Brandeis Vanguard

2003-11-23T17:36:00.000-05:00

Notes from Dr. Daniel Pipes' lecture

Last week, on November 18th, the Middle East Forum at Brandeis (MEFAB) hosted a speech by Dr. Daniel Pipes.

Below are the transcribed notes of the talk as reported by Josh over at JawsBlog. Please note that these notes are not comprehensive and some things may have been ommitted. Also, I did interject some personal commentary here and there, and I've tried to seperate it from the main parts of the notes on the talk.
--------

The lecture was held in Sherman Function Hall. There was a small police barracade set up outside the building (to prevent run away cars?) and there were two Brandeis police vehicles and one Waltham cop car. Inside the building there a few cops and a lot of plain clothes security people (I don't know if they were bodyguards or just private security).

At first I'd say only 150chairs were set up, and that was a woefully inadequate number. Slowly but surely more people began to enter the hall, and more chairs were quickly brought out and set up, but in the end the hall was quite full and people were sitting both on the floor and standing. As for the planned protesters, there were no more than 10-15 people dressed in black (the protesters plan), combined with a handful of professors who you could tell were part of the anti-Pipes crowd. Then there appeared to be many school officials (the "suits") and some staff members from other University departments (such as Student Life, Campus Life). There were a small number of people from outside of Brandeis, but the large majority of people in attendance were none other than Brandeis students. There was a really big crowd in attendance, maybe 300-400 people? (I'm not good at these kinds of estimates).

The presentation began with an individual from the office of Student Life [whose name I'll omit b/c it's not relevant] who gave the general "were honored to have..." shpeil, than went on to read the "Core Values of Division of Student Life".

The floor was then turned over to the President of the Mid East Forum at Brandeis (MEFAB), who gave a biographicalintroduction for Dr. Pipes, and explained that Dr. Pipes would first be speaking and then there would be a moderated Q and A session after he was done talking. She asked that due to time constraints, people only come with one Question (and then one subsequent follow-up), and in the process, that they please keep their questions short and to the point. She also kindly asked that people not interrupt the speech, and that if they wanted to hold up signs during the talk, they do so in the back of the room as not to block anyones view of the speaker.

Then what everyone was waiting for--Dr. Pipes got up (to a large chorus of applause) and began to speak.

Dr. Pipes began by saying that while he'd been invited to speak as part of panels previously at Brandeis, this was his first "General Talk" at the Unviersity!

He said the theme of the talk was going to be "The Middle East Crisis: A review of the bidding". Pipes said that he was going to focus on what he called the "Three "I"s": "Islam [and the War On Terror], Israel [and the Arabs] and Iraq".

He started out with the War On Terror [WoT] and Islam:

Pipes said that the War On Terror didn't start on 9/11/01; rather, war against the US was unilaterally declared by radical Islam back in 1979, when two major episodes occured. The first, is the well known taking of the US Embassy in Iran and then the lesser known attacks on two US missions in Pakistan.

Then attacks against the US by Islamic radicals really began to increase. Pipes pointed out some of the better known incidents--such as the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the attack on the USS Cole. Pipes also mentions that there were other lesser known terror attacks within the US. For example, the shooting at the Empire State Buidling (1997), the 1993 shooting outside the CIA headquarters, and the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge shooting. [Josh notes:Pipes only mentioned a few specific indicdents in his talk--although, many more occured and Pipes has mentioned these in his writings. These events include the Beruit bombings, Khobar Towers, the Kahane Assasination, the Achile Lauro]

Pipes noted that at the time, the belief was that these cases could be dealt with stricly through the Judiciary system. Everything could be handled by law enforcement. Pipes noted that in some of the cases we did get the men responsible, however, that didn't solve the problem. [Josh notes: The FBI and the police departments also did drop the ball in some of the cases, as did the JTTF, but that wasn't part of Pipes' talk--however he's mentioned it in his columns].

Pipes said that on September 11, 2001 things changed in the way we were going to fight terrorism. We were no longer going to fight with the Judiciary alone. Now we were going to bring in the military and our intellegence agencies to fight this battle. The United States was going to go after the terrorist, defund them, destroy their bases (such as uprooting the Taliban)--in short, we were going to take "active steps" against terror.

However, Pipes noted, this was just one phase of the battle. There's a second phase that needs to take place--a war against ideology: the war against militant Islamic ideology. Pipes went to great lengths to sperate Islam the religon/faith from radical Islam the ideology. He said they were two different things. One was a religion--one was an ideology of radicalism that needed fought.

This resumse on the second of the three "I"s, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Pipes says that there's a major misconception in the discussion of the Israeli-Palesitinian issue.

That misconception is the result of the letter which Arafat apparently sent the late Israeli PM Rabin saying that the Palestinians accepted Israel. The misconception was that there were just details that needed worked out, and that these would be accomplished through the diplomacy of the Oslo accords.

Over the course of the years since the Oslo accords were originally signed (September 1993), the Palestinians saw Israel as being weaker than she ever was before--in their eyes Israel was a demoralized nation. Naturally, this fed into the excitement of the radical terror groups (Jihad Islami, Hamas).

At the same time, there was nothing in the Palestinian Authority to indicate that they'd come to accept Israel [aside: there's nothing to this day]--one needn't look further than the Palistinan media, the speeches of the leadership, nothing in the newspapers, and the Friday sermons in the Mosques--forget it.

The Palestinians then decided with the start of their latest round of violence in 2000 that they'd be able to force this "demoralized" Israel into making concessions. And as a result of enough concessions, they'd be able to destroy Israel.

All in all, Pipes said that the diplomacy of the 1990s has turned out to be counter-productive in terms of an Arab-Israeli peace accord.

There were three main points:

First: To learn that diplomacy doesn't always work--as such, diplomacy shouldn't be used unless the circumstances are right.

Second, regarding the current state of affairs: one side must win, one side must lose. There's no meeting in the middle. There's gotta be a winner and a loser. The arabs are either going to continue to work to destroy Israel or they must learn to accept Israel.

Third, as for the United States, Pipes basically said that the first US goal should be to get the Palistinians to actually (genuinely) accept Israel's existance. And US policy must change in order to meet this goal.

Now onto the third major part of his lecture, the third "I": Iraq

Pipes was originally against Operation Desert Storm in 1991 (he didn't explain why), but he admitted that he was pleased with the outcome. However in 1998 the sanctions regime established by the UN after the Gulf War began to crumble as many of us know. Ultimately, Saddam Hussein broke the ceasefire and something needed to be done.

Now in 2002-3 Pipes supported war against Iraq. We were doing two things by kicking out Saddam Hussein---we were living up to our side of the agreement, and penalizing him for breaking the ceasefire. We were also establishing our doctorine of pre-emption (against terrorist supporting nations).

As for post-war Iraq, Pipes isn't the biggest fan of the administration's current course of action. He thought that there should've been a "Democratically minded 'Strongman'"--a harmless dictator built on the Turkey, Tiwan model. Pipes then thought that we should keep US troops in the country, but they should pull out to desert bases and let Iraqis run their country for themselves. We needn't pay and do things for them. This isn't a case of rebuilding a country (like Germany and Japan were), rather we just liberated Iraq, we didn't defeat it.

And with that Pipes recaped what he said and moved on to Questions...

Now the floor opened up to Questions from the crowd. People were instructed to keep their questions to a simple one line thing (rather than make a statement), due to time constraints. They were then allowed a follow-up question.

I don't have most of the questions written down verbatim, but I tried to capture the important part.

Q: What is your response to the allegations made against you?

A: This all began with a "radical" group known as the Council on American Islamic Relgations. This group is an apologist for terrorist groups, and their leaders want the US to be an Islamic country. [Aside from Josh: for more on CAIR see LGF or this piece by Pipes himself with bibliography]

CAIR maintains a list of quotes and publishes it. Pipes then said something along the lines of that a lot of the criticism comes from "some people who don't do their own thinking"

Pipes then said that the first victims of militant Islam are muslims; militant/radical Islam has the microphone, loud voices and this includes voices and professorships on college/university campuses.

Q: About the Oslo accords and a peace plan (a request for clarification/elaboration)

Israel made a mistake with Oslo. There shouldn't be talks until the Palestinians are ready [in other words to stop terror and recognize Israel]. Peace treaties also don't "trickle down" to influence the public's perceptions either (look at Egypt)

As for settlements and the "right of return"--no talks until the Palestinians make the initial steps.

Q: How can the War On Terror not be perceived as a Judeo-Christian War against Islam?

A: Add any and all anti-radical Islamists should be added to the coalition.

There's an intramural war that'll need to take place within Islam itself, the moderates vs. the radicals--and this battle is for the future of the religion.

This isn't the first war that's been fought against an ideology. Look at WWII, then there was the Cold War against Marism-Leninism.

As for the Rummsfeld Memo that got leaked to the press, Pipes commented that there needs to be a counter influence on the Madrasas. Pipes agreed with Rummsfeld that we need to somehow counter their ideas.

Q: On the Patriot Act: is it against "thoughts"? How doesn't it infringe on Civil Liberties?

[Aside: I was suprised this was asked. Dr Pipes isn't a lawyer, nor does he work for the DOJ...seemed like an odd question]

A: The act is over 400+ pages long; before it was passed Law enforcement couldn't liase with the military and now they can--which is helpful. Local law enforcement and the FBI now no longer have "firewalls" up between them and are able to share information which can help fight terror.

Q: You (Pipes) say its the aim of the Palestinians to destroy Israel, but how can they improve their live under occupation and the substandard conditions? And what about the "Geneva Accords"?

A: Pipes dismissed the idea of the Geneva accords. Noted what he'd said before about Diplomacy, and said he sees no change in the Palestinan mindset about destroying Israel.

Q: In reference to the following quote [and only the quote] from a 1990 article in National Review (NRODT):

Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene---Source

A: Pipes notes that that was one quote taken very much out of context. It was written in 1990, right after the end of the Cold War--the collapse of communism. Pipes saw radical Islam as the next global threat (to replace communism).

Pipes tells people to read the next paragraph of the article. He says that the purpose of the quote was to show how the French and German perceived muslims at the time. Not Americans--Europeans, mainly the French and Germans. As for the part about hygine--Pipes simply said, look at the contrast in standards of hygine between the US and Germany. Then compare Germany and the Mid-East or Pakistan...that's all it was.

Then Pipes says something along the lines of, this is what happens when people takes clippings from CAIR and other readings..they never read the article in full (*crowd applauds*).

[Aside: See this page where Pipes responds to CAIRs challenges in detail]

Q: Another question about a quote...What about innocense before guilt? The quote in question was:

‘Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches, synagogues and temples"

--Source article

Pipes explained that the gov't has limited resources and should be scrutinicizing things that are ordinarilly suspect. Look at the Gitmo espionage case. The DoD eventually said it would rescreen all its chaplains, but it would take a while b/c it doesn't have the resources, rahter than just investigating its muslim chaplains (who are much much smaller in number).
[note: if you read the above article you'll see the rest of what Pipes basically said]

Pipes also argued that as a society were' becoming hyper-politically correct. We're not really serious about conducting the war on terror if we're gonna be this PC.

Q: Seeming that the second biggest terror attack on US soil was perpetrated by a Christian [OKC in '95 and Tim McVeigh] why not be equally stringent about Christian Fundimentalists?

A: Were there a campaign going back 24 years, I'd say to take more action against 'em.

Our country also isn't being very stringent about Muslims and terror. Look at the July 4, 2002 shooting at LAX. First it was criminal, then eventually the FBI reclassified it as terror. But the gov't was hesitant about doing so. They kept trying to downplay it as a disgruntled man See this column too

As for the KKK and anti-abortion groups, they're a problem Pipes notes. but they're not threat to the nation as a whole (on the same level as radical Islam). They aren't on the rise in number, nor do they have any state-sponsors for their actions.

Then returned to the "hygine" topic and said it had nothing to do with ideology.

Q: About the Patriot act: doesn't t suspend rights?

A: Get realistic (regarding our situation). We may need to moderate things, but only temporarilly, because if we don't and something happens, we could lose more rights.

*At this point in time, it's about 1:05-1:10PM and there's only time for 1 more question

So up to the microphone comes one of my least favorite professors. The head of the peace studies program. I wish I had the quote virbatim, but I'll have to make do with what I could get.

Q: Isn't it dangerous to characterize movements in such a binary fashion as being "good" or "bad"? And don't you think the previous actions of the US may have fed into odious feelings (of the terrorists)?

A: Pipes chuckles. [Then 10 students dressed in black, in front row, stand up, throw up some flyers and walk out of room. crowd starts to boo].

Then Pipes simply said that past American actions have nothing to do with it. Then he says: "militant Islam is an evil ideology and I hate it...and if that makes me binary, then I'm binary".

*Crowd erupts in applause, cheering, standing ovation. Gordies' students (a few) congregate around him. People are still clapping. Then crowd leaves the room (people have to get to class--like me)

Outside of Sherman there are ~10 protesters with signs saying "Impeach Pipes from US Institute of Peace", and another one with pictures of Pipes and Joe McCarthy and it mentions Campus Watch, then another sign saying "don't hate, tolerate". Most people just walk by ignoring it.

2003-11-23T02:38:00.000-05:00

The Weekly Standard Memo

Case Closed
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

The Saddam-Osama Memo (cont.)
A close examination of the Defense Department's latest statement.

and Hayes' response to Newsweek's criticism

2003-11-11T01:34:00.000-05:00

We Can't Quit Like Last Time

Yale Computer Science Professor and Contributing Editor to the Weekly Standard David Gelernter, who himself was a former anti-Vietnam War protester writes in the LA Times: Don't Quit as We Did in Vietnam

2003-11-08T21:27:00.000-05:00

The President's Speech

Here's a roundup of thoughts about President Bush's speech (text) this past Thursday at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy.

In addition, here's Andrew Sullivan's opinion on the speech.
Here's Kenneth Pollack (author of "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq") talking about the speech in an interview with CNN

2003-11-05T23:34:00.000-05:00

Rethinking an opinion on Iraq

From of all places, an Arab News columnist writes that he was wrong to oppose the war with Iraq.
[via Instapundit]

Note: Arab News is the English language website of the Saudi Arabian state run press
Brandeis Vanguard in no way endorses or approves the views expressed on this site

2003-11-05T23:29:00.000-05:00

Thank you France?

France: Much More Friend Than Foe? That's what this author asks.

2003-10-30T01:28:00.000-05:00

Were WMDs move to Syria?

The Washington Times (in addition to many other media outlets and wire services) is reporting that: Syria is[may be] Storing Iraq's WMDs

And on the topic of WMDs, here's Jonah Goldberg's latest column: Saddam responsible for WMD confusion

2003-10-28T19:59:00.000-05:00

Saddam ties to Terror and Preemption

From the November 3rd issue of the Weekly Standard:

Osama's Best Friend: The further connections between al Qaeda and Saddam.

and by Kenneth Adelman, former assistand to the Secretary of Defense; and former UN Embassador:

A War Casualty We Can't Afford

2003-10-27T15:37:00.000-05:00

Debunking Myths

I didn't watch the Democrat Debate last night (among other things, I lack the attention span to sit through it), but there were some interresting comments made. Blogger and Journalist Andrew Sullivan noted the following:

[On the Brits] They're part of a "fraudulent" coalition, according to the Senator from Massachusetts last night:

This president has done it wrong every step of the way. He promised that he would have a real coalition. He has a fraudulent coalition. He promised he would go through the United Nations and honor the inspections process. He did not. He promised he would go to war as a last resort, words that mean something to me as a veteran. He did not.

Some questions. How was the coalition "fraudulent"? Is going to the U.N., getting a resolution and trying extremely hard for a second resolution not going through the U.N.? Are twelve years of inspections not respecting the inspections process? Is John Kerry a serious candidate for the presidency of the United States?

Sullivan later points out, that minus Canada, the main players in the coalition were those that invaded Normandy

Also, apparently (at least) Clark repeated the "imminent threat" shpeil. However, the whole "imminent threat" line is a myth. Even the far-left editorial columnist to the Cleveland Plain Dealer (my hometown paper) admitted his error in this claim. Here's a story from the Washington times on it. And then there was Tony Snow fact checking Sen. Jay Rockefeller on October 13th on this very topic

2003-10-27T15:25:00.000-05:00

Articles on the War On Terror and Syria

From National Review Online:

Andrew Apostolou: The U.S. is winning.

Barbara Lerner: Syria should be in our sights (especially since we found a Syrian passport on a terrorist in Iraq today)

William F Buckley Jr.: Understanding Rummsfeld

Victor Davis Hanson: The Event of the Age

2003-10-16T16:39:00.000-04:00

About Iraq and the War on Terror

From President Bush's address in California

We made a pledge that day, and we have kept it. We are bringing the guilty to justice. We're taking the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

And now we see that enemy clearly. The terrorists plot in secret and target the innocent. They defile a great religion, and they hate everything this nation stands for. These committed killers will not be stopped by negotiations; they will not respond to reason. The terrorists who threaten America cannot be appeased. They must be found; they must be fought; and they will be defeated. (Applause.)

In this new kind of war, America is following a new strategy. We are not waiting for further attacks. We are striking our enemies before they can strike us again. (Applause.) We have taken unprecedented steps to protect the homeland. Yet wars are won on the offensive, and America and our friends are staying on the offensive. We're rolling back the terrorist threat -- not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power. (Applause.)

We have sent a message understood throughout the world: If you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist. And the Taliban found out what we meant. (Applause.) Thanks to a great military -- (applause) -- Afghanistan is no longer a haven for terror. The Afghan people are free. And the people of America are safer from attack. (Applause.)

And we fought the war on terror in Iraq. The regime of Saddam Hussein possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, sponsored terrorist groups, and inflicted terror on its own people. Nearly every nation recognized and denounced this threat for over a decade. Finally, the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 1441 demanded that Saddam Hussein disarm, prove his disarmament to the world, or face serious consequences. The choice was up to the dictator, and he chose poorly. (Laughter and applause.)

I acted because I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman. I was not about to stand by and wait and trust in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein. (Applause.) So our coalition acted in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history. And nearly six months ago, the statue of the dictator was pulled down. (Applause.)

Since the liberation of Iraq, our investigators have found evidence of a clandestine network of biological laboratories, advanced design work on prohibited longer-range missiles, and an elaborate campaign to hide illegal programs. There's still much to investigate. Yet it is now undeniable that Saddam Hussein was in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein was a deceiver and a danger. The Security Council was right to demand that Saddam Hussein disarm, and America was right to enforce that demand. (Applause.)

Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? Surely not the dissidents who would be in his prisons or end up in his mass graves. Surely not the men and women who would fill Saddam's torture chamber or rape rooms. Surely not the families of victims he murdered with poison gas. Surely not anyone who cares about human rights and democracy and stability in the Middle East. There is only one decent and humane reaction to the fall of Saddam Hussein -- good riddance. (Applause.)

Now our country is approaching a choice. After all the action we have taken, after all the progress we have made against terror, there is a temptation to think the danger has passed. But the danger has not passed. Since September the 11th, the terrorists have taken lives in Casablanca, Mombasa, Jerusalem, Amman, Riyadh, Baghdad, Karachi, New Delhi, Bali, Jakarta, and most recently American lives were lost by terrorist attack in the Gaza.

The terrorists continue to plot. They continue to plan against our country and our people. America must never forget the lessons of September the 11th. America cannot retreat from our responsibilities and hope for the best. Our security will not be gained by timid measures. Our security requires constant vigilance and decisive action. I believe America has only one option: We will fight this war against terror until it is won. (Applause.)

We are fighting on many fronts. Iraq is now the central front. Saddam holdouts and foreign terrorists are trying desperately to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos. The terrorists in Iraq believe their attacks on innocent people will weaken our resolve. They believe we will run from a challenge. They're mistaken. Americans are not the running kind. (Applause.)

The United States did not run from Germany and Japan following World War II. We helped those nations to become strong and decent and democratic societies that no longer waged war against America, that became our friends. That's our mission in Iraq today. We're rebuilding schools. We're repairing hospitals, restoring water and electricity, so the Iraqi people can live a normal life.

Americans are providing this help not only because our hearts are good, but because our vision is clear. A stable and democratic and hopeful Iraq will no longer be a breeding ground for terror, for tyranny and aggression. Free nations are peaceful nations. Our work in Iraq is essential to our own security. And no band of murderers and gangsters will stop that work or shake the will of America. (Applause.)

Nearly every day in Iraq, we're launching swift precision raids against the terrorists. Helped by intelligence from Iraqis, we're rounding up the enemy and we're taking their weapons, and we're working our way through the famous deck of cards. (Laughter.) We've already captured or killed 43 of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders. And the other -- (applause) -- and the other 12 have got a lot to worry about. (Laughter.) Anyone who seeks to harm our soldiers can know that our soldiers are hunting for them.

Our military is serving with courage, and some of the best have fallen. We mourn every loss. We honor every name. We grieve with every family, and we'll always be grateful that liberty has found such brave defenders. (Applause.)

In defending liberty we are joined by more than 30 nations now contributing military forces in Iraq. Great Britain and Poland are leading two multinational divisions. We're in that cause with fine allies, and we thank them. And that includes the good people of Iraq. Last week the first battalion of the new Iraqi army completed its training. Within the year, Iraq will have 40,000-member military force. Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens are guarding their own borders, they're defending vital facilities, and they're policing their own streets. Normal Iraqis want Iraq to be secure and peaceful. (Applause.)

Our goal in Iraq is to leave behind a stable, self-governing society which will no longer be a threat to the Middle East or to the United States. We're following an orderly plan to reach this goal. Iraq now has a Governing Council, which appointed interim government ministers. Once a constitution has been written, Iraq will move toward national elections. We want the process to go as quickly as possible, yet it must be done right. The free institutions of Iraq must stand the test of time.

Today, I want to thank the United Nations Security Council for unanimously passing a resolution supporting our efforts to build a peaceful and free Iraq. (Applause.) A democratic Iraq will stand as an example to all the Middle East. We believe, and the Iraqi people will show, that liberty is the hope and the right of every land. Our work in Iraq has been long, and it's hard. It is not finished. Since September the 11th, nearly 10,000 California National Guard soldiers and airmen have been mobilized for this effort; 16,000 are currently in the Middle East. They're playing a vital role for the defense of this nation. Our country is grateful to those who serve and their families who support them. (Applause.)

Americans have sacrificed in the cause of freedom and security, and that cause goes on. Beyond Iraq, the war on terror continues. There will be no quick victory in this war. But if we persevere, our victory is certain. I'm confident of that victory because I know the character of our military, shown in the conduct of young men like Joseph Robsky. He's a career soldier. He served with the Marines in Bosnia and saw the dangers of unexploded bombs; became an explosive ordnance disposal specialist with the Army's 759th Ordnance Company, based in California at Fort Irwin. Along with his unit, he was sent to Iraq. And on September the 10th of this year, he was killed disarming a bomb. Hear the words of his mother, Bonnie: My son always said he had a job to do. He said the terrorist has to be stopped.

Staff Sergeant Joe Robsky's devotion to his nation will not be forgotten. We'll always remember the words, terrorism must be stopped. (Applause.)

This war on terror has brought hardship and loss to our country, beginning with the grief of September the 11th. Let us also remember that the first victory in this war came on that same day, on a hijacked plane bound for the Nation's Capital. Somehow the brave men and women on Flight 93, knowing they would die, found the courage to use their final moments to save the lives of others. In those moments and many times since, terrorists have learned about America. They won't -- we won't be intimidated. We'll fight them with everything we got. Few are called to show the kind of valor seen on Flight 93, or on the field of battle. Yet all of us do share a calling: Be strong in adversity, and unafraid in danger.

We Americans have come through so much. We have much yet to do. If we're patient, united, and determined, our nation will prosper, and our nation will prevail.

2003-10-13T21:08:00.000-04:00

Why We Went to War
By Robert Kagan and William Kristol
All the evidence -- including Bill Clinton's testimony -- presented one last time.

2003-10-04T23:11:00.000-04:00

A question

This question/thought just popped into my mind (randomly), and I'm trying to make sense of it.

What exactly constitutes a Weapon of Mass distraction (WMD)? Is it the biological (e.g. Anthrax, botulism, Filovirii), chemical (Sarin, Vx), nuclear agent themselves, or is it when the aforementioned items loaded into a munition?

That's something I've really wondered about.

Why do I ask? Because of the Kay Report which says:

One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced

So does that count as a WMD discovery?

According to some in the State Dept. it does:

The vial of botulinum bacteria discovered in Iraq by U.S. arms inspectors – which experts call the most poisonous substance known to man – is "a weapon of mass destruction," the State Department's top spokesman announced yesterday.

"Botulinum kills people, it kills people in large quantities. Botulinum is a weapon of mass destruction, yes," said State spokesman Richard Boucher," according to an Agence France-Presse report. "Anything that destroys on a massive scale is a weapon of mass destruction."

[source WND]

So what exactly does constitute a WMD? Must it be loaded into a munition? Or can it be a "Stand alone" item.

2003-09-21T22:53:00.000-04:00

More on the State of Al-Queda

Whalid Phares' column this week discusses the State Al-Queda is in: Al-Qaida Is it gaining or withering

2003-09-13T23:58:00.000-04:00

Usama’s strategic reasons behind the attacks

Walid Phares discusses and examines Usama Bin Laden’s strategic reasons behind the attacks of 9/11; and the results.

The piece speaks for itself

2003-09-11T17:19:00.000-04:00

Why Terror Works

Here's an excerpt/synopsis from Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz's book "Why Terror Works"
(An aside: I read the book this summer, and it is an interesting and thought provoking read).

I recommend reading the article (and the book) as it spells out what we must do to win the war on terror.

Update: Sept. 18th at 6:30--Dershowiz will be speaking at Harvard (at Science Center D) about his new book: The Case For Israel. The first 25 students to walk in the door will get a free copy! Students with ID are Free! Non-Students: $5

2003-09-11T11:48:00.000-04:00

Today's Must Reads

VDH has another piece out: Who would believe how much weÂ’ve accomplished?

As do the rest of the folks over at NRO...Goo read it!

Over at FrontPage Mag:

Horowitz has an interesting piece: 9/11 and the "Anti-War" Left

A piece by Ben Johnson: Winning Is The Best Defense

Over at Town Hall

Suzanne Fields: Arming the human spirit to fight back

and at Opinion Journal:

By the Solicitor General of the US (whose wife was murdered on 9/11): 'We Shall Prevail'

Finally, from today's Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby reminds us that the war against the US predates 9/11/01

And while it doesn't count as "reading", Cox and Forkum have a must see cartoon

G-d Bless America

2003-09-10T11:10:00.000-04:00

Another must read

Read the following letter to the Justice by United We Stand member Len (last name temorarilly witheld) marking the second anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

2003-09-10T10:47:00.000-04:00

Two must read pieces

Christopher Hitchens's piece on Slate today, "Don't Commemorate Sept. 11"
Brendan Miniter's piece on OpinionJournal.com "Where were you?"

2003-09-07T15:45:00.000-04:00

Saddam's al Qaeda Connection

I meant to link to this article from the Weekly Standard a while ago, but I simply put off doing it. So in light of thiat, let me link to it now:
Saddam's al Qaeda Connection

(Citation: From the September 1 / September 8, 2003 issue: The evidence mounts, but the administration says surprisingly little. by Stephen F. Hayes 09/01/2003, Volume 008, Issue 48)

2003-09-05T11:49:00.000-04:00

September 11th--Patriot Day

[via Hootinan]

President Bush remembers September 11 by declaring September 11 ’Patriot Day’, a national day of prayer

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- With the two-year anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon less than a week away, President Bush has issued two presidential proclamations regarding September 11.

The first proclamation states that September 11, 2003 will be observed as a national day of prayer and remembrance. The second proclamation names September 11, 2003 as Patriot Day.

President Bush urges the American people to hold remembrance services and candlelight vigils on behalf of the victims of September 11. Additionally, flags across the United States and Puerto Rico will be flown at half-staff and a moment of silence will be observed to remember those who died during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan announced a series of events commemorating September 11 will be taking place next week involving Bush administration officials.

"September 11th is a somber day for remembrance, reflection, and prayer," McClellan said. "We will always remember and honor the victims of the horrific and brutal attacks of September 11th, 2001, and we will always ask for comfort for their loved ones."

Here's the formal proclomation from President Bush

And this weekend is the National Days of Prayer and Rememberance

2003-09-03T14:59:00.000-04:00

On Rebuilding Iraq

Professor Kanan Makiya (NEJS/IMES) has been appointed to a 25 member panel of Iraqis working to develop a new goverment for that country.
The Justice reports on this as well as Makiya's beliefs about what directions this new gov't should take

2003-08-27T11:43:00.000-04:00

Speaking of Jonah Goldberg

Speaking of Jonah Goldberg--here's a collection of his "best quotes" from the past year (June 21 '02-June 21 '03)

2003-08-27T11:40:00.000-04:00

Anti-Globalization equals Anti-Americanism

So says Jonah Goldberg in his latest syndicated column

2003-08-23T21:40:00.000-04:00

An Iraqi Columnist's opinion of Arab (and perhaps some American) Intellectuals

[via One Hand Clapping]

Iraqi columnist Khalid Kishtainy of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat writes of his bittnerness,

that, in the final analysis, the Palestinian intellectuals do not really care about the suffering of their people. Most of them live in fancy houses in the U.S. or Europe , [drive] luxury cars, and [send] their children to attend prestigious schools. And every time a solution to the Palestinian problem is proposed they say 'No' [and choose] steadfastness, sacrifice, and Shahada [martyrdom]. And who is the shahid [martyr]? Not any of their sons. Not at all. Rather, one of the children of the unfortunate [Palestinians]. . . .

The history of Palestine is an entire century of acts of idiocy by its intellectuals, of egotism, of arrogance, and of national foolishness, which tore their land to shreds and brought catastrophes upon their people. . . .

Dear [reader]… why not join me in condemning the Arab intellectuals

Then, turning his attention to Iraq,

If the coalition forces withdraw now and leave the country, the [various] leaderships in Iraq will crush each other, as they have been doing for 13 years – because they are incapable of arriving at any agreement among themselves. . . .

The coalition forces will not withdraw from Iraq until they complete their mission. They are in Iraq at the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, and their mission is a noble and blessed one. They strengthen their presence [in Iraq] every day, with forces from other countries [whose leaders have] grasped the nobility of the mission carried out by the coalition forces. This mission is to sow the seeds of legitimacy of rule and of law, to establish a democratic government, to liberate women from the slavery and backwardness to which they are subject, to spread transparency in [public] administration, and to spread rationality and the spirit of science in education and in defending human rights."

2003-08-22T17:37:00.000-04:00

We're back

(or at least I am) meaning tha Brandeis Vanguard is back for this school year! Hooray!
More comprehensive blogging will occur in the near future.

2003-06-22T15:11:00.000-04:00

"School's out for Summer"

For those who have been visiting the Brandeis Vanguard recently looking for new posts, our appologies for not posting, however, school is out for the summer....

Perhaps we'll post sporadically over here during the summer, but hopefully the fun will pick up again when school is back in session.

2003-05-15T12:50:00.000-04:00

Controversial Thoughts

Ban SUVs and drill for oil in the Artic.

School Choice: give each parent $7,000 to pay tuition at whatever school they want. Administration Choice: let anybody start a school, with no "accredation" or government control. Teacher Choice: let admnistrators hire and fire teachers based on whatever criteria they want. Student Choice: let schools admit and expel students based on whatever criteria they want.

File Sharing: it's illegal, it's immoral, and it's here to stay.

Libertarian Party: You have 12 months to get your heads out of the sand or I'm voting Republican. You were right when you said it's not the government's job to protect Americans from themselves. You're absolutely one-hundred-percent utterly dead pushing-the-daisies ex-parrot wrong when you claim it is not the goverment's job to protect Americans from foreign aggressors.

2003-05-15T01:42:00.000-04:00

Problem: Several nations in the UN have decided to oppose immediately lifting sanctions on Iraq
Solution: Lift sanctions *gasp* unilaterally. That's right. France's Elf doesn't want to buy Iraqi oil? Not a problem! Texaco will take care of any excess supply. Russia doesn't want to sell its vodka? (ok, I admit it, I have no clue what my native country exports except possibly vodka and pirated software) We have plenty of our own home brewed Smirnoff ready to ship!

Now here's a question: how do we make sure that the Iraqi people get the profit from their oil? If we just give out a portion of the profit to each citizen, it becomes a welfare program and would stiffle initiative. Using the money to pay for government expenses runs a huge risk for corruption - it would turn into the same fiasco as the UN oil for food program. Ideas?

2003-05-06T22:07:00.000-04:00

Saudi Arabia, beware of Turkey. Butterball Turkey. Looks like some scientist found a way to turn turkey guts (and almost any other type of garbage) into ... OIL! I don't know how credible this is - I spent a year in high school reading Discover, and every issue documented scientists and their miraculous inventions that would change the world. It's been four years, and I've seen only one self-powered vacuum cleaner - in a store window - with a hefty pricetag - and it didn't look like it could handle corners all that well. So maybe Discover isn't completely wrong all the time. Call it the DEBKA of science. (Hat tip little green footballs).

So, the point of this post: assume in that over the course of ten years, Miracle Turkey Oil Co builds enough factories to create as much oil as Saudi Arabia pumps in a year. What would happen?

2003-05-05T16:40:00.000-04:00

Knowing how much most of us like the United Nations, I thought that the following letter from the May 5, 2003 issue of the Boston Globe may entertain you:
The letter is: "What qualifies the United States to ''guide'' Iraq into democracy", and one of the arguments is: "Bush has spurned the United Nations, the most democratic revolution of all time"
(the rest of the letter is partisan foolishness, so I've omitted it).

The UN, as the "most democratic revolution of all time"? Is there someone out there who can explain this to me?

2003-05-03T18:09:00.000-04:00

For all the Concord Bridge fans out there, we just updated our website with content from the May issue. Six articles, a healthy dollop of Concord Bridge that's going to have to last you the summer...unless you have back issues of course. I'd like to point out my article, "Gulliver Unbound," which addresses the limits of multilateralism (with a nifty and unoriginal literary allusion in the title) and also the editorial I co-wrote with my esteemed co-editor Justin, "A Delicate Moment."

2003-04-30T23:53:00.000-04:00

So I'm bored and reading other people's blogs, and I just came across this from the Raving Atheist: looks like the guy running the blog was contacted by a Nigerian Scam artist, and scammed him in return - sending 12 letters demanding answers to increasingly strange theological questions.

2003-04-30T21:32:00.000-04:00

Just saw a beautiful exchange on a comment posted to Emperor Misha I realm:

Nah, my statement was more like, "Our government and society is much better than Cuba's, but has so many problems -- especially recently -- that any criticism we might make of Cuba is diminished by our own significant failures."
Posted by Kimmitt at April 30, 2003 12:43 PM

Much as noontime sunlight is diminished by a butterfly passing overhead.
Posted by JAGCAP at April 30, 2003 01:01 PM

Nobody suspects the pretty pretty butterfly!

2003-04-30T17:58:00.000-04:00

For all who are interested, the latest issue of Concord Bridge will be hitting the "news stands" over the next couple days. Some great pieces on the United States and multilateral institutions, among others. For those readers not at Brandeis, I'll be happy to mail an issue if you e-mail your mailing address to Concordbridge@brandeis.edu.

2003-04-27T02:03:00.000-04:00

Now that Iraq has all but been removed from the "Axis of Evil", many have wondered, who'se next [to fall off the axis]?

It look like the lucky winner may be...(drumroll)...Iran! No, not by the US military, but by its own population. According to this article from the Le Monde (via the Iran Press Service and Instapundit):
Iranian Regime worried by People's Pro-Americanism

The date to watch for appears to be July 9th, as this article from the NY Sun indicates

This will be an interesting even to monitor as it unfolds

2003-04-22T16:46:00.000-04:00

Hope everyone is having a nice break from school (that is if you attend Brandeis).

Just one fun little news item to share:

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations says that "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is the most memorable and oft-cited phrase from this war!

I think that a lot of the credit for this has to go to none other than Jonah Goldberg of the Nat'l Review.

2003-04-16T03:08:00.000-04:00

On a much lighter note:
Tourist boycott smacks French, 'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys' factor deters Americans, Brits from sightseeing and this is also in the Wash. Postand they're getting hurt in the wine and cheese deprartments. I'm sure Jonah Goldberg will be elated when he reads this news....

President Chirac also called President Bush today, the first time the two have spoken in two months. I wonder what was discussed.

2003-04-15T17:58:00.000-04:00

For all those who said Iraq didn't support or harbor terrorists, here's some news:

Abu Abbas, Palestinian terrorist convicted of 1985 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking and murder, captured by U.S. troops in Iraq
Abbas was convicted for the murder of Leon Klinghoffer (a disabled US citizen) on the Achille Lauro
(Note: the story is still developing in the media)

Abbas was involved with the PLF a PLO group, most recently based in Iraq, responsible for terrorist attacks against Israel. (follow the link to the ICT profile on the group)

This is a major victory in the war on terrorism

2003-04-14T16:36:00.000-04:00

So there's now a vacancy in the Axis of Evil (more or less) with Iraq mainly out of the picture. So, who if anyone deserves Iraq's spot?
I'm personally thinking that both the Syrians and the Saudis are in the running for this distinction. A very brief (and by no means comprehensive list of reasons) include for each country:

Syria: Occupation of Lebanon, Support of Hizbullah (responsible for the deaths of 200+ Americans), support of other terror groups (too many to list), believed to posess chemical weapons, likely hiding Iraqi criminals.

Saudi Arabia: The main terror funder. Source of extremist Wahabism (type of Islam), 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, paid off Bin Laden in '98 to go to Afghanistan and not to attack their kingdom, exporter of extremist ideologies.

What does everyone think? Should they both go into the axis?

2003-04-13T17:54:00.000-04:00

Speaking of the rebuilding of Iraq (I know Tobias wanted responses to his post), here's a piece by Professor Kanan Makiya (bio), who is a professor in the NEJS department, titled: A Model for Post-Saddam Iraq (which he wrote for the American Enterprise Institute back in October).

He also wrote an op-ed for the Globe and Mail (Canada) on April 10th titled: This way to the promised land

I've only skimmed the pieces for now (lack of time), but they look very interesting, and they do provide a good blueprint for post-Saddam Iraq.

2003-04-12T22:27:00.000-04:00

I've been meaning to post something for a while now, but unfortunately, I've been under the weather recently (fortunately, I'm getting better now).
I came across this piece from the BBC: Decoding Iraq's symbols of celebration
This article gives an explanation of many of the events we are currently seeing on TV, as the Iraqi people celebrate their new-found freedom, and also provides an interesting glimpse into the practices of other cultures.

2003-04-11T23:12:00.000-04:00

I just want to point out that the Concord Bridge Magazine site (www.concordbridge.org; also link on the sidebar) finally has content on it. Nothing fresh, just selections from our most recent issue, but there should be new articles soon, as we're working on a new issue.

2003-04-11T18:19:00.000-04:00

From the latest entry in Kanan Makiya's War Diary at the New Republic Online: "Baathism died in Iraq yesterday. The sight of the oversized bronze head of Saddam rolling in the dust and being beaten with shoes by exuberant Iraqis is perhaps the most important image of Iraqi politics of the last 50 years. It was the end of the republic of fear. Two Iraqis with whom I was camping out in Washington, D.C., woke me up at 5 a.m. yesterday so we could watch the images of a free Iraq. Tears rolled down our cheeks uncontrollably."

I can only speak for myself, but this is the first time that I have seen a nation liberated and comprehended it in all its glory. I was too young to appreciate the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Eastern bloc, but now I see the preciousness of freedom. It is astounding to think that most Iraqis are experiencing their first days of life without having to fear torture and death at the hands of Saddam, without having to fear the door being kicked in in the middle of the night, without having to fear conscription into the Iraqi army and near-certain death in combat with the many enemies Saddam made for himself. Watching the jubilation of a nation freed certainly gives one greater appreciation of what we enjoy here.

I wish Makiya and his co-nationals the very best of luck in building a free nation.

2003-04-10T23:32:00.000-04:00

Given that the campaign has come to the brink of victory (only the brink, however--let's not be too hasty) so quickly, I'm interested in hearing what Vanguard's various bloggers think the appropriate shape of the postwar Iraqi government should be. I'm convinced that assigning a transition chief (Garner) is probably a good idea. We don't necessarily want a Macarthur, who posed as a figure superior to the emperor, but rather a bureaucrat to prepare Iraq for true statehood, to bind its wounds and ease the way for an indigenous government.

Beyond that, however, I think we need to be very careful about the rush to democracy. A democratic Iraq should be a medium- to long-term goal, but the republic v. democracy distinction is very important at this point. A hastily prepared democratic government may lack the ability to affect necessary change and state building, while being susceptible to ethnic and religious fissures. As usual, I lean towards republican institutions. In the aftermath of totalitarianism, what might be best are well-insulated institutions that allow postwar leaders to implement the necessary reforms, preventing distractions associated with the short time horizons of democratic politics. Iraq needs, dare I say, a Charles de Gaulle, a dominant statesman willing to do whatever is required to build up Iraq. A republic, with less concern for elections and more concern for protecting rights and getting the national economy on a proper footing, would put Iraqi statehood on a solid footing and provide an appropriate example for reformers in other nations in the Middle East.

Thoughts anyone?

2003-04-10T20:48:00.000-04:00

Mira-
Just to clear a few things up, this is Pride Month (not that I am involved) but so there are GLBT related events going on all month. Today was Silence Day, which recognized the silence that GLBT people had to deal with. Students (including a friend of mine) volunteered to not talk the entire day to recognize this. (I don't know how he pulled it off). At the end of the day, the planned on talking about their experiences during the day and what it has meant for some people to be quiet like this about their views and feelings througout their lives.

2003-04-10T17:25:00.000-04:00

While walking around campus today, I noticed a guy with a white gag over his mouth. Is there some "day of silence" going on? The GBLT (forgive me for any ommitted letters) events were last week, no anti-war protests that I know of, and it's too simple for our Festival of the Arts (featuring Boy In A Fishtank). So what is it? Keep Quiet About Iraqis Celebrating Their Freedom Day? Liberals Be Quiet Day? It's A Beautiful Spring Day So I Will Wear A Silly Rag Over My Mouth Day? Beware of SARS Day? Anybody know anything about this?

2003-04-10T10:07:00.000-04:00

An excellent article (registration required) in the Wall Street Journal today about the intense bureaucratic war between Defense and State over the future of Iraq, and, essentially, the future of American foreign policy. It's not necessarily a new fight by any means, but should State win, (Saudi) stability would have greater priority than Iraqi freedom.

We are not fighting so that Prince Abdullah can sleep easily; we are fighting so that the Iraqis and us can sleep easily.

An excerpt:

"State's Near East Affairs Bureau has always been a force for preserving the region's despotic status quo. And now that Saddam's regime is on the way out, NEA bureaucrats would prefer to see him replaced by ex-Baathists more amenable to their friends in the Saudi and Egyptian foreign ministries. We're not saying the U.S. should anoint Mr. Chalabi or any individual as the next Iraqi leader. But State and the CIA seem less afraid of Saddam than of real democrats who could set a new example and exert pressure for change throughout the Middle East."

2003-04-09T23:37:00.000-04:00

Just heard this on Fox News: angry Iraqis chased the Al-Jazeera TV crew out of Iraq - all the way from Baghdad to the Kuwaiti border.

2003-04-09T12:01:00.000-04:00

Wow.....what a sight these videos from Iraq have been. Fox is also showing spontaneous parades in Dearborne, MI, which has one of the biggest Iraqi exile populations in the US. People are jumping, dancing, chanting, horns are honking like crazy, as people wave US and Iraqi flags (it's important to note that these Iraqi flags are the ones from the pre-Saddam Iraq).

My one question for now: what happened to ~~our comic relief~~ the Iraqi Info Minister (a.k.a. Baghdad Bob)? I wonder...did he see the Americans in Baghdad finally?

2003-04-09T11:31:00.000-04:00

I saw a group of men attack a statue of Saddam with a sledgehammer. It was like the famous scene of people attacking the Berlin Wall. Fourteen years ago, we learned that people in Eastern Europe wanted freedom as much as those in the West. Today we see that Iraqis want it too.

2003-04-09T10:57:00.000-04:00

The statue has just fallen in Baghdad; and the (extremely happy liberated) Iraqis are dancing on the fallen body.
I think that Britt Hume had the best quote so far: "I wonder what Dominique De Villepin and Jaques Chirac think about this" heh.

"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women" -- Ronald Reagan

2003-04-09T10:54:00.000-04:00

I just watched an American tank pull down a statue of Saddam while a crowd of Iraqis watched and cheered. I want to see my anti-war friends scoff at the the name 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' now.

2003-04-09T09:10:00.000-04:00

Liberation Day in Iraq, finally the War is just about over. A little humor to add to this very happy day. All the stations were showing shots of Saddam Husseins statue, (which I presume they are about to take down). Then I go to CBS and it wasn't a whole lot different. They decided to go to Martha Stewart. At least you can't listen to Saddam's statue talk!

2003-04-09T01:59:00.000-04:00

Regarding the "Bush Doctorine: here's an interesting symposium on the "Bush Doctorine", featuring James Woolsey, James Lindsay, VDH and David Brumberg.
(Note: this symposium took place in October 2002, so it may be a little "out dated", but is an interesting read nevertheless

2003-04-08T13:18:00.000-04:00

Hey look everyone! Gordie responded to my letter in the Justice!
(Warning: be sure you're not drinking/eating anything when you read Gordie's letter, as you may accidentally spit it out).

This letter of his definitely deserves a fisking, and I think I'll even write a response to it (to the Justice). The fisking will come later this week; as I'm over my head in work right now (and suffering from major sleep-deprivation as a result).

I'm starting to think that Gordie sounds a lot like Baghdad Bob, no?

2003-04-08T02:27:00.000-04:00

One of the big claims of the anti-war movement was that Iraq had no ties to terror. Sean Hannity termed these people the "ostrich brigades" as a result, because their heads appeared to be burried in the ground.

Well, once again, the anti-war protesters have been proven wrong. See this story and the follow up to it (here regarding the finding of a "Palestine Liberation Front" (PLF) Bomb making factory in Iraq. Couple this with the terror training camp found at Salam Pak and I'd say that's material support of terror, wouldn't you?

Finally, is it just me, or does anyone else think that the "Iraqi Minister of Information" (a.k.a. Baghdad Bob) is unable to tell the truth? As Jonah Goldberg described him: "He seems like an Iraqi michael moore on the atkins diet"

2003-04-07T23:04:00.000-04:00

I don't believe it. Someone is actually unhappy that the US managed to rescue Pfc. Lynch. Got to love the London Tabloids. (Via Diana Moon).

2003-04-07T22:50:00.000-04:00

During tonight's meeting, we discussed renaming food to make it more patriotic. All food. Even food produced by American companies. Some of the cheaper and more accessible items will be served at the America Party on April 30th (shameless plug). We thought of:

American Pie
Freedom Fruit
Constitution Cola
USprite

Ok, the last two I thought of as I was walking back from the meeting. Does anyone else have any ideas?

2003-04-07T16:53:00.000-04:00

While we're on the topic of the military/armed forces, let me first (once again) express my support for all troops.
Here's a link that some of you may find interesting, here's the section on military technology from "How Stuff Works" It explains the technology that we see in action in simple terms.
I personally think that it's really neat and facinating.

Also, Tobias has pointed out an interesting article over at NRO, and he touches on the topic of "collegiality". Forgive me for this self promotion, but I wrote a piece on this topic, titled "Campuses Neeed True Free Speech" back in November 2002 for the Brandeis Free Press. In it I discussed the issue of 'collegiality' and I also discussed the website Campus Watch by the Mid-East Forum (whose members include Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, Whalid Phares and other scholars) that monitory bias in Mid-East studies in academia (It's an interesting site).

2003-04-07T14:44:00.000-04:00

Speaking of the Cavalry, I believe the distinction between Cavalry and Infantry is one of speed. The army has both armored and air cavalry units, whose job is to get into the field faster than the infantry, which is explicitly "heavier" and is slower to deploy. The book to read is Tom Clancy's Armored Cav, which explores life in a cavalry unit quite thoroughly. Cavalry historically was a matter of using horses to get to the battle faster than foot soldiers, but not necessarily fighting on horseback (though that happened, of course).

Great article on NRO today about new hiring policies for academia by Candace de Russy, a member of SUNY's board of trustees. She notes, "The choice of new faculty members is now commonly driven by the prejudices of those academics making the selection — not by how qualified the applicants are to uphold the truth as teachers or researchers. Hiring is furthermore influenced by something called 'collegiality,' which is a code word for whether the attitude of the applicant — that is, regarding Left-wing causes and social transformation — is to the liking of the committee." That's exactly what I think needs to happen. We don't need to explicitly hire conservatives per se, but simply people who think independently, or at least let their students think independently without penalizing them for it.

2003-04-07T14:33:00.000-04:00

Just saw some incredible pics of US soldiers in Saddam's palace on Rachel Lucas' Blog. Also, some showing our troops' living conditions. I hope Saddam has some big mattresses in that palace....

2003-04-07T12:12:00.000-04:00

Just watching Fox News - they say there is a popular uprising in Baghdad. If this is true, and let's hope it is, I have a strong suspicion it was inspired by the 3rd Infantry's run through Baghdad! I saw some of the video by a Fox News reporter (of the 3rd Infantry). They just rode through in this long column. They're now camped out in one of Saddam's presidential palaces, and jawsblog (i.e. Josh) is reporting that the troops are using Saddam's showers (Fox News says they're also using the marble toilets). Go troops! This is so amazing. And it's only been 19 days.

Oh, and here's a random question: why do the Infantry and the Cavalry both ride tanks? I understand why it doesn't make much sense for the Infantry to march all the way through Iraq and why horses are no longer practical on the battlefield, but why are they called Infantry and Calvalry? Shouldn't they be called Tankantry or Automotivetry? Why is there still a distinction between an infantry and a calvalry?

2003-04-07T11:26:00.000-04:00

For those of you who haven't already seen this, Evan Maloney has some great videos of anti-war protesters. The latest one covers Peace, Love, & Anti-Semitism at rallies. I'm going to miss Brandeis' T1 line.

2003-04-06T23:23:00.000-04:00

Speaking of exchanges, Secretary of State Colin Powell appears to have taken a few interview tips from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a recent interview with German TV. Among some of the key quotes:

Question: ...What many people in Europe will hear, through your words, is this is how the new partition of labor will be: America is looking for its Allies, is going its course with or without Allies, any number that’s available, and be it zero. And then the U.N.’s role is to go in as a good Samaritan and clean up the mess. That’s all they can do. America is already looking at its next destination.

SECRETARY POWELL: That’s absurd. It’s an absurd, simplistic, shorthand response to what people think we’re doing.

Now there were some members of the Council who said, “We’ll veto anything.” And there were others of us who felt we must move forward. We must remove this danger to the world. Especially this regime that developed weapons of mass destruction and might actually allow some of these weapons to fall in the hands of terrorists. We will not apologize for this. We believe that we did what is right and we recognize that there is a great deal of opinion, especially in Europe, that thinks this was not the right approach. But I hope we will change this opinion, when everybody sees that after this conflict we’re not leaving it to be swept up by the United Nations. We are going to work with the United Nations and work with the international community. And guess who will be the major contributor, who will pay the most money to help the Iraqi people to get back on their feet. It will be the United States, as always. Europeans --

QUESTION: So you are paying the most money? Then that’s a promise?

SECRETARY POWELL: Europeans, especially Germans, should recognize the American record, our history. Our history is not one of getting involved in conflicts just for the sake of it. We get involved in conflicts because there are major issues at stake that have to be resolved, unfortunately, by force of arms. But when you look at our history for the last sixty years, every time we found ourselves in this position, we did not just get up and walk away. We did everything we could to put in place a better system, a better society, than that which we had to go in and fight. And we will do it again this time.

And regarding who will be in charge of post-war Iraq:

But as I said, and I’ve said this several times, the coalition that went in, that was willing to put at risk its young men and women, and lost lives, paid a great amount of money to conduct this campaign and also paid a political price for this campaign as well. We are committed to making sure that that sacrifice and that investment is not lost. We believe we have to play a very significant, perhaps a leading role, in order to make sure what replaces this corrupt, rotten regime is a democratic system that is responsive to the needs of its people and will reflect all of the people of Iraq, and will use the treasure of Iraq, its oil, to invest in the people and not invest in weapons of mass destruction.

The transcript of this interview can be found here

2003-04-06T22:34:00.000-04:00

I agree entirely about Michael Kelly. The world needs more honest and cogent thinkers like him, people who relish debate and who seek the good fight. I am reminded of the famous Theodore Roosevelt quote:

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

In peacetime, Kelly was among our foremost "critics," a man whose pen was a weapon in service of his wisdom and passion. When war came, he went into the field to put that pen at the service of the truth, to keep the world informed. He was there at the front, in the heat of the fight, not content to wait behind while history roared past. He will be missed.

I also want to link to an exchange between Daniel Cohn-Bendit, 1968er and current head of the Green Party in the European Parliament, and Richard Perle, national security intellectual and the man the anti-war left loves to hate. It includes this choice Perle quote:

"If my prediction—that everything will go well with Iraq—becomes reality, then the damage recently done to trans-Atlantic relations will rapidly be repaired. We will still have the problem of French ambitions to build a Europe in opposition to the United States. And if the French are indeed creating a counterweight, do not call their relationship with the United States an alliance anymore. In that case we, as Americans, will have to consider how we deal with this European departure from the trans-Atlantic axis."

2003-04-06T20:10:00.000-04:00

Just wanted to commend the LA Times reporter on writing a well balanced and honest article about United We Stand and both sides of the issue here at Brandeis. But like Josh said, Gordie should be providing reporters with accurate and unbiased information if reporters are going to report accurate and unbiased information. I think he was trying to sugarcoat our story with his spin...don't you. I heard from my cousin at Penn State and he couldn't believe that protesters were actually blocking kids from going to class on the first day of war. Also, lets take a moment to remember and mourn the deaths of Michael Kelly and David Bloom, as well as the rest of the troops that have given the ultimate sacrifice.

2003-04-06T18:48:00.000-04:00

This is why Iraq can't have nice things

Coalition forces found Mustard Gas and Cyanide dumped into the Euphrates river. The head of the Iraqi Information Ministry explained, "at first we wanted to release the gas into the air, where it would be harder to detect, but then decided there would be less enviromental consequences if we poured it all into the drinking water." He then went on to explain that "Coalition forces are no where near the Euphrates river, the Euphrates river has been moved to make it harder to detect, and coalition forces camped at the Euphrates river have suffered a tremendous defeat." He also warned the coalition not to be surprised if it finds itself up against women dressed as the Euphrates river. As the reporters left the press conferences, he was heard shouting "this whole war is a figment of the Amerikkkkkkan media's imagination!"

2003-04-06T00:56:00.000-05:00

Bernard Lewis, noted (if not the premier) scholar of Islam and Middle Eastern History, has written a piece in today's edition of the Opinion Journal titled: "Why Iraqis were slow to embrace their liberators.". It is a very interesting read.

A quote from the piece which I feel like sharing:

Their [the Iraqi people's] understandable caution was further reinforced by the strong and vocal opposition to the war around the world and more especially in the United States. This manifested itself in many ways and, under their very eyes, in the mostly critical questioning of the military by the media in the press briefings taking place on their doorstep.

For us in the West, this is the normal free debate of an open society. But Iraqis, both rulers and ruled, have had no experience of any such thing since the overthrow of the parliamentary regime and the establishment of the dictatorship almost 50 years ago. What they believe they see is indecision, hesitation, even weakness and fear.

The public debate against the war will be similarly understood--or rather misunderstood--both by Saddam Hussein and by his subjects, and will have the unintended effect of encouraging him and discouraging them. The antiwar campaign will not end the war, but it may turn out to have made it longer and harder.

Take that Gordie...

Speakin of Bernard Lewis, it appears that he's released a new book! It's titled "The Crisis Of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror". (Just in case anyone was interested).

2003-04-05T18:05:00.000-05:00

I've disagreed with every single column that Ellen Ratner, Liberal & Proud, has written, except this one. Interesting view of the role of embedded journalists. My favorite quote:

I think the biggest benefit of embedded reporters is to humanize a sector of America too long demonized by many of my friends on the left, lots of who came up in life as 1960s anti-war protesters.

2003-04-05T16:52:00.000-05:00

Interesting article in the New York Times today about how professors are more vocally anti-war than students. It mentions students who have publicly criticized professors for postponing or canceling classes in order to go protest. Sounds like a good idea to me.

2003-04-04T20:46:00.000-05:00

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:59:43 -0800 (PST)
From: StudentsforProtectingAmerica
Subject: Rally this Saturday the 5th

For those of you who are interested, Students for Protecting America is helping to organize a "Support the Troops" rally, along with the Northeastern College Republicans and other groups at 12:00 noon this Saturday, April 5th at the Boston Common across from the State House. Please join us and/or tell others who would be interesting in coming. Thank you.

Brett Joshpe

NOTE: There is a commuter rail train that leaves Brandeis at 10:30. You can take it to Porter Square, then go to Park St. on the red line. Boston Common is near by.

2003-04-04T01:56:00.000-05:00

Good News! The Brandeis Alumnas (she got a doctorate in Neuroscience here in 2001) who is suspected of being a member of Al-Queda operative has been caught in Pakistan! Apparently, KSM gave the FBI her name

2003-04-04T00:35:00.000-05:00

Regarding the LA Times article, there was another little problem...my last name was misspelled (I guess that's a draw-back of having a hard to pronounce last name).

Moving on, as I type this post, Saddam International Airport has just come under coalition control! Semper Fi! I think that the airport is due for a renaming, no? Anyone have any suggestions? (Update: Sky News is reporting that it's been renamed "Baghdad Int'l Airport")

I just wanted to share this article by Bernard Lewis, one of the most renown scholars on the Middle East (he spoke here at Brandeis last semester; did anyone else attend his talk?), and author of the book What Went Wrong). His opinion piece in the National Post (Canada) is called: Saddam's regime is a European import The piece is very inreresting, as Lewis traces the rise of Saddam's regime to the French surrender to the Nazis in 1940. Syria and Lebanon remained under Vichy control, and as such, became bases for the Nazis to do whatever they wanted, which included the spreading of their ideology and propaganda. I reccomend reading the article (as well as other works by Lewis)

Finally, I just wanted to share this letter to the editor, from a soldier based in Qatar which ran in today's Boston Globe--the subject: "war protesting comes at a price".....and this price is playing into the hands of Saddam (even if this was not the intention of the protester).

2003-04-03T21:32:00.000-05:00

I was going to post this as a comment‚ but it turned into a mini-screed so I figured it deserved its own post.

Regarding the LA Times article: I really found most of Gordie's comments quite insulting. It's nice to know he has such little respect for a generation of students he's supposedly helping to educate.

"These are not people with a fully developed sense of citizenship"? I suppose citizenship to Gordie is thinking and doing what he believes is right. Sorry Gordie‚ I prefer to decide these things for myself. To me‚ that is true - and fully developed - citizenship.

2003-04-03T20:56:00.000-05:00

Just found this via instapundit: Kim Jong il has a blog, complete with excerpts from top secret IM conversations with Bush.

2003-04-03T19:03:00.000-05:00

The Department of Defense has an incredible story how an Iraqi family risked their lives to save Pfc. Jessica Lynch, the former POW.

An Iraqi lawyer went to the hospital to visit his wife. When he saw Pfc. Lynch being tortured, he said: "My heart stopped ... I knew then I must help her be saved. I decided I must go to tell the Americans."

Over the course of the next few days, the lawyer made several 10km round trips on foot, sometimes through battlefields, to give vital information to the US Marines. He and his wife also risked their lives making detailed maps of the hospital where Pfc. Lynch was held. Their kindness and bravery is incredible. If there is any sort of medal that can be given to foreigners, they deserve it.

2003-04-03T18:00:00.000-05:00

News from the flag waving jingoist front: while shopping for a flag at Victory today, I saw an article saying that the Waltham Town Council has passed a resolution in support of our troops and is planning to send care packages. They will be collecting items at Victory and several other places around town. Take that Bezerkly!

Speaking of flag waving jingoism, Harvard Law school is holding a rally this Saturday at 1:30 in front of the State House. I'm taking the 12:14 commuter rail. Anybody care to join me?

2003-04-03T15:16:00.000-05:00

Comments on the article about UWS in the LA Times

An introductory asside, Mrs. Mehren (the reporter) should be commended for doing a good job on her reporting in this article. The comments that I have about the article are in no way a cricism of her, rather, it is about some of the "misinformation" which she was fed by other individuals. We'd also like to thank her and the photographer for coming out to the campus to interview us.

First off, while the article said that UWS was an unofficial club isn't an error. At the time of the interview, we were only a "recognized" club, bus last Sunday we were formally chartered by the student Senate, so we're now an official club here at Brandeis (hooray!). This is a minor detail.

Now on to some of Professor (Gordy) Fellman's claims...it looks like it'll be time for a Fisking (click the link for a definition)

"At a campus rally when war erupted in Iraq, about 500 students "drifted in and out," said Brandeis sociology professor Gordon Fellman".
This is an incorrect figure, as the Waltham News Tribune, who was at the rally, reported only 200 students. while the Justice estimated between 150-200. Is Gordie trying to claim that all the people who were passing through Rabb were ralliers? (Note: for non-Brandeis visitors, Rabb is the major humanities quad; look at the map. He must be using what MIra termed "math for sociologists"...

"Because the United We Stand presence accounted for just "five or six people," Fellman said it would be more accurate to call the group "Divided We Stand.""

Gordie seems to forget that many of our supporters were in class at the time of their rally (10:30AM--1PM). Our supporters and members value their education. As for our numbers counter-rallying ranged from 1-10 (depending on the time), plus we had people at the table in Usdan. So Gordy, would you like to propose anothe name?

"Phrases like 'United We Stand' make it sound like there is consensus on this issue, and there is not," said Fellman, who also directs the university's peace studies program. "I understand it rhetorically, but I do not find it useful."

Professor Fellman is right that there isn't concensus on this campus, and the same with the nation; however, he seems to forget that the majority of the US population stands united against terrorism, dictators and the like. We also stand united for the values for which this country stands. By the way, why is this name not useful?

In any case, Fellman said, no single group could encompass the views of students "who seem mostly to be sitting this one out."

Okay, I'm actually gonna agree with Fellman here, there is a lot of apathy on this issue. However, how many students do you think there are who are afraid of exrpressing their opinion for fear of retribution?

"Voting is not that big with this generation either," Fellman said. "These are not people with a fully developed sense of citizenship."

Huh? I don't quite understand this quote...can anyone please explain it to me? I know that I vote, as do many of my peers...I'm just gonna shrug my shoulders on this one.

moving on from Gordie, I just want to correct the information presented by the anti-war crowd:

...[the] president of the Brandeis Anti-War Coalition, said her organization passed out yellow ribbons too -- along with black ribbons to symbolize "mourning for anyone who dies in this war."

Just for the record, it should be known that these yelllow ribbons that they passed out were ones that they took from us. And as for the black ribbons, I've heard a myriad of different reasons for them, but I won't open that can of worms.

Finally, on a positive note, one other little oversight in the article, where it said:

He also handed out ribbons for students to pin to their backpacks to show their backing for U.S. troops in Iraq

I just want to say, that I can't take credit for this effort. There were many people who volunteered and helped out at the table. As such, though the article says "he", the credit belongs to the members of the organization--not to me. Great job everyone! It was a GREAT DISPLAY!

Oh, and I almost forgot to say, my mom isn't quite a "crafts aficionado", rather, we just happen to have a lot of ribbon in our basement back home...why? I don't quite know.

2003-04-03T13:54:00.000-05:00

Iraq Deploys New Camouflage Gear

Branvanguard's top reporter, Robert Fisk (who is a verb), reports that "Saddam's masters of concealment" have invented a new camouflage technology, known as Weakly Armored Regiments Concealed by Recruited Indigent Minituarized Elements, also known as WARCRIME. Fisk has seen an example of the WARCRIMEs in action and reports that the unilateralist coalition is sure to be routed when faced by "children jumping over a farm wall beside a concealed military radio shack." Our scientists belive that these WARCRIMEs are impervious to RADAR, SONAR, and even the best Amerikkkkkkan night vision goggles. An anonymous Pentagon official reports that he is "shocked [and awed] by the use of WARCRIMEs." Actually, he only said "shocked" but we had to insert "and awed" to tie this post to the official motto of Gulf War II: "we will, we will shock and awe you."

Note: no politicians were saddened in the writing of this post.

2003-04-03T11:07:00.000-05:00

"United We Stand" is featured in today's edition of the LA Times!
(Commentary on the article will be come later this afternoon)

2003-04-03T01:47:00.000-05:00

Doing busy work all day got to me, so I had to release some pent-up energy. Is there a better way to do expend some of this excess energy than Fisking items from this week's issue of the Justice?

I've taken the liberty of performing a through Fisking of the letter "The real March Madness is in Iraq, not basketball"
and
Patriotism has run amok in America.
(click the links to go to the Fiskings)

In unrelated news, the De Genova issue over at Columbia continues to make headlines, as apparently Professor De Genova failed to appear for his lectures today. Furthermore, it appears that one of his students is planning on becoming a Marine, and she is not happy with her professor's remarks. Instapundit has the complete wrap up

Speaking of Instapundit, Glenn has posted a series of satellite images of Baghdad which are really neat to look at.

Finally, the US Marine 3rd Infantry Division has just crossed the Euphrates River over in Iraq! Semper Fi!

2003-04-02T22:15:00.000-05:00

I want to point out an article in the Financial Times about Jacques Delors's views on the Iraq war (link courtesy of Daniel Drezner). For those of you keen on European and European Union politics, Delors is a former president of the European Commission and before that Francois Mitterrand's finance minister. He was a key instigator of economic and monetary unification (read: the euro), and to Margaret Thatcher, father of contemporary supranational bureaucratic euro-socialism. I only point this article out because you know things are topsy-turvy when someone of his background criticizes Chirac for going too far. Naturally he has some kind of an agenda, as the article hints at, namely the expansion of the European Union. But interesting nevertheless.

2003-04-02T19:37:00.000-05:00

I really dislike the article Patriotism has run amok in America.

I've gotten used to people being upset at seeing American flags in America; what continues to astound me is that these people don't understand the importance of symbols. They let other people know where you stand, and seeing lots of the same symbol being displayed prominently creates a comforting feeling of solidarity among people who believe in the values the symbol represents. Symbols, like the American flag, yellow ribbons, and ads for freedom fries do not physically alter the world or provide material benefit to America. They do provide a psychological and morale benefit. It feels nice to see people wearing ribbons and displaying flags on campus.

Publicly displayed symbols also have a some influence on public policy. Citizens in a democracy make a concerete impact on how their government is run only once every few years - though elections. The outcome of elections is determined by on public opinion. As a result, politicians are sometimes swayed by what they perceive public opinion to be. People are also influenced by the general attitudes of other people around them - if a lot of people believe something, it would start to seem normal and more acceptable, therefore creating a bandwagon effect. How do politicians and the general public judge what people think? The most accurate way is polls. Yet seeing the people around you display the symbols of a certain cause is a visual, and therefore more compelling "proof."

So wear your ribbons and wave your flags, folks! I hope that on matters of national security our leaders doesn't care about public opinion, but in case they do, let them know where you stand. Waving a flag shouldn't be the only thing we do - but it does have a role in promoting our point of view.

2003-04-02T18:12:00.000-05:00

So after a few weeks of balanced reporting and decently informed foum articles‚ The Justice has more than its share of anti-war screeds--um‚ I mean articles--this week. However‚ the only one that made me want to throw the paper across the room was this letter from a grad student about the patriotism at March Madness. Maybe someone else can write a reasoned response‚ or maybe just a fun Fisking‚ because all I can do right now is grit my teeth and say "Grr...."

2003-04-02T16:21:00.000-05:00

News from Lexis Nexis via blogs of war:

There is an almost universal conviction in the Arab street, echoed by many influential politicians, that after defeating Iraq the U.S. will target Syria next, possibly Iran, and eventually Saudi Arabia. Speaking to reporters yesterday, Saud became one of the first senior Arab leaders to repudiate that local theory

Don't kid yourself, prince Saud. If Saudi Arabia does not clean up its act soon (and by soon I mean by the end of Gulf War II), it will be facing "regime change" itself. The US does have a list, and after our encouter with a certain 15 Saudi citizens, there is no reason to think that Saudi Arabia is last on that list.

2003-04-02T15:43:00.000-05:00

Good news everyone! Coalition forces rescue POW Pfc. Jessica Lynch. Strange how you don't hear about Iraqis trying to rescue their prisoners of war - or whether Iraqi POWS want to be "rescued".

2003-04-02T15:04:00.000-05:00

Rather than post in the comments section, I figured I'd respond front and center, just to give the blog more of a dialogue feel.

I love arguing about professors' politics (see my letter in the Justice). Professors are entitled to whatever views they want, but their political opinions should never take precedence over teaching. To continue with my ideological guerilla warfare riff, universities aren't training camps. They are citadels for the exchange of ideas, and letting a silly, self-indulgent noise-fest interfere with classes is an affront to the idea of a liberal education.

I'd love to see a list of professors who participated or canceled their classes so students could attend without missing class.

And welcome aboard, Dahlia. :-)

2003-04-02T13:17:00.000-05:00

Well hi there everyone. Toby gave me an invitation to join you guys here and I jumped at the chance. Hope I can add some value to your great blog.

Now‚ in my Con Law class on Monday we were talking about university speech codes. No one really knew what the Brandeis policy was so I looked it up in Rights and Responsibilites. There is actually very little discussion of speech‚ but section 7 deals with "Campus Protests and Demonstrations". It clearly states that these are "time‚ place‚ and manner" distinctions rather than content-based and in general the policy is rational and not offensive. But let's look at this:

A protest‚ rally‚ or demonstration must not interfere with the missions‚ processes‚ procedures or functions of the University. Therefore‚ protesters must recognize and allow the staff and faculty of the University to engage in the performance of their duties‚ and for students to pursue their educational activities. Impeding or restricting these activities by making noise‚ blocking entraces or exits from University facilities‚ or by coercion‚ intimidation or threats or use of violence is unacceptable.

Now‚ I didn't make it to Rabb during the first-day-of-war protest‚ but the chanting could easily be heard from Usdan and I know of people whose classes were cancelled because the noise was too loud to conduct a class. The protest clearly interfered with the basic mission of the University - to provide students with an education - and restricted students who wished "to pursue their educational activities". I don't think there's anything that can be done about it after the fact‚ but it's definitely good information to have for future use.

2003-04-01T23:47:00.000-05:00

According to Eugene Volokh (Law Prof at UCLA Law) says: that we'd be worse off with the U.N. on our side, since Kofi Annan would probably be pressing for a ceasefire -- and Iraq would have a greater incentive to promote civilian casualties to encourage just that. (from Instapundit)

I find myself in agreement with some of his points.....

2003-04-01T23:31:00.000-05:00

Some in the anti-war crowd claim that the US armed Saddam...however, according to a study done by the Stockholm Int'l Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the lead seller of arms to Iraq between 1973-1990, the leading arms supplier to Iraq was....the USSR! And who was the second leading supplier to Iraq (drumroll please)....FRANCE! In fact, of Iraq's total arms imports, the contribution from the US was just 1%! A graphical representation of the data can be seen here

Daniel Drezner has a little more on this topic

2003-04-01T20:58:00.000-05:00

Incredible story of an Assyrian Christian anti-war protestor who visited Iraq, changed his mind, and risked his life to get the true story of life under Saddam out to the free world.

2003-04-01T17:52:00.000-05:00

I'm gonna break away from the Asia discussion for now, and focus on the issue of "free speech" here in the US.

Apparently, former VP Gore has come out in support of the Dixie Chicks . To recap the story, one of the Dixie Chicks, Natalie Maines, said at a concert in London: ``Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.'' (note: Maines is from Texas).

These comments (perhaps the result of a "slip of the tounge"?) infuriated many back here in the US, especially back in Texas. As a result of Maines' words, many fans of the band became enraged, and demanded that their local radio stations yank the group from the airwaves. (Story) As a result, the Dixie Chicks have tumbled on the charts, and in sales, and some radio stations even sponsored events where people could bring their Dixie Chicks CDs to be run-over with a steam-roller, etc.

Gore is quoted as saying:

"They were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said. Our democracy has taken a hit," Gore said. "Our best protection is free and open debate."

I feel that Mr. Gore, along with the Dixie Chicks and some other Hollywood figures are forgetting that free speech is a two-way street. Sure, you can criticize the President and/or his Administration, but at the same time, people also have the right to criticize you and/or boycott you. The general public has a right to say "I no longer want to listen to their music"....and along those lines, they have a right to call their favorite radio stations and request that the group be removed from the playlist (or bumped down on it).

In turn, a radio station, in order to stay popular and profitable needs to respond to the wishes of its listeners, and so on (the concept of supply and demand). This is why the Dixie Chicks aren't being played as often on the radio.

I believe Mr. Gore and the group have overlooked the fact, free and open debate is currently taking place......

2003-04-01T16:44:00.000-05:00

It looks like our main source of disagreement is China and North Korea, so I'm going to drop Europe for a bit.

I believe that people are severely underestimating the threat that North Korea poses. The danger is not that NK would gain nuclear arms, and Japan and other East Asian nations would follow suit. While China would not be thrilled by a nuclear Japan, I think it realizes that Japan does not really pose a danger to itself. The biggest worry for everyone, right now, is that the desperately starving North Koreans would do something stupid and start a nuclear war in the region. The North Korean government has shown a fondness for brinkmanship and is not considered entirely sane by most people; it is very easy to see confrontational diplomatic negotiations getting out of hand, some signals being misinterpreted, and somebody (probably NK) setting of an atomic bomb in the region. This is the nightmare scenario that everyone, including China, fears.

Any war that North Korea starts would probably be first directed at South Korea. However, since America has 40,000 troops on the border, the US would have to get involved - this is something that China does not want, because then it would have to get involved as well. In addition, if the situation goes nuclear, it could go nuclear beyond the dropping of just one a-bomb - we could get into a tit-for-tat situation, with NK, US, and possibly China too taking turns annihilating cities, or even whole countries. the environmental consequences would affect everyone in the region - including China. Nuclear bombs are much bigger now, and can level more than "just" a city. On top of all this, it is suspected that North Korea now has missiles that can go as far as Alaska. If this is the case, NK poses a global danger and not just a regional one.

On the subject of "containment", I do not see how this is possible. We may be able to keep NK within its borders, but I don't see how we'd be able to prevent it from acquiring more powerful, and longer range, weapons of mass destruction.

2003-04-01T12:27:00.000-05:00

It looks like our military's strategy of Shock and Awe can pentrate even the thickest tin-foil hat. NBC-TV fired Peter Arnett for saying on Iraqi TV that the US led war effort has failed. Arnett's response: "I am still in shock and awe at being fired .... I report the truth of what is happening here in Baghdad and will not apologize for it." Shocked and awed, hmmm? Well, I suppose it is better than being Saddened. Yet not all hope is lost: Arnett is now writing for the Mirror, where he can expound on the awful Truth Of What Is Happening: "Who would have had believed Umm Qasr would hold out for six days?" The horror! Six full days! Instapundit has some wonderful links to comments on the story.

2003-04-01T01:46:00.000-05:00

Now we're talking.

I don't actually think China views North Korea as a threat to itself, except in the sense that NK might go out and cause trouble that will spill over into China. I don't think the oligarchy that governs China is all too concerned about the prisoners, I mean subjects, of Kim Jong Il. They simply don't want to see a nuclear-armed Japan, which is an ever more possible outcome as Kim grows more belligerent. Whatever the motivation, more cooperation from China would of course be welcome.

And I agree entirely about reassessing allies (ahem, the Saudis). The cold war forced the United States to make regrettable choices about friends, but backing a bunch of scummy thugocracies was preferred to having to deal with a bunch of equally scummy but hostile communist dictatorships. Now it's time to clean house and put our foreign policy on a more solid and moral footing. However, I disagree about North Korea being a menace to everyone. North Korea is, thankfully, a problem for East Asia and its concerned powers (including the United States). If we can get the various concerned states to cooperate, Kim should be containable, that is, if cooperation doesn't lead to him being toppled.

And we had detente. No nation is perfect; some (like the United States) are just more perfect than others. I would love it if Bush announced that the U.S. security guarantee is from now on conditional. It would destroy NATO, but it might lead to a more serious Europe. I've argued this elsewhere, especially in the pages of Concord Bridge, but what the transatlantic community needs is seriousness more than anything else. Much of Europe (and many Americans) live in a fantasy world in which all problems can be blamed on America's cowboy president and his cabal of neo-conservatives.

Conspiracy theories are the panacea (and luxury) of the frivolous.

2003-04-01T01:00:00.000-05:00

Just read a great column on Ann Coulter's page.

We're losing this war! The Elite Republican Guard is assembling outside New York City! Head for the hills! The "fierce firefight" referred to in the editorial concerned a battle in Nasiriyah in which American troops took an entire city with nine casualties. That's what most people call a "triumphal ass-kicking."

It puts things in perspective: yes, it is awful that 44 brave Americans have died as of Monday March 31st, 5:30 p.m. EST. Yet compared to what they and their fellow soldiers have accomplished in the last 10 days - taking control of almost 2/3 of Iraq, advancing to within 50 miles of Baghdad, and securing about 800 oil-fields with hardly any set on fire, it is a miracle! It is a triumph of the US military's technology, training, and above all, courage.

For a bit more perspective, Bill Whittley has written an excellent article comparing the war against Iraq to the Civil War, looking at current events through the lens of History. (I admit it, I have a weak spot for anyone who capitalizes important concepts).

We fight wars not to have peace, but to have a peace worth having. Slavery is peace. Tyranny is peace. For that matter, genocide is peace when you get right down to it. The historical consequences of a philosophy predicated on the notion of no war at any cost are families flying to the Super Bowl accompanied by three or four trusted slaves and a Europe devoid of a single living Jew.

Read it in its full (and very long) entirety.

2003-04-01T00:38:00.000-05:00

We are dealing with two separate types of behavior: that of old Europe and that of China.

China is clearly motivated by simple self-interest and opportunism. What I was commenting on in my first post is that China had realized that one of its allies of convenience had suddenly grown powerful enough to be a menace to China. North Korea, to China, was a necessary ally in the Cold War, but now China fears that the nuclear weapons it helped NK obtain are a danger to it - either directly, or, more likely, indirectly because NK's bizarre actions could percipitate a regional nuclear war. It is much the same problem we face with Iraq: when Iran was the bigger danger, we armed Iraq to confront it then during Gulf War I we had to face the very weapons we gave to Iraq. During the Cold War, every nation had to choose between different degrees of evil, to pick one bad dictator to back against one who was even worse. Yet now the world is changing, and the first set of dictators has been defeated. It is now time to take a look at our former "allies." This reevaluation is not limited to only the US, or Europe, or the entire free world - as events have shown, even totalitarian regimes like China's have to do this. And it turns out that some nations, like North Korea, are a menace to everyone. (And, based on what I have read, the NK regime is far more evil than Stalin, and possibly Hitler, ever were).

When it comes to (old) Europe, I am starting to suspect them guilty of something worse than mere "accomodationism". After our discussion tonight, I tried to look at their behavior through the lens of pure self-interest: to Europe, America is a rival and terrorist nations are mortal enemies (even if Europe does not publicly acknowledge it). So what is Europe doing? It is letting its two "enemies" fight it out, and is arming the weaker one to make the stronger one bleed more. This strategy works only because America has given Europe the guarantee that we would protect them no matter what. For example, regardless of how shamefully France acts, it is hard to imagine America sitting still if France is invaded again. Yet this strategy depends very strongly on the "free-ride behavior": if Bush were to publicly announce that America would not respond to any attack on Europe, be it conventional, unconventional, or even terrorist in nature, you would see a drastic change in European policy. Defense spending would sky-rocket while sales to terrorist nations would halt. It would be a matter of self-defense: the Europeans would no longer be able to afford to wait and watch while America dealt with their enemies. They would have to side with the benevolent rival against a common mortal enemy.

Oh, and as far as Europe's "backbone", they may talk tough - occassionaly - but they accomodated the Communists. France, for example, forced refugees who fled the Soviet Union and sought sanctuary in France to go back to Russia.

2003-03-31T23:44:00.000-05:00

Regarding the whole issue over the comments by the professor at Columbia U. last week, the blogsphere has begun to pick up on it.
Daniel Drezner has a lot on the subject, as does
Glenn Reynolds (a.k.a. Instapundit) who has a post here (he links to a Columbia group blog, which covers it throughly, albeit having someone of a hard-left slant at times) and an earlier one (with links to Drezner, and a piece by the professor's college roomate).

And on the topic of speech at colleges, comes this story about an issue at Muskingum College (it's in Ohio) in which students were ordered (by the administration) to take down US flags.

2003-03-31T21:35:00.000-05:00

So rather than respond to Tobias' post (don't worry - I will before I go to bed), I made these two cute pictures:

My proposal for the debate.....

Pat Buchanan, the Paleo-con