re: "Credit Where It's Due"

Spook86 at In From the Cold ("MUSINGS ON LIFE, LOVE, POLITICS, MILITARY AFFAIRS, THE MEDIA, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAPTURES OUR INTEREST") recognized a good call by our former president.

Money quote(s):

"George W. Bush and his advisers deserve our lasting thanks for deciding to hold terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, and conducting their trials through military tribunals, instead of a federal courtroom.

The wisdom of this approach was on display yesterday, during the arraignment of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, and two other senior Al Qaida figures. According to The New York Times (and other media accounts), the proceedings were a study in confusion and obfuscation"

Don't think the confusion, sown liberally by the defendents, wasn't intended. It's part of their playbook, after all.

"Instead of a global stage, KSM and his fellow killers will have to make due with pool coverage from a handful of reporters at Gitmo. Instead of a battery of ACLU lawyers, they have a small defense team which they may (or may not) cooperate with. And instead of a federal judge trying to ride herd over a legal circus, the Al Qaida defendants have a no-nonsense military judge, Colonel James L. Pohl.

Of course, the antics that unfolded yesterday at Gitmo were utterly predictable."

See above. Key word: playbook.

"KSM and the terrorists at Gitmo were nabbed overseas, and with their designation as combatants, military tribunals became the most viable option. The prosecution of Al Qaida terrorists at Gitmo will likely drag on for years, but without the media circus that terrorists crave and in a secure environment. Security costs for a trial in a New York federal court were pegged at $300-500 million a year, with the interruption to normal traffic and commerce costing millions more."

CAA suspects the average (i.e., non-Al Qaeda sympathizer) New Yorker would be perfectly happy to host the public execution of the defendents, so long as the whole process took-up only one business day, but the kind of media and security circus a civilian trial process would entail for them is right out.

"On the issue of trying terror suspects, Mr. Bush was correct in opting for military tribunals, and the wisdom of that approach will be affirmed in the months and years that follow."

5/6

re: "If I Wanted to Attack Iran"

DAVE SCHULER at The Glittering Eye made this perfectly clear.

Money quote(s):

"I have repeatedly pointed out that I do not want the U. S. to bomb or invade Iran. I think it would be illegal, immoral, and futile. It would be worse than a crime; it would be a mistake."

That being said:

"I wouldn’t attack its hardened nuclear development facilities or its population centers or even its military. I would attack its oil fields, its oil refineries, and its fuel depots. I would do it with drones and I would keep it up until the present Iranian regime collapsed."

3/2

re: "Getting to Zero"

Andrew Exum at Abu Muqawama gave a short statement of the long view.

Money quote(s):

"(W)ars, like history, do not stop when America decides it no longer wants to be involved. This is worth remembering, both in terms of what is taking place in Iraq today as well as what might take place in Afghanistan in 2014. So by all means, say U.S. involvement in the war has ended. But think carefully before saying the war has ended."

Conflict in Iraq is multilateral and the co-belligerents are both internal and external. Taking just one side (ours) off the battlefield means only that we no longer have much influence over what occurs there.

10/21

re: "Chinese Dragons and Russian Bears"

"Sam Huntington" at Always On Watch ("Semper Vigilans") reviewed strategic issues involving our near-peer competitors.

Money quote(s):

"(A) far more dangerous situation is developing in Asia. No surprise, Americans are not hearing about any of this from the state-run media. Here are a few examples:

· China is claiming island territory within fifty miles of the Philippines.

· Chinese frigates regularly intruded Philippine territorial waters.

· Chinese ships fired upon Philippine fishing boats.

· Chinese naval vessels rammed Vietnamese fishing boats (See Note 1)

· Chinese accost Indian naval vessels operating off the coast of Vietnam, demanding to know why they are operating in Chinese waters.

· Chinese military aircraft intrude into Taiwanese air space.

· China intruded Japanese mainland territorial waters on 14 occasions.

· China intruded Okinawa territorial waters on 10 occasions.

· China created six major incidents with the US Navy at sea.

· Raise your hand if you aren’t aware that North Korea is China’s redheaded stepchild.

Note 1: Vietnam possesses one of the world’s largest armies: (China: 4.5 million, Vietnam: 5.9 million)."

You know the one about amateurs studying tactics and professionals studying logistics?

Well, in terms of international relations, geopolitics, and grand strategy, the professionals are studying China.

"Danger of a regional conflict is real. The consequence to China’s arrogance has been a dramatic increase in military spending among Southeast Asian countries. Australia, Japan, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan have all dedicated billions of dollars on new or upgraded military hardware. The United States is upgrading naval facilities in Guam —so much so that Representative Hank Johnson(D-GA) worries the island may capsize. Nevertheless, all of these countries recognize the wisdom of pooling their resources to keep China in check; Japan has taken the lead in establishing mutual defense cooperatives with Australia, South Korea, India, and the United States. Singapore has offered to provide bases for the US Navy."

CAA no longer worries that Guam will become overburdened, over-balanced, and capsize, having received assurances that Guam possesses a sufficiently sturdy keel and gyroscopic stabilizer.

"Owing to the fact that we don’t know what motivates Chinese behavior, the Australian General Staff worries that a mistake could lead to disastrous consequences —particularly when it is likely that China will attempt to use its military to enforce a Chinese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The problem is that while demanding that other nations treat Chinese EEZs as its sovereign territory, China routinely refuses to acknowledge the EEZs of other nations. From the standpoint of international law, EEZs are not sovereign territory. We can therefore see how China might regard the US Navy’s mission to safeguard open sea-lanes as an intolerable trespass —a situation that could lead to deadly confrontation."

It's the old "what's-mine-is-mine-what's-yours-is-negotiable" attitude turned somewhat sideways: China will use existing international norms and fora to its own advantage and ignore those which infringe upon its own interests. That's what one does when one is the center of the Earth, after all.

"Some politicians argue that given China’s dependence on global trade, a deadly confrontation is unlikely. They may have forgotten that economic ties did not hinder German aggression at the beginning of the 20^th Century —a costly mistake for France. ....but here is where we find the real and present danger. Defense cuts may encourage China to challenge allied nations within the region of Southeast Asia —they are that arrogant."

Nor did close economic ties deflect World War I; for that matter, the United States' close economic ties with Saudi Arabia deter the 9/11 attacks.

(Marx notwithstanding, man is not solely, nor even primarily, an economic animal.)

"From Russia’s perspective, there couldn’t be a better time to threaten the United States and NATO with pre-emptive strikes unless we agree to cancel the so-called Missile Defense Shield, designed as a safeguard from Iranian ICBMs."

This seems a little over-the-top; threatening pre-emptive strikes is way more sabre-rattling than is necessary. Russia has far more effective economic and political levers to pull than jacking things up on the defcon meter.

"If one understands international relations, Russia’s timing couldn’t be better. We should anticipate this sort of behavior by an adversary whenever they perceive American leadership as weak, incompetent, ineffective, or confused."

Harsh words, but hardly unwarranted.

The "reset" button must have been like those ones installed near crosswalks: not really wired to anything but they give pedestrians something to do with their hands while waiting for the lights to change.

"This situation should once again remind us that American politicians and diplomats seldom learn important lessons of history. America cannot afford another war right now. Neither can we afford the perception of weakness, incompetence, or abject stupidity. We continue to live in a dangerous world"

Diplomats actually aren't slouches when it comes to learning their history lessons; however if you expand your definition of "diplomat" beyond those actually trained and experienced in it to those who practice it on our behalf at the highest levels....

"Rather than facing a deadly and costly regional conflict in Southeast Asia, it would be far less expensive to deter Chinese aggression vis-à-vis a strong military presence along the Pacific Rim. As for the Russian Bear, they understand but one thing: force or its promise."

5/4

re: "Writing off Afghanistan, too"

Kori Schake at Shadow Government ("Notes from the Loyal Opposition") saw the writing on the wall.

Money quote(s):

"The evident confusion among senior policy makers in the administration prefigures the administration's cratering commitment to win the war in Afghanistan. The White House has narrowed its war aims from defeating all threats to only defeating al Qaeda. The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified to Congress this week that the deaths of senior al Qaeda leadership have brought us to a "critical transitional phase for the terrorist threat," in which the organization has a better than 50 percent probability of fragmenting and becoming incapable of mass-casualty attacks.

The White House appears set to use progress against al Qaeda as justification for accelerating an end to the war in Afghanistan. Since the president has concluded that we aren't fighting the Taliban, just al Qaeda, no need to stick around Afghanistan until the government of that country can provide security and prevent recidivism to Taliban control. The president will declare victory for having taken from al Qaeda the ability to organize large scale attacks, and piously intone that nation building in Afghanistan is Afghanistan's responsibility.

This policy will not win the war in Afghanistan. It will not even end the war in Afghanistan. It will only end our involvement in that ongoing war. Because arbitrary timelines do not translate into having achieved the objectives that cause enemies to throw down their weapons. And it is the enemy ceasing to contest our objectives that constitutes winning. Interrogations with prisoners in Afghanistan have caused the American military to conclude that "Once ISAF is no longer a factor, Taliban consider their victory inevitable."" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

2/2

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: "A Traveler In The Foreign Service: You Say You Want a Revolution? We All Want To Change The World"

Dave Seminara at A Traveler In The Foreign Service offered some good advice to prospective FSOs.

Money quote(s):

"When I meet people who are interested in joining the State Department's Foreign Service, I always ask them why they're motivated to serve. Everyone has their own reasons, but one common motivation shared by many is a desire to help shape U.S. Foreign Policy. Many of these same people are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs and how we conduct ourselves on the global stage, and believe that by joining the Foreign Service, they can play some role in creating change.

There's no doubt that we all need to be informed and engaged on global issues so that we can vote for politicians who will support the type of approach to global affairs we favor. But I wouldn't recommend joining the Foreign Service if your primary goal is to influence how U.S. Foreign Policy is conducted. Those who think they're going to be creating policy are often disappointed and disillusioned when they realize that Foreign Service Officers (FSO's) are tasked with implementing policy, not creating it."

Yes, yes, YES!

Dave gets it, but then he was one of us not so long ago.

FSOs do not create U.S. foreign policy, we carry it out.

Military folks should understand this well enough; except at the very highest levels (and this is also true of FSOs), military personnel do not create defense policy or make strategy, they make it happen.

"FSO's are often called Foreign Policy foot soldiers. They receive marching orders and they carry them out. This doesn't mean that FSO's play no role in shaping policy at all. The insights provided by FSO's on the ground overseas via cables, memos, and in-person briefings can help influence decision-making in Washington."

There's nothing wrong or dishonorable with being a "foot soldier." And Dave correctly remarks on the considerable influence FSO reporting from overseas can have on decision-making back in D.C. CAA can attest to the remarkable respect that diplomatic reporting cables garner among intelligence analysts around the beltway; readers of wikileaks (CAA is not, can not, be one) may be able to back me up on that.

"(I)f you enter the Foreign Service thinking you're going to be calling the shots on how to shape the bilateral relationship with the country you're posted in, you're going to be disappointed. Even if you rise to the level of Ambassador, you're still going to need to seek approval from Washington before proceeding on all matters of substance.

The practicality of this reality is that passionate, idealistic, crusaders with very strong opinions don't always make the best diplomats. You're free to have your own opinions and the State Department has a formal "dissent" channel whereby FSO's can voice their objections to U.S. government policies, but as a representative of the United States government, you really have to keep your politics to yourself, particularly while serving abroad. Not all FSO's follow this rule but the most effective senior level diplomats do."

Please note that CAA is not a senior level diplomat.

Also note that CAA keeps his politics to himself at work, particularly when serving overseas.

"I'd estimate that a majority of FSO's lean Democratic, and given the fact that the George W. Bush administration was at times openly hostile towards the State Department, it should come as no surprise that there were plenty of dissenters in the Foreign Service during the W years. The war in Iraq and the subsequent mass diversion of human and material resources to our mega mission in Baghdad created lots of malcontents, but only a few, like Brady Kiesling, resigned on principle.

Kiesling and others followed their conscience, but I think that when you join the Foreign Service, you have to expect that you'll probably serve under Presidents you dislike who will implement policies you disagree with. If you're not the good soldier type who can live with that, the Foreign Service probably isn't a great career choice for you."

Like the military, you trust in the system (that you're an integral part of) to proceed in a lawful, Constitutional manner that reflects the will of the American people as embodied by their elected representatives.

It's a terrible system, no doubt, the worst possible one, of course, except for all the worse ones.

"The bottom line is that the Foreign Service is a highly structured, chain-of-command focused bureaucracy, not that unlike the military. If you're not capable of holding your nose and delivering a message you find personally repulsive, don't sign up."

5/2

re: "Nuke the News: Iowa!"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") demonstrated his proven knack for humor.

Money quote(s):

"The Pentagon is abandoning the idea they should be able to wage two wars at once. So if we’re already in one war and you try to war against us, you’re going to be put on hold."

1/4

re: "Terrorists sightseeing in San Antonio"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") correctly described our enemies.

Money quote(s):

"It has been a long time since foreign terrorists successfully perpetrated anything heinous on US soil. That is partly due to the fact that our enemies are losers, but eventually they will pull something off."

There are, after all, quite a few of them making the attempt, and quite a large bankroll behind them.

"(W)e are fortunate that these scumbags are dumb as dirt, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then and it's only a matter of time. Anyone up for a little profiling? I would say some "country of origin". age, sex and religious affiliation selection points might narrow down the search a bit, eh?

Nah, instead we will rely on the ignorant incompetence of those who wish to slaughter us."

Not to raise too big a fuss, but our criteria, post-9/11, for extra "administrative processing" for visa applicants who meet just about all Uncle Jimbo's listed selection points had this covered.

Not sure if it currently does.

10/19

re: "The State of State: Joan's Case Continued"

Patricia H. Kushlis at WhirledView ("a look at world politics and most everything else") had an update on a sordid tale.

Money quote(s):

"Remember Joan Wadelton’s long running battle against the State Department’s Bureau of Human Resources that I reported here on March 14, 2012?

In case you missed it, the post is well worth reading. But I understand that lots of people did read it because I know that the post entitled “State Department Human Resources – A System Run Amok” circulated widely throughout the State Department, at US Embassies, Consulates and Missions abroad as well as elsewhere.

It is just the latest in a series of WhirledView posts over the last four years on corruption in State's personnel system. I understand that people forwarded it to friends and colleagues. It was also picked up by other blogs with a substantial number of readers throughout the State Department, on the Hill and elsewhere in the foreign affairs and defense communities."

It's not surprising that the original post received such wide readership within the foreign service community; it's our personnel system and we're all customers of it whether we like it or not.

"(S)ome of the major themes that have emerged:

-- All respondents believed what I wrote -- not a single person has tried to rebut anything in the post (or any of my previous posts on the topic);

-- Respondents were horrified by Joan's story and expressed sympathy for her and outrage against her treatment;

-- Several sent me stories about their own problems with State HR. I cannot corroborate the problems or the stories but every one is consistent with what my own separate investigations have uncovered;

-- The single most troubling discovery about State's Office of Inspector General is that rather than engaging in benign neglect – or better yet showing complete impartiality as should be the case -- the OIG comes across as an active and malignant presence in investigations of individual claims against HR’s behavior. This is reinforced by allegations that the OIG's practice of reporting the names of complainants about HR to HR management – rather than to investigate their charges or simply keep the individual’s confidentiality -- has also occurred with complaints filed in other Bureaus."

CAA can state with reasonable confidence that he has received, thus far, correct and proper treatment from HR in terms of assignments and promotions. Possibly because CAA takes some pains to be pseudonymous, of course, but CAA to date has enjoyed a reasonably normal assignments and career progression.

But cases like Joan's reduce my confidence in the system.

5/2

re: "Illegal Immigration Is Immoral"

Victor Davis Hanson at Private Papers specified eight (8) reasons why illegal immigration is immoral.

Give it a read, wontcha?.

Money quote(s):

" Legal immigration. Hundreds of thousands from Asia, Africa, and Europe wait patiently and in legal fashion to apply for citizenship. “Crowding to the front of the line” is not a cheap talking point, but an accurate description of those who ignore the rules while others suffer. In essence, the United States has established that several million foreign nationals have precedence for citizenship by virtue of the facts that (a) they have already broken the law in entering the US, (b) they are currently residing illegally in the US, and (c) they are of a particular ethnic group. To question why a PhD in electrical engineering from India must wait for years to gain permanent residence in the US while someone from Oaxaca without a high-school diploma is exempt from such scrutiny is deemed illiberal; in fact, the reality, not the description of it, is the real illiberality."

The president's recent initiative to provide temporary documentation, status, and work permits to an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants who entered the country when they were teenagers (but may now be as old as 30) means that perhaps a million illegals are cutting to the head of the line in front of all those legal immigrants who've been following the rules.

"4. The law. Much of the discussion focuses on the fact that illegal immigration flouts federal law. But the problem is less the initial entry into the US without documentation, and more the succession of law-breaking that needs must follow. If one crosses the border illegally, then one is not likely to state the truth on dozens of subsequent official documents, from matters of identification to certification of employment and entitlement. At each juncture, the law itself is insidiously eroded and the calls for it to be ignored increase. The real immorality is not a law that is found oppressive, but the notion that anyone, most ironically a foreign national, has the right to pick and choose which laws he will obey. No civilization can survive when the law hinges on individual interpretation. If foreign nationals are not required to abide by US law, why would American citizens think that they must?"

Entering the country is just the first in a series of crimes that each illegal commits. The crime spree then cascades from obtaining fraudulent identification documents, using a false or stolen social security number (causing tax and credit problems for the SSN's actual owner), to driving without a license or auto insurance. Of course, none of this is likely to instill any respect for the remaining body of our state, federal, or local laws and ordinances.

"There are ways that are both moral and practical to deport recent arrivals, felons, and those entirely on public assistance, while offering mechanisms for long-residing aliens, employed and not convicted of felonies, to apply for citizenship — without automatic approval, however, and only after meeting logical criteria and paying fines. The only real issue is whether the qualified should obtain temporary residence cards while waiting for adjudication of their requests, or must return to Mexico to apply; but that is a decision that follows, not precedes, an end to open borders."

12/15

re: "Write or wrong?"

Steve at Dead Men Working had some sharp criticism of "We Meant Well" author/blogger and FSO Peter Van Buren.

Money quote(s):

"We have been following with interest the blogs and descriptions of the case of Peter Van Buren's book, and we must say, we are becoming increasingly disappointed.

When the case first arose, it seemed open and shut. Mr. Van Buren had written a book, sought Department of State approval, complied with the written procedures, then, after there was no objection during the mandatory time period, submitted it for publication. Months later, after the book was published, the State Department had decided to object, and had contacted the publisher behind Mr. Van Buren's back to accuse him of wrongdoing and ask that the book be recalled.

The State Department clearly looked to be in the wrong. The case raised a number of important issues about how the system worked - or did not. Van Buren looked like a person who had been wronged, and against whom there was a risk of illegal retaliation."

So Van Buren looked like the wronged party up to that point, and DS the black hats.

"Since the story broke, however, Mr. Van Buren has been blogging up a storm, using the media exposure to flog his book. And seizing, it would appear, every opportunity to, at the very least, push further the edge of the already-bursting envelope.

In doing so, he has raised real questions about his behavior and suitability, that have nothing to do with his book.

He has blogged, for example, about his improper refusal to participate fully in the investigation of which he is the subject, and about his refusal to identify his contacts - a requirement of all holders of government clearances.

And he has, apparently knowingly, published links to information which the government, for smart reasons or stupid ones, has toldemployees not to access.

And about how, now that his clearance is suspended (temporarily - while under investigation), he is will be frequenting that andother sites that publish classified materials. "

Brother Van Buren hasn't demonstrated much in the way of being a shy, retiring sort of fellow, nor, perhaps should he. After two tours in the sandbox, working on PRTs, he wrote his book, submitted it per procedures, and was being persecuted, perhaps, for his views despite the Department's failure to use its own publication clearance process in a timely manner.

And he's been howling, essentially, from the rooftops about it, he's that mad/angry.

So might you, perhaps.

CAA thinks Brother Van Buren has gone a bit overboard (for a serving FSO) more than once, such as his unnecessarily offensive characterizations of Sec. Clinton, but then, if they aren't going to treat him like a serving FSO, maybe that's to be expected.

Be sure to read Peter Van Buren's comments at the post cited above.

10/19

re: "The Long Term"

The late, great Lex at Neptunus Lex (" The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! ") remarked on a U.S. diplomatic "win" out in the far reaches of the Pacific Rim (i.e., in China's front yard).

Money quote(s):

"(T)here’s always a but in diplomacy – one move, even a series of well choreographed and expertly timed moves – does not a match make"

The point being, I think, that the "match" is rarely ever fully over, except in such exceptional circumstances such as the end of a major war, the collapse of a dynasty or empire, or some sort of mass extinction event.

(And then a new match will start, and some of the "new" players will look awfully familiar.)

"First comes the political succession, then the internal struggle for power and the coalescence of a national strategy. That is, of course, if the Peoples’ Liberation Army has the patience for it.

In the really long term, we’re all dead. The state within a state represented by the PLA gets to ponder its over-reaching, rebuke and subsequent loss of face and decide how long “long” is." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The PLA isn't going anywhere, absent a really cataclysmic (for China) turn of events.

"For US diplomats, it’s all pats on the back, champagne toasts and Washington fêtes, for now. A chance to celebrate a coup. An opportunity, even, to treasure an adversary worth tilting against, after a decade of squashing irrational bugs, and making uncomfortable alliances.

Let’s hope we haven’t forgotten how to play this game."

Kudos to all involved, but don't get cocky.

p.s. For friends and fans of Lex, be sure to drop by The Lexicans.

11/20

re: "From 2004: Blackfive's Exit Strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan"

Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") re-posted some cartographic excellence:

re: "Court Gives State Department Deadline to Resolve FTO Status of Iranian Group"

Robert Chesney at Lawfare ("Hard National Security Choices")informed that the Department is now under a deadline.

Money quote(s):

"A DC Circuit panel has issued an opinion giving the State Department four months maximum to make a final decision on PMOI’s petition to revoke its status as a designated foreign terrorist organization. The issue has been somewhat high profile, as that status is the predicate for material support liability under 18 USC 2339B and various immigration-law constraints…and because PMOI is an entity hostile to the government of Iran, with a considerable amount of support in Congress for its delisting."

6/3

re: "Raymond Ibrahim: The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests"

Raymond at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") provided some historical context that contrasts with today's bland pronouncements.

Money quote(s):

"Few events of history are so well documented and attested to as are these conquests, which commenced soon after the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (632) and tapered off circa 750. Large swathes of the Old World—from the India in the east, to Spain in the west—were conquered and consolidated by the sword of Islam during this time.

By the standards of history, the reality of these conquests is unassailable, for history proper concerns itself with primary sources; and the Islamic conquests are thoroughly documented. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of primary source materials we rely on do not come from non-Muslims, who might be accused of bias. Rather, the foremost historians bequeathing to posterity thousands of pages of source materials documenting the Islamic conquests were not only Muslims themselves; they were—and still are—regarded by today’s Muslims as pious and trustworthy scholars (generically, the ulema)."

&

"It should be noted that contemporary non-Muslim accounts further validate the facts of the conquests. The writings of the Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius (d.638), for instance, or the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the “Muslim world.”

According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed."

What is today called the "Muslim world" was once, variously, the Roman- and Byzantine Christian Mediterranean world and the Persian empire.

"The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or “dhimmis,” paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death.

Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

Ironically, these exceptions are now portrayed as the rule in America’s classrooms, as many textbooks suggest or at least imply that most people who converted to Islam did so under no duress, but rather through peaceful contacts with merchants and traders; that they eagerly opted to convert to Islam for the religion’s intrinsic appeal, without noting the many debilitations conquered non-Muslims avoided—extra taxes, second-rate social status, enforced humiliation, etc.—by converting to Islam. In fact, in the first century, and due to these debilitations, many conquered peoples sought to convert to Islam only to be rebuffed by the caliphate, which preferred to keep them as subdued—and heavily taxed—subjects, not as Muslim equals."

Pillage, booty, slaves, and taxes. And all to the greater glory, &tc.

"The dissimulation of how Islam was spread in the early centuries contained in Western textbook’s mirrors the way the word jihad, once inextricable to the conquests, has also been recast. Whereas the word jihad has throughout the centuries simply meant armed warfare on behalf of Islam, in recent years, American students have been taught the Sufi interpretation of jihad—Sufis make up perhaps one percent of the Islamic world and are often seen as heretics with aberrant interpretations—which portrays jihad as a “spiritual-struggle” against one’s vices."

And yet "jihad = inner spiritual struggle" is now the textbook answer throughout the military and the IC, and said with a straight fact to boot!

To aid in the disorientation, while Pres. Bush can not be seen by the current administration to have done anything right, ever, his pronouncing that "Islam is a religion of peace" is accepted without a twitch. Weird.

"(T)he Islamic conquests narrated in the Muslim histories often mirror the doctrinal obligations laid out in Islam’s theological texts—the Koran and Hadith. Muslim historians often justify the actions of the early Islamic invaders by juxtaposing the jihad injunctions found in Islamic scriptures."

&

"In closing, the fact of the Muslim conquests, by all standards of history, is indisputable. Accordingly, just as less than impressive aspects of Western and Christian history, such as the Inquisition or conquest of the Americas, are regularly taught in U.S. textbooks, so too should the Muslim conquests be taught, without apology or fear of being politically incorrect. This is especially so because it concerns history—which has a way of repeating itself when ignored, or worse, whitewashed." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

3/1