re: "Springtime for Islamists in Libya?"

Neo-Neocon (" slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon ") is one of those who possess an Inigo Montoya-like sensibility regarding the meaning of words.

Money quote(s):

"The headline reads “interim [Libyan] ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law.”

There’s that word again: expected. But those who thought they knew what to expect in Libya were either arrogant or daft, or both. And one of the many things that was clearly possible there was the ascendance of Islamist elements." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Wishful thinking, like hope, is not a plan. Nor is it a particularly useful analytical tool.

"David Warren contrasts the irony of the relatively orderly Bush-overseen judicial end of Saddam Hussein with Gaddafi’s extra-judicial lynching under forces promoted by Obama."

CAA has nothing but good things to say about Mr. Warren, one of our neighbors in the Great White North.

"Not unexpected at all. That’s why there is something to be said for what happened in Iraq, where—because we invaded and stuck around, despite the huge cost in blood and treasure—that country has at least a chance of coming out relatively well compared to others in the region."

From her keyboard to God's monitor.

10/24

re: "Managing decline"

David Warren at DavidWarrenOnline ("newspaper columns") argued against the inevitability and necessity of declinism.

Money quote(s):

"Gideon Rachman got his otherwise much-ignored Financial Times column linked on the Drudge Report, this week. (Drudge is "the bull" in this scenario.) In his smuggest, most superior, British tone, he lectured the Americans on "the management of decline." "

Even last October (when this saw print), it was far too late for any Europeans (even the British) to be lecturing Americans on this topic.

"(T)he phrase was meant to be droll: to ridicule the mindset of people who were destroying the British economy through nationalizations, while walking away from her responsibilities "east of Suez"; who portrayed Britain's decline as inevitable, and themselves as the ingenious lords of this great recessional dance."

The British have always done droll quite well.

"We "running dogs of American imperialism" (as the Maoists used to call us) regret the decline of American power, not necessarily from adoration of everything American, but because the alternative to American power in the world is Chinese power, and the rise to consequence of an array of regional powers perhaps nastier. For as America goes down, these unspeakable powers go up, relatively, and get their opportunity to throw their weight around."

True enough. America's decline, to the extent that it is real and not merely public relations in advance of reality, does not occur in a vacuum. Nature, and international relations, abhores a vacuum.

"In a similar way, in a previous generation, many not British themselves, cheered on the works of "British imperialism." For imperialism is always with us, and the British form was rather more benign than, say, the German form.

That is a point characteristically lost upon "progressive" minds, with their underlying, usually unexamined, utopian premises. This has been on exhibit throughout the Arab Spring, where it is assumed that the overthrow of Arab dictators must naturally lead to roses."

Clearly Mr. Warren's crystal ball was working pretty well last year, since he saw where the Arab Spring would almost inevitably lead in places like Egypt.

"Decline is of two kinds, relative and absolute. The relative decline of the U.S. was inevitable, as other countries which had destroyed themselves through war and totalitarianism gradually recovered, and wealth with its accompanying powers was disseminated through the world. The misfortune here is that America's allies in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere, declined their share of military expenditure. All were content to let the U.S. carry the weight of NATO, while they embarked on nanny-statist ventures more advanced than the American.

These in turn contributed to absolute decline: and to the effective bankruptcy of states across the European Union, as well as America and Japan. Behind the budgetary catastrophes are the demographic realities of aging societies, which can never catch up. They simply don't have enough working young to pay all the "entitlements."

Relative decline was unavoidable; but absolute decline was a choice."

Relative decline isn't such a bad thing when a rising tide is lifting other countries out of poverty. It's less of a good thing when poor countries are getting poorer.

""Managing decline" now means making the best of the fallout; of choosing what we can still afford and what we can no longer. The British "managed their decline," and now sneer at Americans whose turn it is to manage theirs.

There was in Britain a Churchillian force that did not accept decline. It "won the war" on its last sprint, then snuffed out just after.

There is likewise in the United States today a force - call it Tea Party - that does not accept inevitable decline. It is allied with every other faltering life force in American society. And, as an exponent of this "rabid right" myself, I will not only cheer them on, but continue biting their detractors. "

10/19

re: "Showing contempt"

David Warren at DavidWarrenOnline ("Newspaper columns") wrote a column, the whole of which should be read.

Money quote(s):

"Perhaps we are all getting sick of the word "terrorism." The word is misused as if it represented an ideological faction, rather than a method for getting one's way; and at that, it is used evasively, to avoid naming one's enemy, which, under current strictures, counts as a faux pas." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Terrorism is a noun. It's not an enemy. Terrorism is how the U.S. was attacked on 9/11; terrorism isn't who attacked on 9/11.

"What the Iranian apostate Shia-Muslim revolutionary regime is accused of having plotted - an atrocity in a high-class Washington restaurant, whose focus would be the murder of the Saudi Arabian ambassador - was not exactly terrorism. It may never have been meant to work; it may have been meant to be discovered. In which case, it was pure diplomatic gesture, the meaning of which takes a moment to sink in." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

It's basically flipping us (the U.S.) the bird, and doing it so the Saudis can't help but be forced to see it.

"We have to believe that Barack Obama's people are saner than Ali Khameini's people; or else, where would we be?"

By "people," our Canadian friend (Mr. Warren) seems to mean all of us in the federal departments and agencies, not just the White House or the Democratic Party.

(Which is quite correct, regardless of how individual civil (and foreign) servants may choose to vote.)

"Yet here was an unambiguous act of war, against both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, that traces to Iran's "supreme leader" Khameini, according to State Department sources speaking anonymously but purposefully to the media. Perhaps not, they say, to the Islamic Republic's malicious clown of a president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (leaving an opening for one of their pet "Iranian factions" theories)." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

As I read earlier today:

"the phrase "act of war" is really a political, rather than legal distinction."

Oh, and there are factions a-plenty in Iran, even within the Iranian government and power structure (which aren't quite congruent).

But evidence that any of these are particularly "moderate" (in Western terms) belongs primarily in the eyes of the beholders.

"(T)he U.S. is now showing the FBI evidence in foreign capitals; presumably to confirm what everyone long suspected: that Iran's leaders are (as we say in Persian) "Majnun."Unhinged they may be, but even a detached wooden door should understand the consequences of an unambiguous act of war. For that would be, war.

Did the Iranians think they wouldn't be caught, or did they think that, if caught, nothing would happen?

The first proposition is crazier than the second; for sad to say, "bad guys" all over the world have been learning that, since the last Stateside election, they can do anything they want to the U.S. with impunity. Unless, they are not actually heads of government, in which case they must watch out for drones." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

This problem goes much further back than the last election; it ebbs and flows with the political vicissitudes. Even Pres. Reagan, he of sainted Conservative memory, isn't remembered for getting much in the way of payback for the Marine barracks bombing (Beirut 1983).

"When the ayatollahs learn that senior figures in their elite Quds force may be denied visas, I'm sure they laugh. They probably laughed harder when Susan Rice, America's UN ambassador, marched into their New York mission Wednesday to deliver a solemn letter. They know the U.S. has no leverage, short of military force, and that for the foreseeable future, force is off the table.

They even know that the U.S. military is about to be asset-stripped, when the current congressional budget-cutting exercise fails: for huge defence cuts automatically kick in when the Democrats decide they don't like the Republicans' alternatives. America has been quitting its thankless old job as "world policeman," with the whole world watching.

The greater risk is now being on the U.S. side, as the Saudis have been nervously discovering."

Denying visas to unsavory corruptocrats is a form of "soft power" that has legs in some parts of the world, but not-so-much in a country like Iran. And anybody who thought that it was a sort of "magic bullet" might consider tendering bids on a certain bridge.

"That Iran has international reach, through agents that can sometimes act competently, should be part of general knowledge. There is, for instance, an under-reported Argentine dimension of the plot."

Iran, or at least "factions" therein, has seen itself as the vanguard of a worldwide (Shia) Islamic revolution since their fundamentalist takeover in 1979. And parallels between their post-revolutionary behavior and that of the Bolsheviks are not accidental, they are deliberate, studied, and intentional. And that includes fielding a revolutionary "international" to do their dirty work abroad.

"(T)heir primary target was the Saudi ambassador. That is the key. The fact this mission was to be carried out on U.S. soil, was meant as a gesture of contempt for American power."

10/15

re: "South Sudan"

David Warren at David Warren Online ("my daily newspaper articles for the time since Sept. 11th, 2001") shared some nearly specialist-level area knowledge of South Sudan.

Money quote(s):

"The frontiers are not yet secure, and the ultimate shape of this new country depends on the resolution of the conflict with (northern) Sudan, over possession of the large district of Abyel, which is a melding zone between the Muslim north and Christian-Animist south, both geographically and demographically."

"Melding zone" is one way of looking at it. Abyei, within South Kordofan (the name itself is a form of arabization-inspired north Sudan cultural imperialism), is part of Islam's "bloody borders," marking the bleeding edge of moslem conquest as it marches (and rides, and raids) further and further up the Nile valley.

"Only in the 19th century did European adventurers become fully aware of regions like southern Sudan, thanks more to private missionary efforts than to imperial ambitions. It was an afterthought to the Anglo-Egyptian authorities, extending their rule into the swampland of the White Nile, a very long way from Cairo; and also to British East African officials, curious to find what lay beyond Uganda.

History, and in this case the imperial histories that underlie so many contemporary world issues, is unfortunately no longer taught except to ideological specialists, which is how I excuse this very general briefing. The British in fact saw the problem coming, of putting millions of tropical rainforest-dwelling black Africans under the rule of desert-dwelling Arabized Muslims, at least a century ago. Their intention to make the region an extension of Uganda, instead of Sudan, was defeated by "events."

So much of today's sprawling political and economic catastrophe through sub-Saharan Africa can be traced not to imperialism, per se, but to the imperial authorities' eagerness to leave around the signal year of 1960. It was an appalling cat's cradle of quick fixes they left behind.

The rest could be attributed to the people they put in power, or dangerously near power, during this evacuation: a generation of African statesmen educated in places like the London School of Economics, or the École Nationale de la France d'Outre-Mer, on what were then the latest Fabian and socialist principles.

Add nascent African nationalisms - also encouraged by the chic, departing Europeans - and stir. In retrospect, the reduction of sub-Saharan Africa, with its extraordinary natural resources and diversity of alert and capable peoples, to desperate poverty and a violent hash, was just what we should have expected."

The preceding five short paragraphs encapsulate the historical truths it took me week, and volumes, to conclude. (Nice work.)

"Africa is not a mess because it is black. Africa is a mess because it was made into an immense Petri dish for asinine Utopian experiments, by people who walked when they started going wrong."

Simplistic and incomplete, but not untrue.

(7/9)

re: "Innocents abroad"

David at DavidWarrenOnline ("Essays On Our Times") shares a view from north of the border.

Money quote(s):

"The strategy behind the new Obama foreign policy, so far as any can be discerned, is to disavow everything the Bush administration did in eight years, and then harvest the resulting good will. And while the product of this strategy is zero, it has been charitably observed that his term in office has hardly begun.

A much bigger apology to the Muslim world is in the offing; and further apologies could be tailored to specific U.S. enemies."

re: "Guantanamo"

David Warren of DavidWarrenOnline ("ESSAYS ON OUR TIMES ") explains why we intern terrorists.

Money quote(s):

"(I)n principle, some inmates may have been captured by mistake, and in practice military tribunals were proceeding, in which guilt had yet to be formally established. Such trials have been suspended for 120 days"

"Guantanamo was selected, by the Bush administration, to intern terrorists, because no better solution could be found. The military commissions were created, ditto. Under actual international and American law, the inmates have no certain rights whatever: they were not proper soldiers, and therefore not legitimate prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. They may thank their stars they were not shot upon capture."

There's still time. After all, they're still war criminals.

"As people understood, in the shadow of the World Trade Center, and as they still understand in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are dealing with monstrous enemies -- with people who not only kill our allied soldiers, but kill defenceless non-combatants gratuitously; who employ terror, to impose tyranny. The insistence on fine points of juridical etiquette in the heat of battle would be insane. But insisting on it later in the calm of a prison camp betrays only a failure of perspective.

It is right of the law to prohibit torture. It is right in almost every circumstance to obey the law (and accept the consequences in any other). There will, however, always be tight corners where "the law is a ass," and to pretend this were never the case is to assume a disingenuous posture. Moreover, as when Guantanamo opened, there are circumstances in which no existing law has been written or can be applied, and yet the principle of retribution remains: that the innocent will be vindicated, that the guilty will be punished."

&

"To set any of the Guantanamo inmates free, on some jurisprudential technicality, is to smear one's hands with the blood of their victims when they return to their trade. This is not a hypothetical proposition: for while the numbers are disputed, a proportion of "low risk" inmates already freed from Guantanamo have returned to action."

That proportion is already known to be at least ten percent. Which would be a pretty darn low "recidivism" rate for ordinary criminals but is unacceptable for terrorists bent on mass murder.

Snark of the Day

"I know the preceding remark will offend many delicate souls, but that is not the only reason I made it." - David Warren.