western forces from Iraq now would in effect be to encourage Iran to persist in its nuclear challenge. Even if, as the Foreign Secretary insists, military action against Iran is unthinkable, it is at least prudent to retain the capacity for military action in the region.
Read the entire piece.
Posted by Tom at 6:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
December 6, 2005
A Grotian Moment
A "Grotian Moment" is a legal development that is so significant that it can create new customary international law or radically transform the interpretation of treaty-based law. The trial of Saddam Hussein is such a moment, and this Case Western School of Law blog is providing expert commentary on the legal and foreign policy implications of arguably the most important international trial since Nuremberg. The subject of the latest post is former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who is a member of Saddam's defense team. The post's author -- Case Western international law professor Michael Scharf -- notes the following:
Clark is known for turning international trials into political stages from which to launch attacks against U.S. foreign policy. He has represented Liberian political figure Charles Taylor during his 1985 fight against extradition from the United States to Liberia; Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a Hutu leader implicated in the Rwandan genocide; PLO leaders in a lawsuit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the wheelchair bound elderly American who was shot and tossed overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists in 1986; and most recently Slobodan Milosevic, the former leader of Serbia who is on trial for genocide before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague.
Sounds just like your typical former U.S. Attorney General, doesn't it? ;^)
Posted by Tom at 5:51 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)