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.

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 worldómeaning, really, the American militaryówith the greatest stabilization operation since the end of World War II. ìIt could be the mother of all humanitarian relief operations,î Army Special Forces Colonel David Maxwell told me. On one day, a semi-starving population of 23 million people would be Kim Jong Ilís responsibility; on the next, it would be the U.S. militaryís, which would have to work out an arrangement with the Chinese Peopleís 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.”

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 Muslimís 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 Islamís better angels. That duty ó and glory ó 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.

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.

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 Hezbollahís ascendancy among Sunnis will make it possible for Shiites and Sunnis to stop the bloodletting in Iraq ó and to focus instead on their ìrealî 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 ó 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.

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 Investorís 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.

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.