Diana West

Stephen Walt: Channeling Petraeus?

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:37:00 GMT

First, it sounded as if Gen. Petraeus were channeling Walt (if not Mearshimer) in his Senate testimony when he invoked the Arabist narrative regarding the "conflict" between Israelis and Palestinians: namely, that Israel is the font of all Islamic violence in the world that the US has to deal with (although how Israel has anything to do with, for example, Muslim massacres in Nigeria, Thailand, India, Pakistan, etc., is never explained). It was just poisoned icing on the cake that Walt was one of Petraeus' thesis advisors back at Princeton in 1987.

But now, in Sunday's Washington Post. Stephen Walt is quoting Gen. Petraeus -- referring back to that same Petraeus Senate testimony (the part about "Arab anger").

Cosy for them, but where does it leave the serious political crushes so many on the Right have on Petraeus?

Stranger Than "24"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:23:00 GMT

George Ford writes in:

Your blog on Petraeus makes me wish it's all a "24" episode and I'll grab the remote and delete the story out of existence.

But first, the plot:

The quiet hero-general of the Iraq war gets promoted to regional responsibilities amid talk of a possible presidential bid. His unfairly maligned patron/President/Commander-in Chief leaves office, replaced with a flamboyant Leftist who starts gutting the military and replacing Ollie North look-alikes with Janet Napolitano look-alikes. Just when you think the gutting and compromising with jihad can't get any worse, it cuts to a Pentagon meeting with the Joint Chiefs where the totally compromised Arab lackey Michael Mullen is saying, "So, gentlemen, it's time we move on Israel ...."

Cut to Mullen in the back of a limo saying into his cell phone: "It went well, General."

Cut to a close-up on Petraeus as he puts down his cell. A lady's hand extends into frame holding a Scotch in expensive crystal. Pull back to reveal Samantha Powers. Petraeus loosens his tie. Powers: "It's falling into place, just as we planned...."

Delete?

COIN Is Always Having to Say You're Sorry, Cont'd.

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:31:00 GMT

Photo: Islamic Republic of Afghanistan flag over Marjah

From the AP:

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Crouched on packed earth at a barricaded Marine encampment, the village elders issued their complaint: U.S. troops had killed an innocent 14-year-old boy. Secretly, the Marines didn’t believe them. No matter. They apologized, called the death a tragedy and promised to offer a condolence payment to the boy’s family.

Here we see the act of assuaging "Arab anger" -- something of primary concern to Gen. Petraeus and the Obama administration -- in its wider Islamic context: Apologize for no reason and pay up. Or, in Islamic terms, prostrate one's self as befits an infidel and offer jizya-style protection money. Call it the COIN/sharia twofer.

It’s all part of a strategy that sometimes involves swallowing their pride in an effort to persuade wavering Afghans to turn away from the Taliban.

Brilliant, isn't it? Show systemic weakness of character, self-loathing and gullibility and win "the people" over.

Since U.S., Afghan and NATO forces wrested Marjah from the Taliban, they’ve been going to extraordinary lengths to cultivate townspeople who had lived under insurgent control for years.

Cultivate -- as in "buy."

That’s a tall order in a place where many Taliban fighters still hiding here are from Marjah — supported or at least tolerated by the surrounding communities.

Winning over the population, including former Taliban fighters, is considered more important than hunting down insurgents. The strategy is expected to serve as a model for a bigger operation planned for later this year around Kandahar, the largest city in the south.

Madness.

In order to make the locals happy, the Marines use money everywhere it seems like it can buy a little goodwill. Shopkeepers are paid for locks broken in the fighting and farmers for damage to their fields when helicopters land.

Marines have disbursed more than a quarter million dollars in battle-damage payments in central Marjah alone, said Maj. David Fennell, head of a group of civil affairs Marines handling the disbursements.

They’re also trying to be careful about where they tread.

I hate to break it to Centcom, but what the AP is about to describe sounds like nothing less than a variation on the rules imposed to dominate and humiliate dhimmi populations living in thrall to Islamic law, as catalogued in such works as Bat Ye'or's The Dhimmi.

The Marines moved a new battalion base out of an abandoned high school when residents complained they were living in a building that they should be for students.

Then they decided to shrink the new base to accommodate locals who were worried about its walls cutting off a footpath. When residents decided they wanted enough room for a vehicle to get through, they agreed to reduce the size of the base some more.

And sometimes the strategy involves accepting the word of village elders, some of whom may be Taliban sympathizers themselves, to keep the peace.

That’s what unfolded Monday night as three Marine snipers hid knee-deep in water in a ditch, watching for militants at a spot where they’d found two bombs in the past week. The snipers saw people moving around a building believed to be an insurgent hideout. Then someone released dogs that charged them.

In the middle of this, the snipers saw a male with a shovel and a yellow jug — the type insurgents use for bombs — on the roadside. They shot and killed him, then started taking rifle fire from a nearby building. The Marines rushed out of the area and made it back to their base.

Tuesday morning the elders arrived to complain. They identified the person who was shot as a boy trying to collect water for his mother.

Anything for mother.

Officers of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, apologized, describing the death as a tragedy and offering a condolence payment to the boy’s family.

Not that they believed the elders.

“The kid looked taller than me. He appeared, not to be a kid,” said Sgt. Ben Parker, a 24-year-old from Atlanta who was one of the three snipers and stands at 5-foot-8.

Lt. Shawn Miller, the executive officer of Alpha Company, met Wednesday with town elders, who raised the issue of the boy’s death again.

Miller apologized but pointed out that bullets were being fired and his Marines were being chased by dogs. Miller said he could see the shots from where he was at the nearby base.

“If you could see the bullets, why couldn’t you see he was a child?” one of the elders asked.

“This was a tragedy,” Miller said, again, to the group of about 10 assembled bearded men. “Because of a very sad misinterpretation, an innocent person was hurt.”

He also said, for the second day in a row, that the Marines would pay his family.

During Wednesday’s meeting, the Afghan army commander attached to Alpha Company passed no public judgment on the boy’s innocence, but berated the elders for not watching over their children better.

Our pals.

“Why did someone send him out at night to get water? Why are you letting your children out like that?” Capt. Iqbal Khan asked.

After the meeting, Khan said he would not say that the men were lying, but that the evidence was not in their favor.

“First, 8 p.m. is not a proper time to go out and get water for the household. Second, the boy must have been older because parents wouldn’t send such a young boy out like that,” Khan said.

Most suspicious: Though Miller has offered condolence payments to the boy’s family, no one has come forward to claim them.

Perhaps it's not enough yet.

“The father is the only one who hasn’t shown up,” Miller said.

Parker says he doesn’t mind his commanders going out and apologizing for a shooting. He and the officers are sure they killed an insurgent.

“We haven’t had any bombs in that spot since,” Parker said.

Victory.

Gen. Petraeus: Channeling Walt (If Not Mearshimer)?

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:04:00 GMT

There is an intensifying debate over how exactly Gen. David Petraeus regards Israel. (I have written about it here, here and here.) On the one hand are the general's words -- first, as related in a blog posted at Foreign Policy, and, later, in the general's own written statement recently submitted to the US Senate Armed Services Committee. On the other hand are his supporters, who don't believe his words, either as reported in Foreign Policy (which they don't believe, either) or even as presented to the Senate.

Max Boot writing at Contentions is leading the Petraeus-is-pro-Israel defense (or at least that it is "a lie" that he is "anti-Israel"). Boot claims, first, that the Foreign Policy report -- the essence being that Petraeus sent staffers to brief Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen in January to the effect that Israel is an obstacle to American interests because Arab leaders in the Arab nations of Centcom regard Israel as an obstacle to American interests -- was debunked when only secondary, even minor aspects of the Foreign Policy report were later disupted (e.g., Mullen said in follow-up story that he wasn't "stunned") or simply corrected -- specifically that Petraeus did not, as initially reported, petition the White House to put "the Palestinian territories" under his command, but rather asked the Joint Chiefs.

Here's the correction Foreign Policy ran:

[UPDATE: A senior military officer denied Sunday that Petraeus sent a paper to the White House.

"CENTCOM did have a team brief the CJCS on concerns revolving around the Palestinian issue, and CENTCOM did propose a UCP change, but to CJCS, not to the WH," the officer said via email. "GEN Petraeus was not certain what might have been conveyed to the WH (if anything) from that brief to CJCS."

(UCP means "unified combatant command," like CENTCOM; CJCS refers to Mullen; and WH is the White House.)]

In other words, the officer has confirmed that the Centcom briefing of Mullen took place as reported, and that substance of the briefing -- "on concerns revolving around the Palestinian issue" -- also took place as reported. It is no leap of logic to conclude that any discussion on "concerns revolving around the Palestinian issue" is a discussion about the "concerns" of the people who frame the Islamic jihad on Israel as "revolving around the Palestinian issue" -- i.e., the concerns of the Arabs. "Israeli intransigence" is, of course, their eternal narrative, which is what Petraeus is reported to have wanted conveyed to Mullen as being an obstacle to US interests.

Boot doesn't see it that way. He writes:

That [the Foreign Policy post] didn’t ring true to me, so I asked a military officer who is familiar with the briefing in question and with Petraeus’s thinking on the issue to clarify matters. He told me that Perry’s [Foreign Policy] item was “incorrect.” In the first place, Petraeus never recommended shifting the Palestinian territories to Centcom’s purview from European Command, as claimed by Perry. [See correction above.] Nor did Petraeus belittle George Mitchell, whom he holds in high regard. [The Perry item doesn't say Petraeus belittled George Mitchell, but rather an anonymous actor.] All that happened, this officer told me, is that there was a “staff-officer briefing … on the situation in the West Bank, because that situation is a concern that Centcom hears in the Arab world all the time. Nothing more than that.”

In one sentence, the essence of the original story! If Centcom is briefing the Joint Chiefs on "the stituation in the West Bank" due to concerns Centcom hears in the Arab world "all the time," it makes sense that Centcom is going to convey those same concerns it is hearing from the Arab world in its briefing -- as, indeed, Foreign Policy reported. Now. Did Petraeus want those Arab concerns known to the Joint Chiefs because he believes they are bunk, or because he takes them as, um, Gospel? So far, there has been no correction of the Foreign Policy point that Petraeus shares the Arab view.

Indeed, there would seem to be a straight line between Arab "concern," as related from Petraeus to the Joint Chiefs in January, to this statement attributed to VP Biden in Israel last week :"This [building housing in Jerusalem] is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

In this same context, Petraeus' recent Senate testimony (discussed here), with its talk of "Arab anger" over "the Palestinian question" limiting US effectiveness simply underscores the essence of the Foreign Policy report. Here's the Petraeus Senate statement in question, his first example of what he called "root causes of instability" or "obstacles to security":

Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Responsibility] Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

Boot writes:

Actually, that’s not what Petraeus said. Rather, it’s pulled from the 56-page Central Command “Posture Statement” filed by his staff with the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Well, it's from a 56-page written statement, but it's called:

STATEMENT OF GENERAL DAVID H. PETRAEUS, U.S. ARMY
COMMANDER U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND
BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON
THE POSTURE OF U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND
16 MAR 2010

Filed by his staff?

Boot goes on to cite Petraeus' spoken testimony on Israel, pointing out that the general did not read aloud the paragraph concerning Israel-Palestinian hostilities from his prepared statement. You can read the whole except of what Petraeus said here. Here is the money quote:

Again, clearly, the tensions, the issues and so forth have an enormous effect. They set the strategic context within which we operate in the Central Command area of responsibility. ...

This is the axis on which the Arab narrative turns: that Israeli-Palestinian tensions are the main problem in the world; that all grievances flow from it; that what happens there drives what happens everywhere -- or, as Petraeus says, "they set the context within which we operate in the Central Command area of responsibility." But Boot doesn't see this. His analysis:

So there you have it. General Petraeus obviously doesn’t see the Israeli-Arab “peace process” as a top issue for his command, because he didn’t even raise it in his opening statement. When he was pressed on it, he made a fairly anodyne statement about the need to encourage negotiations to help moderate Arab regimes. That’s it.

That's it?

It is up to Petraeus to refute the Arabist, anti-Israel attitudes now far and widely attributed to him by media now taking his words, written and spoken and reported on, at face value if they are truly incorrect. Personally, I'm not holding my breath. The fact is, assuaging "Arab anger" is, when you think of it, is the very heart of "hearts and minds" current counterinsurgency doctrine (COIN) -- and Petraeus wrote the book.

He also wrote a Ph. D. thesis at Princeton in 1987 called “The American military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era” (available here).

One of his two faculty advisors, it is interesting to note in light of this recent debate was ... Stephen Walt -- of Walt and Mearshimer infamy (hat tip Andrew Bostom). In acknowledgements, Petraeus writes:

Professor Stephen Walt also deserves my gratitude. As my second faculty adviser – replacing Professor Barry Posen during the writing of my dissertation – Professor Walt offered numerous sound suggestions and comments. Like Professor Ullman, he displayed tremendous competence not only as an academic, but as a teacher as well.

Petraeus is delivering the 2010 Irving Kristol Lecture at the American Enterprise Association this spring. Maybe he'll take the opportunity of his lecture to explain what he learned.

"Arab Anger," the Obama Administration & Gen.Petraeus

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:54:00 GMT

This week's column:

Phew. We can breathe easier now that the Obama administration has taken a tough-as-scimitars line with Israel, whose existentially threatening architectural blueprints for new housing, the administration says, pose a dire threat to U.S. troops and interests. Or, as Vice President Joseph Biden put it, referring to a new housing project in Jerusalem, as reported by Yedioth Ahronoth: "This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan." In other words, maybe it's not the Muslim-made IED planted in the roads of Helmand Province that's the problem; maybe it's the Jewish-built condo in Jerusalem. Such is the babble of the jihad-blackmailed. And the problem with giving in to blackmail is that it never ends.

The effects are as palpable as they are shameful. The same week the Israeli housing project launched diplomatic fireworks and blaring world headlines, the White House and most media ignored the Palestinian Authority's (PA) official commemoration of Dalal Mughrabi, a mass murderess who led an attack killing 38 Israelis in 1978. She now has a PA public square named in her honor (joining two PA girls high schools, two summer camps and other institutions so named). In its silence on this calumny, the U.S. government has acquiesced to the jihadist narrative that Jews building homes in Israel's capital is incitement; and Muslims naming public squares for killers of Jews in the PA is just peace-process-as-usual.

This is the policy of appeasement, Islamic appeasement, and, under the constant drip, drip, drip of oil dependence, it has been eroding our national security posture since long before 9/11, reshaping a world perspective that conforms with that of the Islamic world. This eruption over housing in Jerusalem -- an "insult," an "affront," said White House adviser David Axelrod, strangely using the language of offended Islam -- is just its most vivid political manifestation to date.

Gen. David Petraeus put a military gloss on this same policy in recent testimony before the U.S. Senate. Setting up a discussion of what he called "root causes of instability" or "obstacles to security," he led off with "insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace," meaning the open-ended jihad against Israel (not that he put it that way). This, he went on to say, presents "distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the (region)."

Why? "The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel," he said. "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the (region) ... and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaida and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support."

Subtext: If Israel would shrink into nothingness, everything would be beautiful.

Petraeus' testimony about "Arab anger" echoes his concerns, as reported by Foreign Policy online this week, about Arab complaints on "the Palestinian issue," as a senior military officer put it to the blog. Petraeus, Foreign Policy writes, believes this anger is "jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region." Indeed, hoping "to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged," Petraeus sought to place Israel under his command purview. (Request denied.)

Q: Since when is assuaging "Arab anger" and demonstrating "engagement" to Arab leaders the concern of U.S. war planners? A: Since U.S. war planners became U.S. counter-insurgency (COIN) planners -- and Petraeus helped write the book on COIN. Playing to Arab demands, Muslim demands, generally, is the heart of "hearts and minds" in CENTCOM land.

No wonder the general talks about "Arab anger" caused by Arab "perception" over "the Palestinian question" as hindering U.S. objectives. He is using the classic buzz terms for the Arabist slant on the jihad (not "Arab anger") against Israel. This jihad is now picking up a terrifying speed, particularly as the Obama administration, fresh from an apology to Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, "outreach" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran, "population protection" at the expense of force protection in Hamid Karzai's Afghanistan (don't forget President Obama's bow last year to Saudi's King Abdullah), assists by bringing the hammer down on Israel.

What makes the blackmail unbearable is that the hammer is coming down on something all too symbolically close to Israel's very existence: building houses.

Others Are Noticing Fox's Islamic Tilt

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:15:00 GMT

Power clasp: Murdoch and Talal at the Abu Dhabi Media Summit last week.

I know the story of the day about Fox News is Brett Baier's interview with President Obama but this short American Thinker piece by Jed Gladstein shouldn't be missed:

"Is Fox News Tiling Toward the Arabs?" the title asks. The answer is yes -- although I would characterize it more precisely as a tilt toward Islam and its narratives (we have to start thinking macro, people) -- as I have written here, here and here.

Gladstein's piece:

I wondered how long it would take after Saudi money was insinuated into Rupert Murdoch's empire before anti-Semitism hit the Fox News airwaves in the form of tug-at-your-heart, pro-Arab, mini-hit pieces against the State of Israel. It didn't take long.

Did anyone notice Shepard Smith's passionate rant against Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs a few days ago? I always thought Smith was just a smarmy, jock-type teeny-bopper. But he obviously knows which side his bread is buttered on, and he is fully capable of getting all lathered up over something about which he is absolutely ignorant.

Today on Fox News, Amy Kellogg did another hit piece on Israel, using a cute little heart-strings-tugger about the peaceful Syrian civilians who picnic on the Golan Heights in nostalgic longing for the times when it belonged to Syria. Of course, there was no mention of the carnage and slaughter inflicted on peaceful Israeli citizens when the Syrians were in charge of the Golan. Apparently, there's no nostalgia in that.

But, what I am wondering is this: since, by its own definition, Fox News is "fair and balanced," where are all the tug-at-your-heart-strings pieces about dispossessed Middle Eastern Jews and innocent Israeli citizens? What's that? Did someone say there aren't any Saudi Princes bankrolling propaganda pieces about non-Arabs in the Middle East? Well, well, who would ever suspect that the power of petro-dollars would turn Fox News into just another anti-Israel propaganda outlet?

David Petraeus: Neoconservative Hero?

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:11:00 GMT

Here's corroboration of the report indicating a distinctly Arabist outlook on the part of Gen. Petraeus, who seems to view Israel as a root cause of problems, even American problems, in the Islamic world. It comes from the CENTCOM chief's own testimony before the Senate yesterday. Setting up "a number of cross-cutting issues that serve as major drivers of instability, inter-state tensions, and conflict," factors that "can serve as root causes of instability or as obstacles to security," he began with Israel. He said in his prepared statement:

Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR.

Does he mean by "enduring hostilities" the fact that the Islamic world wants to eradicate Israel?

Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations.

Isn't it amazing that the Israelis don't just let the "neighbors'" rockets just keep falling?

The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel.

Funny, last time I looked the US was allies with Israel ...

Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.

As in: Darn it, Uncle Sam, that country is still there! Can't you do something about that? The umma is restive. Thought outside the box: Maybe those "partners" just aren't on our side.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.

Anger, anger -- has this man never, ever heard of jihad -- and specifically, the jihad against Israel, a once dhimmi nation subjugated by Muslim invaders that has since been restored to sovreignty?

The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

Goodbye, Israel, goodbye problem with Iran? Hmm. Maybe that's why the past two administrations have seemed so unconcerned about Iranian nukes.

Wonder if Gen. Petraeus will elaborate on this perception of the world through umma-eyes when, later this spring, he delivers the Irving Kristol Lecture for 2010 at the American Enterprise Institute.

Dear Mayor of Monschau

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:35:00 GMT

Dear Mayor Margareta Ritter (margareta.ritter@stadt.monschau.de),

I have had the pleasure of visiting your exquisitely beautiful German town, the second member of my family to do so. The first was my dad, who, as a member of the 102nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron in Gen. Bradley's Army, had, with time out to recuperate from wounds incurred at the Battle of St Lo, fought across nothern Europe from D-Day plus 2 until reaching Monschau by the end of 1944.

I only bring this up because I read this morning that you have declared Geert Wilders, who recently weekended in your town, "not welcome" in Monschau. "People who, just like Mr Wilders, encumber the Dutch integration debate with right-wing populism and who want to ban the Qur'an, comparing it to Mein Kampf, are not welcome in Monschau," you are quoted as having said.

I protest. First of all, it is not "right-wing populism" with which Wilders "encumbers" the integration debate. It is with facts about sharia (Islamic law), a totalitarian and supremacist legal and religious system. He takes these facts to the public arena, a place where fears of Islamic retribution have to date silenced this essential, civilizational conversation. Another fact he brings, however discomforting to multicultists such as you appear to be, is the similarity between Mein Kampf and the Koran. You may declare Wilders -- and all of his thousands of Dutch supporters -- persona non grata in Monschau; that won't make sharia or those Koran-Kampf similarities go away.

But maybe you don't care. Maybe you have now found a new totalitarianism to submit to. But I protest your decision to make Monschau off limits to Wilders, a defender of liberty against totalitarianism -- the same liberty my dad was in and around Monschau to defend long ago against a similarly supremacist totalitarianism. I have a strong hunch he would say that, so long as you are in office, liberation wasn't worth the effort.

Sincerely,

Diana West, USA

Is Petraeus an Islamic Tool? Part 2

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:36:00 GMT

Last June, I noted Gen. David Petraeus's MoveOn.org-like take on Guantanamo Bay -- close it because it causes us problems and violates (unspecified) Geneva Conventions -- and his willingness to attribute to the Palestinian war on Israel "justifications" for the existence of Hezbollah.

Now this from Foreign Policy (via Judeosphere):

On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue.

Read: further Israeli concessions.

The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."

Mind, this was supposes to be a military briefing, not an OIC event.

The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. "Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." But Petraeus wasn't finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command -- or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations.

Imperial General Time.

Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.

Q: Since when does the US supreme commander ensure that US military doctrine conforms to Arab perceptions? A: Since now.

The Foreign Policy piece includes an update:

[UPDATE: A senior military officer denied Sunday that Petraeus sent a paper to the White House.

"CENTCOM did have a team brief the CJCS on concerns revolving around the Palestinian issue, and CENTCOM did propose a UCP change, but to CJCS, not to the WH," the officer said via email. "GEN Petraeus was not certain what might have been conveyed to the WH (if anything) from that brief to CJCS."

(UCP means "unified combatant command," like CENTCOM; CJCS refers to Mullen; and WH is the White House.)]

So, Petraeus did propose to put Israel under his purview, but to Mullen, not to the White House. The report goes on:

The Mullen briefing and Petraeus's request hit the White House like a bombshell. While Petraeus's request that CENTCOM be expanded to include the Palestinians was denied ("it was dead on arrival," a Pentagon officer confirms), the Obama administration decided it would redouble its efforts -- pressing Israel once again on the settlements issue, sending Mitchell on a visit to a number of Arab capitals and dispatching Mullen for a carefully arranged meeting with the chief of the Israeli General Staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi. While the American press speculated that Mullen's trip focused on Iran, the JCS Chairman actually carried a blunt, and tough, message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that Israel had to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger, regional, context" -- as having a direct impact on America's status in the region. ... Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message....

The dhimmi-hostage message carried by Gen.Petraeus being that Israel building 1,600 apartments in Jerusalem places US troops' lives in danger in the wider region (Iraq and Afghanistan). Such appeasement, this time at the expense of the Israelis, will only embolden all of our jihadist enemies to make more and more outrageous demands. The story continues:

Israel didn't.

Well, thank goodness.

When Vice President Joe Biden was embarrassed by an Israeli announcement that the Netanyahu government was building 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem,

He should have gone and cut a ribbon on the project

the administration reacted. But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing: "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace."

Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

How about Israelis continuing to breathe? Is that okay?

There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military. While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. ...

Here's a plan Gen. Petraeus should be able to get behind: A new battle strategy, maybe a Kilcullen special, for him to join forces with Iran to once and for all nuke Israel and its genocidal apartment houses out of existence. That, according to his own lights, is sure to keep American troops safe in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Heck, it would win the war -- or at least the jihad.

Updated: Meanwhile, Back in Afghanistan ...

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:42:00 GMT

Shinwari tribal elders arriving to pick up their US booty, I mean, convene a shura: Quick, Mohmand subtribe or Alisher subtribe? Or Khogyani, perchance? And does it make any difference to US national security??

----

Been a while since I posted about Afghanistan, having been focused on potentially hopeful developments in Europe -- specifically the potentional for reverse Islamization as manifested by Geert Wilders' recent political successes in the Netherlands. Remember, the fate of Europe (repeat after me) matters more to the US than the fate of Afghanistan. That's because an Islamic Europe of the possibly near future is of far deeper, graver concern to the future of Western-style liberty than whether an Islamic narco-kleptocracy in South Asia functions at some minimal level according to Western lights. The only thing important in Afghanistan are the lives and limbs of somewhere on its way up to 100,000 American and allied troops there. As Gen. Paul Vallely points out: "Jihadists with small arms and IEDS in faraway places cannot harm the United States so there is no reason to order massive armies that require large and extensive bases and massive logistical support to fight them on their home turf. But that is the essence of failed “counterinsurgency” (COIN) strategies that have bewitched US military political leaders." Pull the troops out to fight jihad better and smarter, and presto, roughly, we can try to forget about Afghanistan.

Or do we really just want a lot more of this? From the New York Times:

JALALABAD, Afghanistan — Six weeks ago, elders of the Shinwari tribe, which dominates a large area in southeastern Afghanistan, pledged that they would set aside internal differences to focus on fighting the Taliban.

I remember that. It was hailed as a big deal, "the first time an entire Pashtun tribe" of 400,000 members had declared war on the Taliban -- and they were gonna get $1 million bucks "in development" for their trouble directly from US commanders.

It never sounded like a good bet, despite the rousing proclamation "that the Shinwari tribe stands unified against all insurgent groups, specifically the Taliban,” as the tribe agreeed. From that January story:

But the Shinwari elders did not merely declare their opposition to the Taliban. Although they declared their allegiance to the Afghan government, they directed at it a nearly equal measure of fury, condemning “all the corruption and illegal activities that threaten the Afghan people.”

“We are doing this for ourselves, and ourselves only,” said Hajji Kafta, one of the elders. “We have absolutely no faith in the Afghan government to do anything for us. We don’t trust them at all.”

Sensing opportunity — and wanting the agreement to stick — the American officers decided to bypass the government entirely and pledge $1 million in development aid directly to the Shinwari elders. ...

Which sounded like a good deal -- for the Shiwari elders. That was then. Here's the rest of today's article:

This week, that commitment seemed less important as two Shinwari subtribes took up arms to fight each other over an ancient land dispute, leaving at least 13 people dead, according to local officials.

In other words, now US foreign policy is enmeshed in Pashtun, Shinwari subtribal enmity. And how does that keep America safe again? How does that stop the spread of sharia by violent (terrorism) and non-violent (immigration) means?

The fighting was a setback for American military officials, some of whom had hoped it would be possible to replicate the pledge elsewhere. ...

Like the sainted Sunni "Awakening" in Iraq. Show them the money, replicate the pledge -- and then what? Your money's gone and so is the "pledge."

Questions for Shinwari tribal elders this week about whether the pact against the Taliban still stood went unanswered as the elders turned the conversation to their intratribal struggle.

In other words, don't bother us with unimportant things; we have a pointless, interneccine struggle to get on with.

“We promised to work with the government to fight the Taliban,” said Hajji Gul Nazar, an elder from the Mohmand branch of the Shinwari tribe. He added, “Well, the government officials should have taken care of this argument among us before the shooting started.”

“We are the same tribe, and we are not happy killing each other,” he said. “The provincial police chief and the governor should have taken care of this issue.”

Finally, the perfect candidate for Obamacare.

The dispute began about 10 days ago when the Alisher subtribe of the Shinwari laid a claim to land also claimed by another branch of the tribe called the Mohmand. The disputed area covers about 22,000 acres near the Pakistani border and about 20 miles from Jalalabad, the capital of Nangarhar Province.

Staking their claim, the Mohmand set up tents on the land, according to tribal elders. The government called on both sides to hold a peaceful discussion among tribal elders, known as a shura.

The Alisher repeatedly asked the Mohmand to remove their tents from the disputed land. After more than a week of discussion and no sign that the Mohmand were budging, the Alisher called the police.

The police arrived and began to remove the tents, infuriating the Mohmand, who became even more infuriated when the Alisher began to help the police knock down the tents. When some members of the Alisher began to burn the tents, the Mohmand attacked the Alisher, firing rocket-propelled grenades, mortar launchers, machine guns and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, according to local commanders and Afghan border police officers, who did not wish to be quoted by name.

Several Alisher elders alleged that the police had helped the Mohmand.

Alisher, Mohmand, Alisher, Mohmand...let's call the whole thing off.

“We heard that Gov. Gul Agha Shirzai and the local police chief gave arms to the Mohmand,” said Babarzai, a well-known Alisher poet in the area, who, like many Afghans, uses only one name. “We spent all of yesterday burying our dead. Now there are many widows in our tribe.”

The government of Nangarhar Province denied the accusation. “Gov. Gul Agha Shirzai would never do anything like that,” said his spokesman, Ahmadzia Abdulzai. “Our goal is always to bring the tribes together.”

A deputy interior minister arrived from Kabul on Thursday with several other dignitaries from the capital to attend funerals for those who were killed and to encourage peace.

Elders from the Khogyani, another local tribe, met with 100 elders from each of the feuding subtribes to participate in a a peace shura to defuse tensions.

“I don’t think the shura will work,” said Hajji Gul Nazar, a Mohmand elder who was not able to attend the shura. “The Alisher have lost people and have so many wounded, and lots of their tents were burned by our people, and motorcycles were burned, and cars. They must be waiting to take revenge on us.”...

Notice no one has mentioned what happens to the million bux.

And notice no one has a clue about the Big Picture.

US Representative Poe on Dutch Parliamentarian Wilders

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:59:00 GMT

On the floor of the House yesterday, Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican, had this to say about Geert Wilders:

Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech continues to be shouted down by the politically correct police. In the Netherlands, it is against the law to say something that offends someone else’s religion. That is why Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders is on trial for hurting people’s feelings.He made a movie about terrorists and radical Islamic clerics encouraging violence in the name hate. Now he is on trial for insulting Islam.

He is charged with discrimination and incitement to hatred. Because Dutch law is intolerant of intolerance.The Dutch courts say even truthful insult speech is a crime. Sounds like the law has become the enemy of free speech and a protector of the radicals.

Geert Wilders boldly brings to the world’s attention the dangers of religious radicals who believe in hateful violence, and he gets in trouble for it. He ought to be commended rather than condemned and charged with a crime.

Freedom of speech is a universal human right, granted by God, especially if that speech is political, religious or truthful. A free people won’t tolerate intolerance for freedom for very long.

And that's just the way it is.

Fox's Beck, Krauthammer & Kristol: Wrong on Wilders (Much to Talal's Delight)

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:49:00 GMT

Murdoch and Talal, together, in Abu Dhabi this week: It's a long way from Rudy Giuliani's Big Dis in Manhattan

This week's syndicated column:

When Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol each from their respective Fox News perches branded Dutch political phenom Geert Wilders as beyond the political pale, it was shocking and outrageously so, and for several reasons.

One. I’ve grown used to Fox News and all other media ignoring not just the Wilders story but also the cultural story of the century, altogether – namely, the Islamization of Europe, something Wilders, a great admirer of Ronald Reagan and a committed supporter Israel, is dedicated to halt and reverse. The survival instinct of the Dutch, who, earlier this month gave unprecedented electoral victories to Wilders and his party, is a strong indicator that this civilizational transformation is not irreversible. But covering the Islamization of Europe, as readers of this column know, usually makes for bad news. And worse, at least according to the powers-that-be, even half-way competent reporting on the subject puts Islam in a bad light because it reveals exactly what happens to Western-style liberty when Muslims enter a non-Muslim host country in sufficient numbers to enact and extend sharia (Islamic law) over a heretofore Judeo-Christian-humanist society.

Better safe (politically correct) than sorry (subject to potential boycott or worse), our media prefer, frittering away precious powers afforded by the First Amendment. This motto seems to go double at Fox ever since Rupert Murdoch, for reasons unknown, sold what is now a seven percent stake of Fox’s parent company News Corp. to a scion of the sharia-dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. For the Fox commentators, supposedly punditry’s bulwark of Western values, to bring it up just to slap it down -- and without factual care (to say the least) -- was disappointing but also irresponsible.

Two. Readers may recall that I’ve questioned Talal’s ownership stake before (previous column here, post here). This week, much too synergistically, after Murdoch’s and Talal’s all-stars warned Fox viewers about the Wilders threat, in effect, to Islam in Europe, Murdoch was in Abu Dhabi, along with Talal and 400 other media executives, announcing that key components of the News Corp. empire were moving into the Islamic world, into the United Arab Emirates.

Remember the UAE, notorious for enslaving Bangledeshi boys as camel jockeys, for its support of Hamas? It was the UAE whose ministers and princes were hunting with Osama bin Laden, preventing the Clinton White House from taking a cruise missile shot at the jihad kingpin. It was the UAE that was one of three countries (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) to recognize the Taliban. And it was the UAE’s Dubai Ports World that was thwarted in a pre-tea-party populist uproar about these connections and more (eleven of the 9/11 hijackers, including two UAE citizens, were deployed to the US from Dubai). The UAE is “not free” now, says Freedom House, and never has been. You get the picture. It is now complete with a macabre vision of a News Corp.’s Middle Eastern headquarters potentially rising into the skyline, the better to oversee, perhaps, Murdoch’s new 9.1 percent stake in Prince Talal’s Arab media company Rotana.

What impact does the Islamization of News Corp. have on “fair and balanced” news Stateside? I don’t know. But when one of the big bosses is a Saudi prince, it doesn’t exactly encourage reporters to doodle spoofs of the Danish Motoons on their notepads, let alone engage in “offensive,” PC-busting debate in the news room or on the air.

Three. Regardless of cause or effect, the fact remains that in classifying Wilders as a fascist (Beck), denouncing his views as “extreme, radical and wrong” (Krauthammer), and slandering him as a “demagogue” (Kristol), Fox’s opinion-leaders expressed themselves in terms that surely thrilled not just Murdoch’s Islamic prince-cronies, but also the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). This is the organization driving the advance of sharia in the world, as, for example, at the United Nations, where it leads an endless campaign to outlaw all criticism of Islam – such as Wilders’ -- under the PC-sensitive rubric of banning “defamation of religion.”

Now, one thing you don’t want to do in this life is thrill the OIC, particularly on its smooth drive to extend sharia that is only now, according to OIC plan, unexpectedly blocked by Geert Wilders. But how it hurts to see Fox pushing in the wrong direction.

Andrew Bostom: "Qaddafi, Wilders and the Jihad against Switzerland"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:29:00 GMT

When Qaddafi's Libya is "satisfied" something is wrong.

Andrew Bostom has published an essential and timely essay at Pajama Media throwing the light of the ages, historically and Islamically speaking, on Qaddafi's declaration of jihad on Switzerland for its act of self-determination to ban construction of the tool and symbol of political Islam, the minaret. And yes, as the title of this post promises, he also sets the recent electoral successes of Geert Wilders into the context of European pushback against such outbursts of Islamic aggression and continuing demographic colonization.

Bostom's piece is mandatory reading, and particularly in order to appreciate the low-down depths to which the United States has sunk with its "apology" yesterday to Libya for State Department spokesman Philip Cowley's unfocused non-response to a question last month about Libya's declaration of jihad on Switzerland.

The AFP reports:

"Libya accepts US `apology' for Kadhafi joke"

TRIPOLI — Libya said on Wednesday it accepted the apology of a US official who had joked about Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi's call for jihad against Switzerland and that normal ties would resume.

The foreign ministry said it was "satisfied" with the remarks made by US State Department spokesman Philip Cowley on Tuesday, adding that "it accepts the apology and the deep regret," of the State Department.

Slurp, slurp, slurp.

"As a result ... (Libya is willing) to resume mutual visits by officials from the two countries ... and to promote bilateral relations in all areas, in a manner of mutual respect," the ministry said in a statement.

Thanks be for that.

Earlier, a Libyan newspaper had called Cowley's apology and Washington's decision to send a top envoy to Libya in a bid to limit the diplomatic fallout from the incident a "victory" for Tripoli.

"Libya has won a victory in the battle begun by the US State Department's spokesman," daily Al-Fajr Al-Jadid said.

Crowley told reporters on Tuesday he regretted that his comments had become an obstacle to the improvement in US-Libyan relations, although actually stopping short of a full apology.

Diplomacy 101: Give a regret and they'll take an apology.

"These comments do not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend. I apologise if they were taken that way."

Sounds like an apology to me.

Libya formally objected to Crowley's remarks on February 26, a day after Kadhafi called for a holy war and economic boycott in response to Switzerland's ban on the construction of minarets.

What did he say?

Crowley had said at the time: "I saw that (jihad) report and it just brought me back to the day of September, one of the more memorable sessions of the UN General Assembly that I can recall.

"Lots of words and lots of papers flying all over the place and not necessarily a lot of sense," the US official added.

He didn't say anything! (Here, have a dog.)

Kadhafi took the comments as a personal insult. Libya first summoned the US charge d'affaires in Tripoli and Libya's National Oil Corp called in US oil firms to express "indignation" over the remark.

NOW, we're getting down to bizness. If only these "US oil firms" were drilling here at home in the good old USA they wouldn't have to be called in to talk to the likes of jihadis like Qadaffi .... Hmmmm.

NOC president Shokri Ghanem said the US firms in Libya, which include ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, had been advised of "the negative repercussions which such remarks could have on economic relations between the two countries."

US-Libyan ties have been improving since 2003, when Kadhafi renounced the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and agreed to compensate families of the victims of the 1988 plane bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The lifting of US sanctions in 2004 paved the way for US oil companies to return to Libya after being absent since 1986.

Joy. It also paved the way for the Lockerbie bomber to go home and live the life of Al-Reilly ...

Dhimmitude is plain disgusting.

Update: Ruth King has some choice words on the subject over at Ruthfully Yours.

Oh No, Not Again: Welcome to Our World

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:45:00 GMT

This sketch almost got a man killed. Sorry, Sharia-inspired assassins almost killed a man over this sketch.

Story -- not the picture, of course, because the MSM are chicken-dhimmis -- by the AP

STOCKHOLM — The point of a caricature depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was to show that artistic freedom allows mockery of all religions, including the most sacred symbols of Islam, the Swedish artist who created it said Wednesday.

Update: The essential backgrounder on the whole story at Gates of Vienna.

Lars Vilks — the target of an alleged murder plot involving an American woman who dubbed herself "Jihad Jane" — told The Associated Press he has no regrets about the drawing, which is considered deeply offensive by many Muslims.

Oh, please. There's a lot of things that deeply offenda lot of people, from smutty talk on the street to Rupert Murdoch moving key components of his empire to UAE Enough is enough -- isn't it?

"I'm actually not interested in offending the prophet. The point is actually to show that you can," Vilks said in an interview in Stockholm. "There is nothing so holy you can't offend it."

Certainly, that's one valid argument. There is a more particular argument to make, which is that we do not observe either Islamic prohibitions on imagery, or Islamic prohibitions on criticizing Islam or its prophet.

Vilks made his rough sketch showing Muhammad's head on a dog's body more than a year after 12 Danish newspaper cartoons of the prophet sparked furious protests in Muslim countries in 2006.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

Whatever.

Vilks submitted the drawing to an exhibit at a Swedish cultural heritage center, which turned it down, citing security concerns.

Fear of Cartoon Rage, Swedish-style.

The issue went largely unnoticed until a Swedish newspaper printed the drawing with an editorial defending the freedom of expression.

Good for them. Haven't seen that in these here United States newspapers, despite the robust protections offered by our First Amendment.

The publication led to protests from Muslim countries, and briefly revived a heated debate in the West and the Muslim world about religious sensitivities and the limits of free speech.

It also led to numerous death threats against Vilks, who was temporarily moved to a secret location after al-Qaida in Iraq put a $100,000 bounty on his head in September 2007.

The 63-year-old artist told AP he has now built his own defense system, including a "homemade" safe room and a barbed-wire sculpture that could electrocute potential intruders. He also has an ax "to chop down" anyone trying to climb through the windows of his home, in southern Sweden.

Ah, give me the medieval life.

"If something happens, I know exactly what to do," Vilks said.

He said he believes the suspects in the latest alleged plot to kill him — seven people arrested in Ireland and a Pennsylvania woman held in the U.S. — were not professionals but "rather low-tech."

He said he had learned from American media reports that Colleen R. LaRose, who called herself JihadJane in a YouTube video, had visited the area where he lives, but he didn't know whether that was correct. "I'm glad she didn't kill me," Vilks said, with a half-smile.

Nalin Pekgul, a moderate Muslim and high-ranking member of Sweden's opposition Social Democratic Party, told Swedish Radio the threats against Vilks were unacceptable but added his drawing had profoundly hurt Muslims.

"A dog is unclean. To describe Muhammad as a dog is like saying you are unclean" to Muslims, said Pekgul, a Kurdish immigrant from Turkey.

Don't tell us about unclean when kafirs (non-Muslims) along with dogs, pigs, wine, and assorted bodily yuck have a standing condition of being "najis" or unclean according to the likes of Iranian Shiite Ayatollah Sistani.

An eccentric man with disheveled gray hair and thick-lensed glasses, Vilks referred to himself as "the artist" and described his life as a movie plot.

"It's a good story. It's about the bad guys and a good guy, and they try to kill him," he said.

Swedish winters are very long.

LaRose had discussions of her alleged plans with at least one of the suspects apprehended in Ireland, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official wasn't authorized to discuss details of the investigation.

Irish authorities said Wednesday those arrested there were two Algerians, two Libyans, a Palestinian, a Croatian and an American woman married to one of the Algerian suspects. They were not identified by name.

Swedish police have kept a close eye on threats against Vilks, but he doesn't have round-the-clock protection.

Vilks has said he was threatened shortly after an ax-wielding man on Jan. 1 broke into the home of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who drew one of the 12 Muhammad caricatures that prompted the 2006 uproar. Westergaard locked himself in a safe room, while police shot and wounded the attacker.

At least three Swedish newspapers reprinted Vilks' drawing Wednesday, citing its news value and the defense of free speech.

That's the only way to keep free speech free.

Out-foxing Fox

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:56:00 GMT

Perhaps in response to major viewer push-back, Fox News ("fair and halal") pulled its video clips of the two evening slams on Geert Wilders that appeared last night, first by Glenn Beck and then by Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. That's right: Fox pulled the videos from all Internet sight.

Well, not quite. Thanks to the invaluable Gates of Vienna, we can still watch the Beck outburst:

Oil Chic: Owning Western Media

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:36:00 GMT

Prince Talal has pals and they all have pockets filled with Westerners.

From the AP:

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — With an economy based on pumping oil and landmarks that include one of the Mideast's grandest mosques, buttoned-down Abu Dhabi has little obvious in common with freewheeling media magnets like Hollywood or midtown Manhattan.

This week, the Arab emirate is hoping the world takes another look. The city-state, best known of late for bailing out its flashier neighbor Dubai, is bringing together some of the industry's biggest names for a summit that will temporarily shift much of the world's media and entertainment elite to a luxury hotel on the Persian Gulf. Headliners at the event starting Tuesday include News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch and Google Inc. chief Eric Schmidt.

Murdoch yesterday announced, by the way, that in addition to buying into Prince Talal's Rotana media company, News Corp. has "further extended our presence [in Dar al-Islam] by announcing a strategic partnership between Fox International Channels and Abu Dhabi’s twofour54."

He's pretty much moving in. As Murdoch explained:

"First, we will move some of our satellite channels from Hong Kong to here. Second, we will establish a production office here for one of our documentary filmmaking companies. And third, we will headquarter the Middle Eastern operations for our global online advertising network business in Abu Dhabi as well."

Back to the AP:

The idea is to entice "the best and the brightest media minds," said Edward Borgerding, a former Walt Disney Co. executive who is now CEO of the state-owned Abu Dhabi Media Co., the event's host. But the gathering is also a coming-out party for Abu Dhabi, which has seen its own star rise as nearby Dubai's fades, serving as a reflection of the emirate's growing weight in the media industry.

As in most of the Arab world, the government here has long controlled much of the domestic media, running television networks, newspapers and radio stations, including one devoted to readings from the Quran. Censors routinely black out nudity and politically sensitive topics, and block access to hundreds of Web sites. A media law passed last year stifles the press and increases self-censorship, rights groups say.

Oh, is that what "rights groups say"? Thanks for mentioning. But there's more. A quick browse through a Freedom House report reveals there's also the fact that in the UAE there are no elections, never have been. Political parties do not exist, nor are independent human rights groups allowed to operate. Criticism of Islam is a "punishable offense, while women's rights are tenuous due to the sway of Islamic law. Little surprise, then, that female genital mutiliation is still "discreetly practiced" ... and on and on.

In other words -- the perfect place for Western media $ucklings to $eek $oothing $uccor.

Increasingly, though, the United Arab Emirates capital has been using its immense petroleum wealth to extend its media reach overseas, even as it shows little sign of easing restrictions on journalists or Internet users at home.

It has set up a company to bankroll Hollywood films, built an office park to house foreign news agencies, and spent billions to invest in microchips that power the electronic gadgets that increasingly serve as platforms for media consumption.

It is also partnering with established Western brands, including National Geographic and Comedy Central, to develop Arabic-language programming, and is splashing out on big-name concerts for eager audiences at home. Recent shows featured Rihanna, Aerosmith and Beyonce.

Always entertaining to see-no-sharia!

The investments are part of a broader push by Abu Dhabi's hereditary leaders to diversify the economy away from oil and provide a broader range of jobs for locals.

They serve another purpose too — to establish Abu Dhabi, the UAE's capital and the largest of the country's seven semiautonomous city-states, as a tolerant, cultured and internationally relevant Arab society.

The al-Potemkin city-state, courtesy its Western collaborators.

"We work to promote a more progressive point of view of this region," said Mike Fairburn, director of marketing and planning at Flash Entertainment, a government-created concert and events promoter. "A big part of popular entertainment is about challenging certain perceptions."

Abu Dhabi is not alone in its quest to become a regional media player.

Neighboring Dubai built its reputation on being a carefree business haven. Despite its well-publicized economic slump, the port city continues to host regional offices for hundreds of media companies, ranging from small ad agencies to international broadcasters such as CNBC and Showtime. And Doha, the capital of nearby Qatar, is home to the best-known group of Arabic satellite TV channels, al-Jazeera.

Abu Dhabi officials, however, insist they are creating something unique. A big part of that effort revolves around a project called TwoFour54, named after the city's geographical coordinates.

The project's sand-whipped office park in a rapidly developing corner of the city has already lured a number of international news agencies, including CNN, which also maintains an office in Dubai. The broadcaster is using its Abu Dhabi site to produce a daily news show for its international channel.

TwoFour54 also includes a media training academy primarily offering short skills-based courses, as well as production facilities and a venture capital arm to invest in promising Arabic media startups.

"We see ourselves ... as providing an environment that is supportive and conducive and stimulating for creative people to want to be here," said Wayne Borg, chief operating officer of TwoFour54.

You know, art for art's sake.

Other state-backed projects are aiming further afield.

Earlier this year, Abu Dhabi's Flash Entertainment bought a 10 percent stake in the parent of Ultimate Fighting Championship, the Las Vegas-based mixed martial arts producer that makes most of its money through pay-per-view sales and video game licenses.

Meanwhile, Abu Dhabi Media set up a film production and financing arm called Imagenation that aims to pump more than $1 billion into feature films over five years.

The company produced last year's family adventure film "Shorts" by director Robert Rodriguez, and has since announced co-production deals for a number of other movies, including the upcoming political thriller "Fair Game" starring Sean Penn.

The venture is symbiotic. Hollywood gets money it needs after funding sources like investment banks and hedge funds tightened purse strings amid the global meltdown. Abu Dhabi gets international cachet.

Isn't that the one about Faust??

"If you can just get the brand out there with the name Abu Dhabi in it, it promotes Abu Dhabi as a decent, legitimate business partner," said Christopher Davidson, a professor at the University of Durham who has written extensively about the UAE.

He said one goal might be to persuade a studio to set part of a major film in the city, though he added that freedom of expression remains a concern.

"The reality is it's still a traditional political system, and there are limits," he said.

It is difficult to gauge how much of its oil wealth Abu Dhabi is willing to lavish on the media business, which must compete with the government's plans to grow other sectors, such as technology, manufacturing, energy and tourism. Few details about the government's finances are made public, and none of the executives who agreed to speak with The Associated Press would discuss their companies' financial resources.

Davidson estimates the state will spend at least $2 billion to $3 billion over five years just on physical infrastructure and seed money for the media sector. But there is always more should things really take off.

"This is small change for Abu Dhabi," he said. "They can throw such massive resources at this."

News Corp.'s Wall Street Journal (kind of amazingly) put it this way:

"Why are the world's biggest media companies coming to one of the most closed media markets?" said Jim Krane, author of 'City of Gold: Dubai and the Dream of Capitalism' and a former journalist based in the U.A.E. with the Associated Press. "It's because that's where the money is."

The Journal also reported:

On the eve of the summit's opening day, News Corp.'s Fox International Channels said it was moving the Middle East operations of its global online ad network to Abu Dhabi and setting up an office here for its documentary-production arm.

The partnership comes after News Corp. last month said it would spend $70 million for a 9.1% stake in Arabic media giant Rotana Group, with an option to double that stake. Rotana is owned by Saudi billionaire Alwaleed bin Talal, a large, longtime investor in News Corp.

"Abu Dhabi sits at the nexus--of East and West, of developing and developed, of our media present and our future," Mr. Murdoch said in videotaped remarks to promote the media summit last November.

Ironically, the renewed sense of interest in Middle East media comes as international media companies face rising criticism in the U.A.E. over its coverage of Dubai's debt crisis.

The Sunday Times, published in the U.K., was ordered off shelves in the U.A.E. on Nov. 29 after the paper carried a double-page graphic illustrating Dubai's ruler, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, sinking in a sea of debt. Its sister publication, The Times, was censored in the U.A.E. on Dec. 5 for a story that described Sheik Mohammed as a "benign dictator" and criticized his management of the economy.

Question: Has the Sunday Times or The Times -- both News Corp./Prince Talal properties not incidentally -- run anything similar to this cartoon and story since? I don't know the answer -- but I can guess.

Fox News: Best Investment Saudi Prince Talal Ever Made

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:45:00 GMT

It was pile-on time at Fox News tonight as Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, a gal whose name I missed [update -- A.B. Stoddard] and Bill Kristol all branded Geert Wilders beyond the pale tonight.

Beck classified Geert as a fascist.

Krauthammer said Geert didn't know the difference between Islam and Islamism -- never mind that according to Krauthammer's idea of Islamic scholarship, neither did Mohammed.

[Stoddard] said she agreed with Imam Krauthammer and added that if people like this (Geert) are elected to lead Holland it will suffer the consequences.

Kristol called Geert a demagogue.

In other words, a stomach-turning display -- or should I say halal?

Fact is, this anti-Geert pundit solidarity will only delight Newscorp stakeholder Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. That's because it is Wilders in the Netherlands who stands as the unexpectedly strong spearhead of resistance to the Islamization of Europe and the wider West. As a scion of the most powerful sharia dictatorship in the world, Prince Talal doesn't like that. How fortunate for him that Fox News doesn't like it, either.

On Geert on Russia TV

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:48:00 GMT

Never heard of Russia TV before I went on Friday but hey, at least they're interested in talking about the Wilders phenom -- as opposed to some fair and balanced most trusted names in news I could mention. (Don't miss host's wrap-up equating Islamic imperialism & Western imperialism -- the new moral equivalence?)

Geert Wilders at the House of Lords

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:40:00 GMT

AP photo: Geert Wilders arriving for a press conference in London today

Below is the text of Geert Wilders' address today in the House of Lords, where, at the invitation of Baronness Cox and Lord Pearson, both members of United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), he showed his film Fitna.

Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.

Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.

Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film ‘Fitna’. Thank you my friends for inviting me.

I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.

And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!

Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: “Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (…) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book ‘The River War’ from 1899.

Churchill was right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”. End of quote.

Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent”. End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!

Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.

No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ “the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message”. As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book ‘The Second World War’, a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill’s comparison of the Quran and ‘Mein Kampf’ is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being destroyed. Burqa’s, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don’t get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.

Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine - Elsevier - calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.

I don't know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was, and I quote, to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”. If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women’s rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.

Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn’t in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.

Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.

I’m being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to ‘Mein Kampf’. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial… Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.

But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book 'The Rage and the Pride'. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing ‘legal jihad’. This is Islamic ‘lawfare’. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.

I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. These heroes cannot have died for nothing. It is our obligation to defend freedom of speech. As George Orwell said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can’t wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.

Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.

And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let's elect real leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words ‘This is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon.

What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be “This is London”? Or will it be “This is Londonistan”? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.

How the West Will Be Won

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:34:00 GMT

Author's photo: Antwerp, Belgium 2008

This week's syndicated column further unwraps the hijab and finds totalitarian ideology underneath:

When the Netherlands' Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders recently addressed voters in Almere, a Dutch city of 200,000 where his party handily won elections this week, he told them what to expect as his once-tiny, anti-Islamization party started flexing its new political muscle. Aside from lower taxes and other political staples, his plans for this city not far from Amsterdam include a ban on Muslim headscarves.

Wilders' ban would apply to "headscarves in municipal bodies and all other institutions (that) receive even one penny of subsidy from the municipality." He continued: "And for all clarity: This (ban) is not meant for crosses or yarmulkes because those are symbols of religions that belong to our own culture and are not -- as is the case with headscarves -- a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology."

Here, Wilders is distinguishing between the religions of Christianity and Judaism, and the religio-political ideology of Islam, noting not only the near-indigenous nature of the former, but also the encroaching totalitarianism of the latter. This is the crucial cultural argument to make if a cultural Reconquista of Europe from Islamization is to be successful.

Certainly, we have seen glimmers. Last year, Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang party of Belgium led a winning campaign to ban the hijab - what he calls "the propaganda weapon of choice for the establishment of Islamic society in Europe" -- in the Flemish schools of his country, making the same vital judgment call that Wilders did.

"(He) who defends the headscarf out of reasons of tolerance and pluralism has little or no understanding of Islam," Dewinter said. "The hidden agenda behind the veil leads to segregation," a veritable apartheid-regime, he explained, with which Islam seeks to control and dominate the West. Equating the Muslim head scarf with the Christian cross or the Jewish yamulke is "therefore incorrect," Dewinter continued, identifying the headscarf as "the flag of a political ideology" in which it is not the individual religious experience that is central, but rather "the realization of a theocratic society based on sharia, or Islamic law."

Maybe that's a lot for Americans to take in, but they haven't lived through the Islamization Decades that their European cousins have. As Europe's neighborhoods, banlieues and cities have repeatedly seen, headscarf-friendly zones yield to other Muslim demands, from single-sex recreation and medicine, to a refusal to tolerate certain Western texts or foods, to the institution of Islamic banking, to the acceptance of jihadist treason in the mosques, to the entrenchment of Islamic marriage (forced and polygamous), to the ultimate recognition of Islamic courtrooms run according to sharia.

But take the French approach. After determining that the Muslim headscarf inserted religion into state-run secular schools, the French government in 2003 banned the headscarf in the public schools along with the Star of David, the yamulke, "large" crucifixes and the turban of the Sikhs. This decision made it appear as though the hijab hadn't been singled out as a symbol of a specifically Muslim way of life that seeks to extend sharia. Thus, in the name of tolerance, all religious symbols were deemed provocative. In the name of inclusion, all were banned. This is precisely how the traditional (pre-Islamic) society dismantles itself, symbol by symbol, law by law.

And this is precisely why acknowledging and affirming the differences -- "discriminating" -- between Western religions and Islamic religio-political ideology is so important. Alas, it is also unthinkable for the average post-modern, multicultural Westerner. Rather than reject the symbols of imperial Islam, he capitulates, further stripping his civilization of its own identity, further enabling the Islamization process.

Now, the French government seeks to ban the full veil, or burka, in public buildings, a measure, as a recent Harris Poll tells us, that garners support from a whopping 70 percent of French respondents. Large majorities also support a ban in Italy (65 percent), Spain (63 percent), and the United Kingdom (57 percent). (A burka ban draws 33 percent support in the United States.)

Notably, that support plummets when other religious symbols are included in the burka ban. French support drops to 22 percent. Italian (10 percent), Spanish (9 percent) and British (4 percent) support follows. (American support drops to about 1 percent.)

Defiance of the multicultural orthodoxy is more popular in Europe than anyone imagined.

Too Much Fun to Miss: Geert's Victory Speech

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:39:00 GMT

From the amazing team of GoV, Vlad Tepes and VH, the Wilders victory speech (in Dutch with English subtitles) last night in Almere, the Netherlands.

Wilders Wins Big in Dutch Elections: Updated

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:50:00 GMT

How do you say "Reconquista" in Dutch? Anyway, so it begins in Almere, the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders's PVV party looks like the Big Winner in yesterday's munipal elections, also coming in second in The Hague. Best news in a long time.

An only somewhat jaundiced report from the Guardian:

Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-right anti-immigrant maverick, scored big gains in yesterday's local elections in the Netherlands, according to projections last night, indicating he may dominate the political scene in the run-up to the general election in three months.

OK. Let's break it down.

Is Wilders "far-right"? That conjures up visions of state-controlled fascism. What is state-controlled-fascist about a politician such as Wilders who wants to lower taxes, which necessarily reduces the goverrnment power? And what, to take a couple of other Wilders programs, is "far right" about fighting crime and keeping the retirement age at 65? Indeed, what is "far-right" or fascist about Wilders' anti-Islamization program to halt and reverse the creeping totalitarianism of sharia (Islamic law), a religio-fascist program based on mosque-control of public and private life?

Is Wilders "Anti-immigrant"? If immigrants commit crimes, call for jihad or sharia (Islamic law), yes. He also wants to halt Islamic immigration as the only effective means to halt the Islamization process.

A "maverick"? That word had a rough ride in the last US presidential election but yes, Wilders counts as a "maverick" -- along with other such European "mavericks" as Filip Dewinter of Belgium and Oskar Freysinger of Switzerland.

Yesterday's poll, 10 days after the centrist coalition government collapsed, was seen as a gauge of the national mood ahead of the national elections on 9 June.

Wilders last night claimed a big victory, predicting: "We are going to conquer the entire country ... We are going to be the biggest party in the country."

When I first interviewed Geert Wilders in June 2008, he was a party of one.

With almost 400 local authorities being contested, the focus was on only two areas – The Hague and Almere, in the centre of the country – because of the campaign by the anti-Muslim populist to establish his Freedom party in local government for the first time.

According to early results this morning, he won in Almere and came second to the Dutch Labour party in The Hague, the only two places the Freedom Party was running because of a lack of resources and candidates.

Wilders, who likens the Qur'an to Hitler's Mein Kampf --

Gee, so do I -- and so did Winston Churchill

-- and wants Muslim immigrants deported

As mentioned above, yes, if they commit crimes, call for jihad or sharia (Islamic law). He also wants Muslim immigration stopped to prevent the jihad-sharia demographic from increasing

-- is bidding fair to win the general election in June, with the latest opinion polls predicting he might take 27 of the 150 seats in the Netherlands' highly fragmented political scene.

The maverick rightwinger is expected at the House of Lords tomorrow on an invitation from the UK Independence Party for a screening of his incendiary anti-Islamic film, Fitna, after the Home Office barred him from entering Britain last year, a ban that was rescinded.

Fitna is only as "incendiary" as the Koranic war texts and the jihadist speeches and acts that it presents au naturel -- i.e., sans commentary (if you haven't watched it yet, see it here).

Yesterday the civic halls in The Hague and Almere were under heavy security.

In both places and elsewhere scores of men and women turned up to vote wearing headscarves, in protest against Wilders' demand for a tax on Muslim headgear and for the wearing of headscarves to be banned in all public buildings.

While local elections in the Netherlands are usually a subdued affair focused on issues such as cycle paths and rubbish collection, yesterday's poll was dominated by immigration and Afghanistan.

The coalition government of Christian and social democrats fell 10 days ago because the Labour party, the junior partner, refused to extend the presence of 2,000 Dutch troops in Afghanistan who are to be withdrawn from August.

It was the first Nato government to fall because of the war and the collapse looks likely to end the career of Jan Peter Balkenende, the Christian Democrat prime minister who has been in office for eight years.

Boo-la-la-hoo.

The Afghan pullout is popular and Labour has risen in the polls as a result. Turnout in The Hague and Almere was several points up on four years ago, suggesting that the Freedom Party would do well.

In Almere, a new town with a population of nearly 200,000 and hardly any immigrants, it was tipped to win.

In The Hague the contest was more even. In European elections last year the Freedom party came second, trouncing Labour in its heartland cities of the western and northern coasts.

Polls predict Wilders could triple his vote at the general election.

Update: More -- and more illuminating -- analysis of "the Wilders momentum" from Paul Belien at the Brussels Journal here.

Another update: Complete (and I mean complete) Dutch election coverage -- including Wilders' victory speech -- at Gates of Vienna.

After All, Brigitte Bardot Wore "Headscarves" ...

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:25:00 GMT

"Playful" students and teachers in The Hague protest Geert Wilders' proposal to de-Islamize the Dutch public square with a ban on the hijab, the Islamic uniform, in institutions funded by taxpayer money. Via Gates of Vienna.

"They want to make it clear that a headscarf is not something exclusive to Muslims: “Brigitte Bardot in the sixties also often wore headscarves...."

Are they kidding?

UKIP's Farage Fined for "Damp Rag" Crack at EU Prez De Rompuy

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:08:00 GMT

Remember our British friend Nigel Farage's bracing if also entertaining pushback against the anti-democracy European Union machine posted here?

That'll be 3,000 Euros, says the EU -- which converts to $4,078 bucks.

From the United Kingdom Independence Party website (via Paul Belien):

UKIP MEP Leader Nigel Farage has been hit with a €3000 fine for accusing the President of the European Council Herman van Rumpuy of having "the charisma of a damp rag".
Mr Farage was informed this afternoon by Jerzy Buzek, president of the European Parliament the he had decided to fine him €3000 for his comments relating to Mr van Rompuy and Belgium.

The fine represents 10 days pay, and is the maximum allowable under the rules of the European Parliament. Mr Buzek imposed it after Mr Farage declined earlier today to apologise for his comments.

Mr Farage said: "Free speech is an expensive business in the European Parliament."

He announced that he intended to appeal against his sentence.

Short of that, UKIP members should send send all the damp rags they can find to M. de Rompuy, and toot sweet.

Hijab Clarity, Western Salvation

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:19:00 GMT

Photo: Geert Wilders campaigning in Almere, the Netherlands

Tomorrow, in municipal elections in Almere, the Netherlands, Geert Wilders' PVV party -- Partij voor de Vrejheid, or Party for Freedom -- is poised to emerge the big winner as polls show PVV winning as much as 30 percent of the vote.

A few days ago, Geert Wilders spoke in Almere, an excellent speech full of insights into the Dutch political scene in the wake of its government having fallen. Toward the end of the speech, Wilders describes how his burgeoning political power to reverse the Islamization process may manifest itself.

I still have other good news for you. I heard from our party leaders in Almere and the Hague [the other city where the PVV joins the municipal elections], Raymond de Roon and Sietse Fritsma, what the main effort will be for the [coalition] negotiations in Almere and the Hague after March 3 [the municipal elections]: That will be a ban on headscarves in municipal bodies and all other institutions, foundations, or associations, if they receive even one penny of subsidy from the municipality. Thus an immediate ban on headscarves, get rid of that woman-humiliating Islamic symbol. And for all clarity: this is not however meant for crosses or yarmulkes, because those are symbols of religions that belong to our own culture and are not — as is the case with headscarves — a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology.

Wilders here is making the all-important distinction between Islam and other religions -- namely, Christianity and Judaism. It is a distinction that almost all others in public life are afraid to make, which is precisely why our civilization is in danger.

Baron Bodissey alerted me to this passage in the Almere speech because it so happens the Baron is reading my book The Death of the Grown-Up, which discusses this very subject -- banning the hijab -- but as it was implemented in France's public schools in such a way as to injure the West and its traditions.

From pp. 139-140:

In 2003, when the French government determined that Muslim girls, draped in the hijab, or head-wrapping veil, were inserting religion into the state-run and avowedly secular French classroom, it passed a law. The new law barred Muslim dress in the public schools. This ban on the hijab—a form of dress, like Muslims, that is relatively new to France--came at a very high, Judeo-Christian price. Also banned by law were the Star of David and the yamulke (Jewish skullcap), “large” crucifixes, along with the turban of the Sikhs. In other words, all these religious symbols, which, in modern times, had coexisted as harmoniously in France as their religions had, were suddenly stripped and hidden away from the public square. Why? The reason was to save Islam’s face: to make it appear as though the hijab hadn’t been singled out as an offending symbol, despite the fact that it was. And why was it so singled out? The answer has something to do with the fact that the hijab—unlike the Star of David, the yarmulke, the cross and the Sikh’s turban—symbolizes a Muslim way of life that makes sharia (Islamic law) the law of the land, any land. Allowing the headscarf, goes the argument, creates a climate hospitable to other special, extra-Western demands, from the insistence of Muslim men that their wives be treated by female doctors, to a refusal to tolerate certain Western set texts in the classroom, to the institution of such Islamic practices as no-interest loans, forced marriage, and polygamy, to the toleration of jihadist treason in the mosque, to, the Islamic hope goes, universal submission to sharia. No other religious symbol on earth packs this totalitarian punch. But France--and this has happened elsewhere, including Germany, where school hijab bans have also stripped nuns of their habits—has decided to pretend otherwise. Thus, for the government to bar a symbol of religious oppression, all other symbols of religion were judged oppressive also. In the name of tolerance, they were deemed equally provocative; in the name of inclusion, they were all banned.

In such a way is traditional (pre-Islamic) society dismantled, symbol by symbol, law by law. Are all religious symbols, and thus all religions, equally prone to incite trouble, if not terrorism? And are all religious symbols, and thus all religions equally imperialistic, and thus incompatible with an ecumenically based secular democracy? Of course not. But for France to admit Islam’s violent past, present and, to date, unreformed future, is to advance a case for discrimination—in this example, to justify a ban on the hijab of resurgent Islam, while justifying the acceptance of the cross of quiescent Christianity, the Star of David of beleaguered Judaism, and the turban of non-belligerent Sikhism. Such a judgment is a multicultural impossibility. Rather than resist the bigotry of the hijab, France (and by extension, the West), without even the courtesy of a show trial, will always plead guilty, admitting to the catch-all culpability of itself and its symbols—and hence, its beliefs.

----

Wilders' clarity on the hijab ban reveals why he is so important as a politician leading the reversal of the Islamization of the West. He defies the multicultural lock on truth as he rejects the cultural relatavist's denial of identity. For everyone's sakes, let's hope this is a winning combo at the polls tomorrow in Almere.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely: How to Stop Defeating Ourselves

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:53:00 GMT

MG Paul Vallely has some excellent questions for our civilian and miitary leadership today. He also has some excellent answers -- all of which involve abandoning once and for the self-destructive, self-defeating, not to mention masochistic, strategies of "counter-insurgency" (COIN) doctrine and nation-building.

As Gen. Vallely points out: "The COIN principle is not based on winning; it is based on political whims and is not a true tenet of warfare. Warfare is, and always should be, about WINNING."

Winning this specific war against forces impelled by Islamic ideology calls for unconventional measures, Gen. Vallely writes, not the conventional actions followed by lengthy occupations such as we have seen and are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such an unconventional war doctrine, as he writes below, "heavily leverages the core capability to break enemy states, target and destroy the enemy’s capability to bring harm to America" -- what Gen. Vallely has long advocated as the "unheralded" Global Lily Pad strategy.

Get this through the Pentagon's head and maybe we'll get somewhere.

From Gen. Vallely's Stand Up America blog:

Why do the United States and its military/political leaders and strategists still languish in failed strategies from World War II to the present?

Fact: Jihadists with small arms and IEDS in faraway places cannot harm the United States so there is no reason to order massive armies that require large and extensive bases and massive logistical support to fight them on their home turf. But that is the essence of failed “counterinsurgency” (COIN) strategies that have bewitched US military political leaders.

Yes, we have made great and innovative technological advances in weapons systems in the air, sea, and ground, in communications, in advanced intelligence systems and command and control systems.

Yes, we have operational war planners at all levels of command, senior policy and politicos in the White House and Department of Defense, a National Security Team and a multitude of military commands positioned around the globe to guide and lead us in national security. But where are the common sense and rational senior General and Admiral Strategists that we have trained and schooled to be innovative, aggressive and win our nation’s wars quickly and decisively? I rarely hear any of them talking about the valued Principles of War that successful combat leaders in the past have used to achieve success and victory. They cannot even talk in terms of victory, winning and bringing the troops home. Or maybe, they do not want to for politically correct reasons at home.

Unfortunately, American leaders are increasingly trying to transform this force into one optimized for counterinsurgency missions (when, in fact, we are not, in my opinion, fighting insurgencies but rather, Islamic Jihadis and a fomenting global Caliphate) and conventional war followed on by long-term military occupations. Track back if you will to Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq, and Afghanistan.

It is true that not all political goals are achievable through the use of military power. However, “victory” in war appears lost in the world of political correctness and appeasement. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan – often seen as proving the necessity for COIN-capable forces as well as a commitment to nation-building -- demonstrate in reality that the vast majority of goals can be accomplished through quick, decisive joint military operations. Not all political goals are achievable this way, but most are, and those that cannot be achieved through conventional operations likely cannot be achieved by the application of even the most sophisticated counterinsurgency doctrine either.

We cannot seem to be able to discern between the differences in conventional and non-conventional warfare. The war against mainstream Islamic Jihadist forces and a sick ideology has been, and will continue to be, one requiring unconventional solutions. This is a point that the White House and the Pentagon fear to call this war against a pronounced ideology. It is not a war on terror as we first analyzed; it is a war against people subscribing to Jihad and a derived ideology from the Koran that has evil global intentions as much as the Nazis and Third Reich.

Why can we not understand that our military is for national security, defending our country and defeating our enemies before they bring havoc and harm to our citizens? Why can we not understand how important our resources are in terms of our trained Armed Forces and assets of our country and not to drain them across the globe in futile nation building operations but to leverage the military to counter threats to our country? And, as well, to realize and understand in a profound way that you cannot Nation Build in an area of conflict until the enemy is defeated.

The COIN principle is not based on winning; it is based on political whims and is not a true tenet of warfare. Warfare is, and always should be, about WINNING. Once the war is won, then, like Japan after WWII, real and substantive changes can be enforced. We were able to change Germany and Japan from tyrannical forms of government into thriving democracies with real constitutions and a real change in thinking of the indigenous peoples.

A fundamental challenge in devising a strategy for the use of future American military power is that the world has literally never seen anything like our capability. The U.S. today has military capabilities at least equal to the rest of the world combined. There is virtually no spot on the globe that could not be targeted by American forces, and at most a small handful of countries that could thwart a determined U.S. effort at regime change – and some of those only by virtue of their possession of nuclear weapons. This is the driving point; why are we so worried about what others think? Did these so-called allies not have to be bailed out numerous times for their failed thinking? Why do we want to kowtow to the same intellectual vacuity that caused the greatest conflicts on earth?

As a consequence, the U.S. must adopt a national military strategy that heavily leverages the core capability to break enemy states, target and destroy the enemy’s capability to bring harm to America. Such a strategy could defeat and disrupt most potential threats the U.S. faces. I will discuss in detail, in later follow-up articles, where the strategy of joint strike operations and the unheralded “Global Lily Pad” strategy prove to be the best method for success.

While America’s adversaries today may prefer to engage the U.S. using proxies and develop radical Islamist organizations and jihadists, there is no rationale in declaring to the people of the United States that we are in a long war and accept that as a reason to not achieve a quick and decisive victory. It appears we fight more in agreement with the so called United Nations, allies, and the likes of China and Russia than to stand up for own sovereignty. It is time to relegate these so-called allies to the sidelines. Let them wail and whimper as we achieve the success that is necessary; wiping out and neutralizing radical Islamism and nation states that support it.

Because our capability is so novel, American strategists lack a clear framework to guide the utilization of this force. They have sought to match capabilities to conceptions of the use of force from a different era, one in which the Cold War made regime change unpalatable due to the risk of escalation and that tended to make localized setbacks appear as loses in a perceived zero-sum competition with the Soviets. Like Reagan, it is time to call their bluff. They know we hold the big cards, so why are we so timid? This only fosters eastern thought that placation is a sign of weakness. A weakness they will turn into an asset and a political card to play to the uneducated masses they control.

Phrasing it another way, insurgents with small arms and homemade explosives (IEDS) in faraway places cannot harm the U.S. and there is no reason to fight them directly. Based on superb intelligence, we can launch required strike operations from any number of secure global sites and bases. True, these radical Islamic forces pose a major terror threat abroad and at home but we can defeat those efforts as well. The American experience in Iraq and Afghanistan – where insurgents have been able to build and deploy more than 80,000 IEDs while under occupation – calls into question the ability of occupying forces to root out terror networks without hitting the sources and sanctuaries that supply them like Iran.

Many describe our efforts as helping to recruit more fighters and more ideologues. This is no way to stop all the threat to our homeland. The only true way to stop that threat is to give them what they respect; pure force of arms and will. Otherwise, they sit in their sanctuaries and count up the moral victories they have achieved, and embolden future efforts. However, significant threats to the U.S., ranging from the military capacity of regional powers to weapons of mass destruction development programs to significant terrorist infrastructures, can be targeted and destroyed by conventional and unconventional military capabilities.

Again, we must stop thinking like westerners, and understand the way our enemy thinks. A lily pad is much more preferable because it gives them no moral high ground to propagandize, but at the same time instills sheer terror in their hearts as they guess at what is coming next. Force of will and resolve is required by our leaders that our enemies indeed respect and understand. Only when we understand that one objective of Global Jihad is imposition – by force or by stealth – of Shari’a (Islamic law) and the other is the re-establishment of the Caliphate/Imamate), can we even begin to formulate the enemy threat doctrine and strategic concept to DEFEAT THE ENEMY and WIN the GWOJ (Global War on Jihad).

MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army Retired, is the Chairman of Stand Up America and co-author of “Endgame “ and “Operation Sucker Punch”

Here Lies Yale

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:25:00 GMT

From Marx to Lenin to Gramsci to Marcuse ... the subversion of academia is complete: Cultural relativism is taught (an old story), and promiscuity is not just non-judgmentally tolerated (as per cultural relativism), it is now actively encouraged by the Yale Dean's Office. And do, the dean says, tell us all about it.

From the Yale Daily News (via Michael Rubin at The Corner):

The Yale Dean's Office's is planning a web venture: hosting student essays "by current undergraduates, allowing them to reflect anonymously on their sexual experiences at Yale and their impressions of the sexual culture here."

It goes one from here. And don't miss the comments.

New motto suggestion from what you might almost call an Old Blue:

Lux and Voyeurism.

Westergaard: "I Fear This Is a Setback for the Freedom of Speech"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:51:00 GMT

Chalk one up for their side. Again.

From the AP: "Danish daily issues apology over prophet drawing"

That would be this, in case you didn't know:

A Danish newspaper on Friday apologized for offending Muslims by reprinting a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, rekindling heated debate about the limits of freedom of speech.

Danish daily Politiken said its apology was part of a settlement with a Saudi lawyer representing eight Muslim groups in the Middle East and Australia.

The Breitbart story further points out that the eight groups come from Australia, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority "representing 94,923 descendants of the Muslim prophet" -- a veritable class action suit. (Australia? Prospective member #58 of the OIC umma?) Back to the AP:

[The apology] drew strong criticism among Danish media, which previously had stood united in rejecting calls to apologize for 12 Muhammad cartoons that sparked fierce protests in the Muslim world four years ago.

Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen expressed surprise at Politiken's move, saying he was worried that Danish media no longer were "standing shoulder to shoulder" on the issue....

And what did Politiken say? Here's the newspaper's English-language version of its lead editorial. It's called "One small step to dhimmitude" -- no, I'm just kidding. Although it is indeed a giant leap to dhimmitude.

Headline: "One small step in abating the Mohammed crisis"

Over a cartoon in Western eyes, over sharia in Muslim eyes. The net result, of course, is submission to the Muslim point of view.

Subhead: The settlement announced today is a small step in that direction. Hopefully others will follow

Meaning the remaining Danish papers that published the cartoon in solidarity with cartoonist Westergaard in 2008 when the first assassination plot against him was uncovered.

One of the most striking features of the Mohammed crisis that has plagued the Danish and international communities since 2005, is a lack of dialogue.

The parties have repeatedly reacted – and over-reacted – without studying what others felt, or the background to their behavior.

Love that. One party prints a political cartoon, the other party murders, burns, pillages. Both parties "over-reacted."

Our predominant view throughout the lengthy debate has been that much could have been avoided if the government of the time had chosen to handle the crisis differently and added an element of dialogue and diplomacy.

Wrong. PM Rasmussen was perfectly correct in telling all OIC nabobs that Denmark proudly had no state control of its media.

It is in this light, that today’s small contribution to dialogue in this unfortunate case should be seen.

We have not found it too difficult to accept that our re-print of Kurt Westergaard’s caricature of the Prophet Mohammed has seemed offensive to many Muslims.

That's just not your problem, Politiken -- unless, of course, you want to sponsor anger management course for those 94,923 prophet-descendant-defendants in this case.

It has never been our intention to offend anyone.

Another suggestion for Politiken: Have newsboys walk on eggs when distributing papers to Muslim customers.

The cartoon is legal under Danish law. And we have only printed the cartoon in connection with our news coverage.

But that does not change the fact that our re-print in February 2008 was perceived as part of a renewed affront and provocation that once again caused tempers to fly in large parts of the world.

Tired of the case

Aha. Islamo-fatigue. Winning tactic.

Thanks to this acknowledgement and regret, we have reached agreement with a large group of Muslims from eight different countries.

The accord is an agreement designed to look forward, focus on de-escalating tensions and with hopes for further reconciliation between Denmark and the Muslim world.

I think he meant further submission to the Muslim world.

At the same time it has naturally been vital that Politiken in no way, as a result of an accord, has placed any form of restriction on its editorial freedoms.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

What we choose to publish, including which cartoons we choose to print, will continue to be our sovereign and free decision.

Is he kidding?

Most Danes are profoundly tired of the issue.

Of course they are. And that's a winning jihadi tactic.

That became clear in a recent poll in which 84 percent of the population said they agreed with a decision by the media not to re-print Kurt Westergaard’s caricature in connection with the most recent terrorism cases.

Just make it go away.

But unfortunately, the case has a symbolic value that means that it will not die out on its own.

If all parties are to gradually begin to look ahead and leave the conflict to the fanatics who refuse to relinquish it, it is vital that Danes and Muslims begin to put a full stop to the issue. Together, and based on dialogue that respects those differences that exist.

Today’s accord is a small step in that direction. Hopefully, others will tread the same path.

Down, down, down ...

Fortunately, this editorial today provoked a healthy outrage among the Danes, from the Prime Minister to the other papers, so no need not to keep our powder dry -- and our larders full of Danish cheese and beer.

But don't forget to buy Swiss.

Why Sarah Palin Is Supporting John McCain

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:20:00 GMT

Sheriff Joe Arapaio is for Hayworth; Sarah Palin is for McCain. Why? Answer below

What drew me to the Arizona GOP Senate primary story, the subject of this week's column (below and here), was not just the face-off between liberal John McCain and conservative J.D. Hayworth. It was also the weird warning bells that went off with some big-name conservatives, particularly conservative poster-girl Sarah Palin, endorsing John McCain. Not only is the philosophical breach seemingly unpassable, it's hard to forget what a rat he was to her as both he and his staff savaged her in the wake of the prez campaign.

Meanwhile, Romney, Dick Armey, Fred Thompson and Sen. Kyl, I believe, have linked arms with McCain as well.

Why? I think it all has to do with illegal immigration, with mainstream Republicans having decided to throw in their lot with, as our British friend Nigel Farage might say, the assassins of the nation-state, and forget about it. I.e., support amnesty or variations thereon. J.D. Hayworth, an outspoken opponent of amnesty and stalwart on border security and immigration law enforcement, presents a problem to the capitulating image these fat cats want to present to win, they think, the "Hispanic vote." That's why they are piling on. (That, and whatever political favors John is calling in.)

Not only is Sarah Palin AWOL on the immigration issue, having kept a very low profile about it, it also turns out -- and I totally missed this during the 2008 prez campaign -- Palin is also pro-amnesty! (2008 Univision interview here via Diggers Realm.

And you thought Obama was a stealth candidate...

This week's column:

"Go With Hayworth"

My brother and I have a running conversation about whether it is a good thing that John McCain didn't become president. We both voted for him, but I decided early on, as much as I oppose every Marx-tinged thing President Obama stands for, I was glad Obama had won and McCain had lost. At least, I was glad McCain had lost.

That's because only out of ashes may the phoenix be reborn. The liberal-lite frustrations of a McCain administration would have smoldered on the Right but lit few fires, dampening the possibility of real post-Bush regeneration. From Bush's "compassionate conservatism" (read: liberalism) to McCain's compassionate bipartisanship (read: more liberalism), the nation would have continued to drift in the wrong direction. The "good" thing about the economy-crashing, military-breaking, ideologically mind-blowing Obama administration is that it puts us on a collision course that just might force Americans to bail and start over in a better way. Metaphorically speaking.

But also, McCain didn't deserve to be president, at least not under the false flag of "conservative." McCain is no conservative, a fact that stands out as he faces a serious Senate primary challenge from J.D. Hayworth, a genuinely conservative former U.S. Representative.

After all, John McCain co-wrote the bill providing, in effect, U.S. citizenship to some 20 million illegal aliens (that's why they called it McCain-Kennedy). He co-wrote the bill restricting political speech (McCain-Feingold). J.D. Hayworth opposed both. As for global-warming legislation -- sorry, "climate change" -- McCain used to lead the floor fight for cap-and-trade (initially known as McCain-Lieberman), but now even the New York Times has noticed McCain has gone mum on the issue and "is likely to keep his distance even more over the next six months due to a primary challenge from a conservative former congressman that threatens to end his Senate career after four terms." And yup, Hayworth opposes cap-and-trade. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts; Hayworth, as he puts it, helped write them. McCain rules out enhanced interrogations and wants to close Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo). Hayworth supports enhanced interrogations, and wants to keep Gitmo open. The list goes on, but there's no need to draw a picture.

Except, maybe, for the benefit of -- how to put this? -- challenged conservative leaders. These include former Sen. Fred Thompson, and former Govs. Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, who, contradicting everything they ever got us to think they stood for sort of, have endorsed McCain. This may burnish "the maverick" with their conservative bona fides. But it also makes those bona fides look more than a little cheap.

Or maybe they just aren't who we think they are. But does it matter? Perception does seem to be everything. In November, Hayworth was polling neck-in-neck with McCain. After Sarah Superstar held out her coattails to McCain -- who, let's not forget, personally, and through his staff, publicly savaged her -- a January poll showed McCain leading Hayworth by 22 points.

So why is McCain running scared? Because he is running scared. At least that's one conclusion to draw from an initial Web ad released by the McCain campaign that stoops to smear Hayworth as a conspiracy nut unfit to serve in the U.S. Senate for having the audacity -- I call it common sense and a little grit -- to point out as a radio host that "questions will remain" until our commander in chief releases the paperwork associated with his birth currently under state seal in Hawaii.

Questions will remain, and do remain, and despite Hayworth spokesman Jason Rose's craven dodge: "Questions were raised on the air. They have been answered." No, they haven't been answered. And that's true largely because of John McCain.

Remember when presidential candidate McCain's own natural-born creds came under question because he was born in the Canal Zone? Naturally, he released his paperwork. He should have then called on his opponent, Barack Obama, to do the same -- naturally. Such leadership would have dispelled all corrosive doubts raised and perpetuated not by "conspiracy nuts" but by the unprecedented lockdown on simple Obama identification -- birth certificate, education transcripts and more -- by the Obama machine, fueled and oiled by a compliant media.

But he didn't -- another reason McCain shouldn't have become president. Now, if conservatives could just retire him from the U.S. Senate.

Q: Who Elected You, Mr. EU President? A: Nobody

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:18:00 GMT

Relapse

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:54:00 GMT

I almost forgot what it felt like to experience McCain Derangement Syndrome. Then I saw this web ad attack on McCain's Senate primary challenger J.D. Hayworth (who only shows common sense and a modicum of grit in pointing out that "questions will remain" until Obama releases his birth certificate paperwork). Then I wrote this week's (upcoming) column. Then I felt better.

Jackboots and Junk Science

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:19:00 GMT

I'm driving along, I turn on the radio , a gravelly voice with an unplaceable Northeastern accent comes on ...

"...and during that period with Nazism and fascism growing -- a real danger to the United States and Democratic countries all over the world -- there were people in this Congress, in the British parliament saying, 'don't worry! Hitler is not real! It'll disappear! We don't have to be prepared to take it on....'"

My gosh, who is that talking so forthrightly about the failure of the West to face up to the existential threat of Islam -- on AM drive-time radio?

Darn that dream. The speaker was Bernie Sanders, Vermont's "independent" senator, and he was talking not about Islamic apologists who deny the perils of Islamization and the spread of liberty-strangling sharia (Islamic law), but about those of us who have by now figured out that global warming -- sorry, climate-change -- is a lot of bunk based on a noxious brew of cooked scientific data and warmed-over Karl Marx.

Since the break-the-bank climate-change legislation known as Cap and Trade looks less and less likely to pass in Congress, the Obama administration is gearing up to seize control of greenhouse gas emissions through the EPA, something Sen. James Inhofe is leading the Senate charge against. This is what has inspired Sanders to his desparate and deplorable rhetoric: Fact-based climate-change skepticism as fact-denying Nazi appeasement. Is he kidding?

Sanders' invocation of Hitlerian appeasement tells us that it's not greenhouse gases that are in need of regulation in Washington but rather mass hysterics, which emit an awful lot of, yes, hot air.

Military Matters (a Lot)

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:09:00 GMT

Two pieces by esteemed contributors to this blog have come out elsewhere this week, both on topics largely ignored by the media, the punditry and the military and civilian leadership, and both on topics related to the appalling failures of the same to ensure that the nation's military forces receive justice and a fair shake as they struggle with hostiles abroad and a hostile miiltary justice system at home.

"John Murtha Forgot Semper Fi" by Tom Stone appears here in the Washington Examiner.

"Imprisoned for Saving American Lives" by John L. Work appears here at Frontpagemag.com.

Must reads.

Alexander Haig, RIP

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:38:00 GMT

Astonishing how quietly retired General and former Secretary of State Alexander Haig passed away this past weekend, slipping the mortal coil practically incognito -- at least for a significant historical figure whose decades of service to this nation spanned war and tumultous peace.

Sure, there were front-page obituaries in the big papers, and yes, they all pounced one more time on his post Reagan-assassination-attempt "I'm in charge" routine -- a bogus splice of life, the way the media played it, that always cut the part where he said he would of course be informing the vice president if anything came up while he was in transit back to Washington ....

Tom DeFrank discusses Haig's key contributions in the darkest days of Watergate here.

Arnaud de Brochgrave recounts Haig's impressive military career (and strange-sounding later-life devotion to communist China) here.

Israel National News points out what a good friend to Israel Haig was here.

In 1988, I spent some time travelling with "the general" on an extremely short-lived presidential campaign, and I liked him. Of course, the crowds were so thin you could see straight through to the writing on the wall that led him to drop out of the race even before the New Hampshire primary, which says something about how a life lived at the pinnacles of power can be invisible down on the hustings. And, apparently, if the life is long enough, at the pinnacles of power and surrounding environs and echo chambers.

Alexander Haig, RIP.

Avallone: "Flirting with Afghanistan" 4

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:43:00 GMT

Here is the fourth part of "Flirting with Afghanistan," text, photos and captions by Paul Avallone. (See here for Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.) In this final installment, Avallone examines the exploitation, segregation and enslavement of girls and women in Afghan Islamic society -- a society the US-led coalition is prepared to die for, defend and perpetuate.

Stare into this girl's eyes, stare long, and she'll capture you, and you won't be able to look away. Then realize that I took this photograph in early 2003, when I and my Special Forces team mates played in our "Chocolate Alley" Jalalabad neighborhood of our safehouse base with the scores and scores of kids who trusted us and were unafraid of us, confident of our intent for good rather than bad, to the point that even the girls were photographical. Look again at this girl, then realize that, seven years later, she has been long married as well as long under a burqa. Under a burqa. Not just the pure beauty, but--look at her--whatever is going on in that mind.

And the American soldiers do leave, and that night or the next or the one after, their base will be rocketed or mortared, which is no big surprise. With fancy high-tech gear they can accurately pinpoint the POO (or Point of Origin) of the rockets/mortars, and guess what, believe it or not, the POO will be right there smack dab in that village where "we have not seen Taliban here in two years." If the Americans send their own mortars, artillery or jet-released 500-pounders down on that POO, within hours the Taliban newswires will declare three innocent women and a half-dozen innocent children killed in the infidel bombing—with videotape proof—and by morning, President Bush and his commanding generals in Afghanistan will be getting red-phone calls from President Karzai crying, "Why are you killing our innocent people?!" Tic toc, tic toc, Jeopardy is back, bing! "The answer is: What is, We're sorry, and we won't do it again."

But the Americans will do it again. It is a guerrilla war they are fighting, in a foreign land, as guests of Mr. Karzai and his IRoA, under the constraints of fighting under civilized rules of warfare a guerrilla insurgent force for whom there are no rules. One way rules. You've got to love it…if you're the guerrillas. Most likely illiterate but not dumb, they know that the Americans can pinpoint the village POO site, and they, the guerrillas, the Taliban, use that to their advantage. Whether A or B, it's a No Lose. A: The Americans don't fire back for fear of causing civilian casualties, leaving the Taliban free to use the place as a launch site or more; and B: The Americans do fire back, killing civilians in the process and thus giving the Taliban a nice little international PR coup. This, now, remember, all from guys, every time I've seen them either captured or dead, who are wearing those 7th century seven day shit suits. It says something for modern warfare, I guess.

In truth, no matter how deliciously clever, that shit suit name didn't really stick with the soldiers, whether it was because it was simply too long to say or simply too inappropriate to use among the politically correct Army officer class. Besides, that "shit" part is a little misleading because Afghans don't do their business, whether No. 2 or No. 1, very often. They're not like Americans, guzzling liquids by the 32-ounce Big Gulps and eating three or four times a day like every meal and snack's the last day before Lent, we're maxing out our sewage treatment plants. Afghans rarely drink much water. It's chai, and, since the caffeine in chai is a diuretic, one would think that that would make them have to urinate often, but overall they don't drink enough water for their bodies to get rid of much of it. I cannot count the number of Army rural medical missions I've witnessed when every last Afghan man came in complaining of daily headaches. Dehydration is always the diagnosis, especially in this hot, dry climate. Drink water. Not chai, water. If you could pour it down their deaf ears it might help. Chai good, water naaah. The shepherds crossing the deserts with their herds, I never see them carrying water. The ANA soldiers going out on patrols, mounted or on foot, they don't carry water unless they grab up the bottled stuff from their American partners' supplies. As for food, the Afghan diet is meager—flat bread, rice, beans, some vegetables, and a little meat perhaps once a week. As nature goes, the less one eats the less one shits, and the Afghans eat little and shit less. And, as an American medic at one of those rural missions once pointed out, "The worms are getting half of what they eat." Intestinal worms, small, medium and tape.

"Shit" suit wasn't really fair and it wasn't even missed as it faded off, as the name that stuck among the GIs for the male baggy garb is "man jammies." As in pajamas. For men. It really is the perfect description. Man jammies. Kind of cute too, and nothing pejorative about it, as "jammies" reminds one of the sweeter time of childhood. There is also nothing pejorative about another term the soldiers freely use, calling most things native "hajj" or "haji," as in, "Yeah, it was hajj food they had," "The workers on the fob are all haji," or "I bought the pirated Indiana Jones DVD at the haji bazaar." It's not an insult, it's not disrespectful, it's an immediate, simple descriptive communication. Sure, technically, the hajj is the journey to Mecca that all Muslims are expected to make in life, and haji is what one is called who has made the trip, used as a respectful address, "mister." My best guess would be that 95% of all Afghans have never made the hajj and never will, but 99.999% of all Afghans are Muslims, so the term, seemingly ill suited, isn't.

Using "man jammies" and "haji," the dumb ol' non-college attending GI "stuck in Iraq" in Afghanistan knows these people better than Condi Rice, her ambassadors and for certain the two presidential candidates. Even the college educated GIs here know better. Such as one, a young lieutenant, an extremely brilliant graduate from an elite liberal arts college, who told me a couple of days after, when he was no longer under the spell of the rush of the battle and had had time to reflect upon it, that during the terrifying ambush his platoon was in (to which I arrived minutes later) in which one of his men was killed, while the RPGs and AK rounds were raining down striking their Humvees, his thought was, he remembered so clearly, "This is not worth dying for." This, Afghanistan, the Afghans. As nine out of ten GIs would say, in their succinct immediate strike at reality with a phrase as common as "duh"—"No shit, Sherlock."

That lieutenant, he's still here. He's still leading his men. Going out on those patrols. Expecting more deadly RPGs. And, like just about every other GI whom I know here now, with the exception of some platitude-vomiting senior officers, he won't tell you he's here for Afghanistan or the Afghans; he's here because it's his volunteer job, his volunteer duty, and he's here for the guy next to him. And, unlike Condi, the diplomats, the politicians and all our pompous media editors, he should not have to, or be forced to, ask himself just who the hell the man in the attic is; he already knows. Which might very well explain why he's not here for him.

If there is one immediate visual image to draw from the Afghan culture it might be that of Afghan men in their man jammies sitting around on their haunches drinking chai from clear glass coffee cups. Anywhere and everywhere. It's done in the extended-family compound, to be sure, in the furnitureless living room/dining room where the men take their meals and hang out drinking their chai. It's done even more outside the compound, in bazaar shops, outside the shops, along the streets, in the fields, the entry gates of their military forts. It is never just one shopkeeper or one shepherd or one farmer or one soldier having his chai alone, maybe reading a newspaper; there are always three or a half-dozen men around, doing nothing, with him. Along the streets, cities or villages, there are always just men, young men and boys hanging out doing nothing, with someone behind them somewhere in a dark doorway heating up a kettle of chai. Men, young men and boys, and little boys too. Babies. Everywhere. More and more of them with each year.

A swelling population, even taking into account the one in four, or one in five (depending on which NGO's stats you want to believe), who die before they make it to five. Twenty to twenty-five percent don't make it to five. That is a stunning fact of life and death that would not be tolerated in the West. In particular, considering that most of the deaths are those of infants in their first few months from easily curable intestinal diseases such as dysentery….and all those small, medium and tape worms. Is it any wonder that Afghan culture so easily embraces inshallah and its acceptance of fate, God's will, as the overriding determiner of one's destiny?

Still, regardless of the child death rate, it is men, young men, boys and little boys all over Afghanistan. In their man jammies. And the women, young women, girls and the little girls? The Afghan-born author of The Kite Runner knew enough not to include them, females, avoiding that sticky, thorny, downright electrocuting subject completely. The topic of females in Afghanistan is like Social Security is to American politicians—it's the third rail. The topic, that is the third rail, while the females themselves, they're the other two rails—powerless without an electrical charge, hammered out, laid and permanently spiked down, and continuously run over on.

"I'll take 'Man Jammies' for four hundred dollars," says the brave contestant in Double Jeopardy. "A billowing, all encompassing outfit," reads Alex, "that covers an Afghan woman from head to heel." Ding! ring in all three contestants at once, shouting uncontrollably, "What is a burqa!"

Oh yes, everyone in America knows about the burqa, who couldn't? It's that cool looking, haunting, blue, sheet-like, sail-like cloak that makes Afghan women look like ghosts or mummies gliding down the street. So cool, in fact, that GIs don't have a name or nickname for it. No "woman jammies." It's just "burqa." Though one guy once threw out the brilliantly inspired "cloak a dope." But on the whole the burqa is hardly mentioned by GIs. Never, really. Just perhaps occasionally, in an indirect reference, as in the great little joke that I know has never been on Leno or Letterman or is known anywhere outside GI circles here and goes something like this:

Seasoned GI: "Hey, guess what, we saw some T and A on patrol out in the villages today."

New Guy GI: "Yeah, really? Afghani women, you saw tits and ass?"

Seasoned GI: "Toes and ankles."

Har-dee-har-har, it actually is funny, in spite of the fact that it shouldn't be. It gets a chuckle or two, in spite of the fact that, for all that it implies, it should get our wrath. Whether it's the burqa or, as is more common in the rural areas, simply multiple layers of long, billowing skirts and blouses, topped with a headscarf open only where there's a slit behind which eyes are invisible in the shadows, a woman does not exist in the Afghan environment outside the tiny confines of her family compound other than as a moving shape, an always-in-motion form under a burqa or those thick clothes. She is always moving, she is not stopped, she is not interfered with, she is not recognized or acknowledged. She does not exist. There are a few exceptions—the rare school teacher, the nurse, the Tolo TV news announcer, the female Afghan Idol contestant—and I am willing to grant a more openness among the Uzbeks and Hazaras, but in this Pashtun-dominated culture women are to be neither seen nor heard.

And it gets worse. Here's an adage I made up: Afghan women are nothing more than the bearers. They bear the children, they bear the water from the wells or streams, they bear the firewood, they bear the crops from the fields and they bear the burden of raising their children. Hidden, away, non-existent. During my Green Beret days in the country, a teammate of mine said it even better, stating so simply a profound truth that, were this in a war of truths, his thrust would be the fatal blow struck to the heart—"I'd rather be a dog in America than a woman in Afghanistan."

Further, in America dogs are allowed to walk beside or in front of a man, not made to walk behind, unnoticed, unacknowledged. In America dogs are recognized in public. In America dogs are allowed to bark, to anyone and everyone, at home or in public. In America it is a crime to beat a dog.

Our leaders are neither stupid nor misinformed, so they have to know of this regressive, unjust, pre-medieval cultural repression of women here in Afghanistan. They must know and they do, but they pretend not to or pretend it has no significance, and would even chuckle at that T and A joke above. They will not recognize it as an issue because we the American people, upon learning how deeply ingrained and serious this apartheid repression is—yes, I said apartheid—would say, Hold on, wait a second, you're telling me we're spending our blood and money on a country that treats its females, its entire gender of females, worse than dogs and has no intention of doing otherwise and you now want us to spend more indefinitely, is that what you're telling me?

No, until now, except for an aside remark among soldiers long ago, no one's been telling anyone about "worse than dogs." Instead, the issue is clouded and shrouded, as we Americans are given worthless statistics touting "this many millions of girls are now going to school in Afghanistan." Whoopee, they are? Until what age—nine, ten? For how many hours a day—one, two? In totally segregated classrooms. No question mark, let me be perfectly clear: totally segregated, boys and girls even at first grade level are not mixed. Can we begin to comprehend this? Even girls, little girls, they haven't even reached puberty yet (when they do, to steal from the soup Nazi, "No school for you!"), and thus are not even the sexually attractive flirts that might justify keeping them separate from boys. Aw yes, separate…and not equal. Worse, America and NATO with their provisional reconstruction teams are building many schools with either separate buildings for boys and girls or on two levels—one for each. Segregated. Well howdy-do, bless our little hearts, America- and NATO-sanctioned segregation. "Lordy, Maude, who'd o' believed it!" One would think that that would get the National Organization for Women, the Senate, the Cosmo and Redbook editorial staffs, the LPGA, Oprah, Susan Sarandan and every equal-rights minded woman and man in America just hopping mad, steam coming out of their ears. Naw, not a word said. Except more sweet, distracting statistics, such as, "Oh, there are women members of Parliament, you must know that." Yeah, mandated by law, a certain number of seats set aside for women. It's not democracy; a woman receives one vote—her own, most likely—and she wins. Does she have any power in Parliament? Alex? Contestant? "Answer:" says Alex, "Where is, A man can beat or kill his wife or wives and not be criminally charged."

"Oh, it's their culture," is the educated, diplomatic excuse thrown down harshly when the subject can't be avoided. "And we can't change their culture," is spat so condescendingly. And another refrain, "It's Islam, and we're not here to change Islam." And the kicker, "It's not for us to judge one culture from another." It isn't, it's not for us to judge?! This from the same moralistic diplomatic mindset that demanded through international economic sanctions that another independent country, South Africa, put an end to its culture of apartheid? "It's in their religion, and they are The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, if you didn't know." Yeah, and South Africa shoulda just changed its name to The Apartheidic Republic of South Africa, would that have done the trick?. "You're being ridiculous, you can't compare the two!" This from the same high-minded intellectuals who pontificate on the immorality of America's Jeffersonian culture of slavery? This from those who are so quick to self-loathing and condemnation for their own ancestors' westward-ho culture that believed it fun to slaughter the mighty herds of buffalo and it manifest destiny to wipe out the Native Americans? Even more simple and basic: This from those who are so dead-man-walking outraged by the sinister baseness of a culture, ours, that deems fit to kill those who have been convicted of murder? Can't compare cultures? Not for us to judge a culture? We're judging all the time. Would these same non-judgmentalists deem morally equal to our own Western cultures those African tribal cultures which practice female genital mutilation? Of course they would not, and they'd condemn me for making the moral equivalence between that and a simple burqa. A simple burqa?! Holy cow, we in America don't even require our dogs to wear burqas! "The Afghan female chooses to wear the burqa. It's their culture, and the women choose it." Yeah, and those tribal hottie African babes choose that mutilation as well. Gee, it's the culture. And, okay, you want me to buy it, I will—if we can't judge and condemn cultures and all cultures are created equal, then all sub-cultures must be too. Can't condemn a culture, can't force a culture to change, you sure can't then start condemning a certain sub-culture you don't agree with, which would mean we'll just have to keep the FBI from kicking in the doors of the high-walled compound of some 53-year-old reverend of some whacked-out, Looney Tune religious sect down in Texas or Utah who has forty-two wives, down to as young as eleven or twelve. It's their culture. Our laws be damned, change the laws, for culture is paramount and all cultures are equal!

In Afghanistan, did I mention, a man can have as many wives as he can afford to buy and keep, and he can get them as young as…as young as…name your age. Pick up one at a bargain price at six, wait a couple of years, then take her under your covers. And with America pouring billions of dollars a year into the Afghan economy, with so many of those construction contracts going to the locals, who are quickly getting rich, one can be confident that it is our American dollars that are buying more than a few bedsful of those pre-pubescent, cute-little-let's-not-judge-the-culture brides. Gee, I wonder if they actually get to throw the bouquet to….let's see….their six-year-old sisters?

Seething mad? You're not? Come over here and watch the blue forms going by. The burqas. Blurred burqas, they're not people, they're not women. Just burqas. Wake up, Oprah! Wake up, Susan! Wake up and start your shouting, 'cuz, by the way, that there's your billions of dollars here buyin' them there flow'ry bouquets they're tossin'.

Did I tell you about the one about the farmer's daughter? It's a hoot. A laugh riot. I was with some GIs, on patrol in the middle of nowhere, along Taliban movement routes. We set up near a small village, and a young farmer came out, with his two-year-old daughter in his arms, asking for help. The girl's hand and wrist were badly burned; the story was mumbled and unclear, but it was, as is so often the case, most likely from a fall into the cooking fire. No matter who's watching or not watching the child, accidents happen. The medic checked her out and determined that without extensive immediate care the little girl was probably going to die, if only from infection. The captain requested from higher and was granted a medevac flight, which is no small thing, considering it means scrambling two helicopters—one medevac, the second as security wingman. With the helicopters arriving, the father was told that he would have to accompany his daughter, as it is U.S. policy that all female medevac patients be accompanied by a male family member. A primary reason is to prevent misrepresentations of molestation and rape that will be so readily rumored and accepted as fact of the Americans' actions back at the bases. The father refused to go. Whether it was because of his fear of flying in a helicopter, his trepidation about going to an American base or he just had lots of farming to do, he refused. Even told that his daughter could not go and be treated without accompaniment, he refused, it did not matter. He would take her back to his compound. She could die. The American captain became incensed. A young man himself, with a wife and three young daughters at home in the States twelve thousand miles away, the captain argued to the farmer that he would do anything, anything, anything—even giving up his own life—if it meant saving the life of one of his daughters. The captain's passionate words fell on deaf ears—the father was not getting on that helicopter. Quick words from the terp, and a bent-over old man stepped forward. He was the father's uncle, and he would accompany the little girl. He did, and the helicopter took off with them. And the farmer, the old man's nephew….he walked back to his compound.

And the GIs and I, we laughed about that all evening and into the night. Laughed until tears ran from our eyes. Laughed and laughed and….and to believe that, you'd have to automatically want to believe the worst about American soldiers. No one laughed. No one, not once. And everyone understood that had that little girl been that farmer's son, that father would have been running to the helicopter with him. Running and hopping aboard.

It's not just the Afghan women who exist simply as the bearers, it's the girls and little girls too, except that they hold the promise of a nice little dowry upon their arranged marriage. Cash cows. Well, but they're not fat like cows, especially the ones under ten. And it's only a one-time payout. By puberty, females are required to cover their faces in public, burqa or head scarves, one or the other. Girls younger than that aren't, but they do wear the headscarves and in any contact with an adult male, in particular a Westerner, they will automatically, by learned habit from seeing mothers and aunts and older sisters and cousins do it forever, pull the scarf over their mouth or lift a hand or hands to cover their mouth. Learned, automatic subservience. Witnessed only on those occasions when a male stranger is allowed somehow to get close, for photographs perhaps.

Remember Afghan TV, with the men and boys, even today still in the villages, lined up squatted or sitting, doing nothing, just watching the visiting American soldiers? Men and boys, not women and girls. If there are some girls among the watchers, they are generally no older than four, and they're at their father or brother's side. Wouldn't one think that the village women and girls would be just as curious as are the men and boys about these strange visitors on live TV right in front of them? Of course they are, it's human nature. And one can see them peeking out from the cracks of barely opened steel doors, or some of the girls will come outside, remaining close to their compounds, backs against the mud walls. They will inch forward, slyly, shyly. They want to see more, they want to hear. Closer still they'll creep, slowly, moving along the edges of our vision.

And I'll be out of the Humvees, and if it's a new bunch of guys I'm with, I'll say to the ones outside with me or to the gunner up in the turret, "Hey, I ever tell you I'm also a magician?" Quizzical looks from the guys, huh, what's he mean? "Yeah," I'll say, "a magician." And I'll step toward the small cluster of girls, and even from the distance one can see their eyes widen, and I'll pull up my cameras away from my chest, and I'll take a few rapid strides as if I'm going to run to them, and they scatter like frightened baby ducks, out of sight around corners or back behind the steel doors. I'll turn back to the guys and, "I can make girls disappear," I'll tell them, and it's always good for a little laugh.

It's alright to do that with little girls, but not with women. Women passing, even in the distance, bearing their water or firewood, doing their work while the men and boys sit and watch Afghan TV—am I to raise my cameras in their direction, the men and boys will jump up alarmed, and the closest ANA soldier among our patrol will immediately put his hand in front of my lens and shove my camera away. They are going to protect their women, they are, by God, they are! Sociologists, anthropologists, proctologists, all kinds of –ologists a lot more educated than me will tell you it's the honor, the sanctity, the holiness of the women these "more natural, back-to-the-earth" cultures are protecting. Hogwash. Un-ologist me'll be just as absurd and say it's nothing but tiny-weenie insecurity syndrome. I'll as pompously postulate that the men cover up, hide, restrict, repress their women because they're scared someone will lure them away from them with the pleasures of real sexual satisfaction because, God knows, in a culture in which the female is powerless and can be freely used and abused as a simple receptacle for a man's selfish, quick orgasmic lust, I'm sure as hell not hearing any of Sally's screams "Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!" shaking the walls of the gals' bedrooms. Let's put that theorem in the college textbooks, why don't we? Then again, what could I hear, what do I know; I've never been close to one of those bedrooms. For every Afghan friend, terp, politician or soldier's homes or compounds I've been a guest in, I can count the number of wives, daughters, sisters or female cousins whom I've met on….one hand. Counting three as an "enlightened" member of Parliament and her two young daughters, and the fourth was a two-month old infant. The last was a terp's mother who, after we had eaten so many meals that she had cooked at their house, an American buddy of mine insisted—no, cajoled and begged—our terp friend that we be able to meet his mother to finally thank her. The terp disappeared back into the dark bowels of the compound then came back with his mother. She was sweet and gracious for the minute we spent with her, thanking her….and she mostly held the headscarf half hiding her mouth.

Old habits die hard. Subservience is difficult to grow out of. Power is tough to give up, nearly impossible voluntarily.

America is here in Afghanistan trying to rebuild a country from nothing, and the American people back home do see the burqas and know what they mean, partially, and we know they are wrong, but we are told that We cannot challenge or change a culture, but we will, slowly, over time, as the people become educated, and then they will become more like us and the burqas will go, but it might take a generation. Two generations is more like it, or three, or never, but even one generation from now is about the time that our own Social Security goes bankrupt, but that's the third rail of politics, and we're right back where we started, which means Shut up and forget about it.

Apartheid.

Not black. But female.

But apartheid still.

There, forgotten about? Want to argue that it's not apartheid? Fantastic, we should welcome that, at least there will be no shutting up, the issue will be out. Want to argue that it will just take education over the course of a generation's time to fade that apartheid culture out? Go ahead, the floor is yours, make your case, at least an analysis and a judgment will be finally heard.

"You don't get it," a smart soldier told me just the other day while discussing this very topic. "All they want," he said, meaning the Afghan men, "they don't want their daughters to be Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan." Not that he meant that the Afghans know who Britney and Lindsay are or know their names; it is what they represent that he was referring to, and he's right. The reach of the 21st century media is worldwide, even into the remote Afghan villages, if only through scraps of told stories and rumors, and what the Afghan man fears is his culture being corrupted by the culture that produces the Britneys and Lindsays. He fears the open, freedom-of-choice culture that accepts the Britneys and Lindsays as a small price to pay for that freedom of choice and achievement and the wealth that comes with it, such as the moon shots, the MRIs, the cis-platinums, the HVACs, the Golden Gate Bridges, the Silicon Valleys, the Chevy hybrids, the Facebooks, the iPhones, the Oprahs, the Susan Sarandans, the Mia Hamms, the Sandra Day O'Conners, the Condi Rices, the Hillarys, the Rosie the Riveters. Oh, he wants the iPhones, the MRIs, the HVACs, the hybrids, the wells, the roads and anything tangible we give him, as long as it is not mandated that he work for it, but he does not want—he fears as much as he does the Britneys and Lindsays—the Oprahs, the Rices, the Hillarys, the Rosie the Riveters.

If we are to accept temporarily today the Afghan culture and its abhorrent repression of women and inform our friends the Afghans that with all these gifts we give them—starting with our sons' blood—their culture will eventually change for the better to be open and free like our own, the Afghans will smile without comment and hold out their hands and take more blood and all the wells, roads, schools, bags of wheat, hospitals, small battle victories, hydroelectric dams, Coca-Cola factories and those damn pens that we give them without strings attached, and they won't do a thing. Not a thing, they won't change a thing. The culture won't change. If we attach strings, the Afghans will just stay smiling, with their hands still held out, and they'll nod "yes yes yes, strings, no problem," and they'll continue taking all we give and continue just doing what they damn well please, which, first off, with their fierce independence will be to ignore the strings completely. If we mandate, absolutely lay down the law and demand, that they act upon the strings, in particular, that one which stipulates that we as Americans cannot and will not allow the burqa and the apartheid that goes with it, the Afghans will smile politely still, hold their tongues, keep taking what we're still patronizingly stupid enough to be giving, and they will in private start to watch more seriously and pass around more widely the videos and DVDs the Taliban will distribute that show Britney and Lindsay and Girls Gone Wild and Desperate Housewives, and they'll listen more intently now to the Talib stories of American soldiers with their Oakley X-ray sunglasses that can see through their women's clothes and of the American soldiers who come into the villages, "A village just like yours," to rape their wives and deflower their virgin daughters, and the Afghans will do what they have proved so successful at doing in the past, and it won't matter how long it will take them and won't matter how many die in the process, but they will chase out the Americans and their NATO partners. Hardheaded independent tribal seventh century men and young men and teenage boys, wearing thin cotton man jammies and only a wool wrap even in the frozen winters, piss-poor undisciplined soldiers with mediocre aim and worse tactics, with nothing but a jihadist spirit and all the time in the world, drinking chai all day with their buddies, always with their buddies yet always farting in absolute solitude, they will have the Americans following right on the heels of our NATO cohorts, choosing to leave all our blood and treasure behind, throwing up our arms and saying, "What the f---, this place and these people ain't worth the trouble."

It's not Afghan TV, but it's a television set on nonetheless, tuned to either American Forces Network or a satellite channel, here in the dining facility at this comfortable U.S. forward operating base, and it's playing Jeopardy. It's back from a commercial now, and real or imaginary, "Final Jeopardy category is," says Alex, "Crazy Uncles in the Attic. Answer: Seventh century repressive apartheid country where America is spending three billion dollars and about ten soldiers' lives a month with no honestly declared purpose, no clearly reasoned strategy, no moral conditions of sacrifice, and no end defined or even remotely imagined. Contestants, you have thirty seconds to write your answer in the form of a question." Da da da da, da da da, da da da da dit di dididit…

Mr. Prime Minister?

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:53:00 GMT

The Dutch government has fallen for the fifth time since 2002.

”This is a beautiful day,” Mr Wilders said. ”The worst cabinet in Dutch history no longer exists and people can let their voices be heard by voting in a few months’ time.”

Don't Forget Why Pvt. William Long Died

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:37:00 GMT

Our leaders, military and civilian, all wanted to ignore the June 2009 jihad attack on Pvt. William Long outside an Army Navy recruiting center in Little Rock.

They still do.

Watch this video interview with Pvt. Long's father Daris Long and see if you can, too.

This week's column:

Remember last June when President Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia because, as he put it, "It was very important to come to the place where Islam began and seek his majesty's counsel"?

I argued at the time, gagging, that rather than visiting "the place where Islam began," the president of the United States should have gone to the place where Islam had just ended the life of a U.S. soldier. I refer to the U.S. Army-Navy recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark., where on June 1, Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad fatally shot Pvt. William Long, 23, and wounded Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18. The two soldiers had been standing outside having a smoke.

As usual, the president didn't take my advice, or even my further suggestion that he turn the attack into an opportunity to declare in a major address that the 21st-century era of jihad was over. Instead, he journeyed to lands where jihad is a sacred institution, and in Cairo made another speech entirely, boosting and even preaching on behalf of Islam. His only comment was to call the attack, belatedly, "a senseless act of violence."

Senseless? This was an act of jihad, and both soldiers, along with the fallen and wounded at Fort Hood, should receive the Purple Hearts they deserve. Muhammad himself has made his jihadist intentions against the U.S. military clear, beginning first with his statement to police, and later in collect phone calls to the Associated Press from Pulaski County jail. On June 9, the AP quoted Muhammad calling the attack "a act, for the sake of God, for the sake of Allah, the Lord of all the world, and also a retaliation on U.S. military." He wasn't guilty of murder, he said, "because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason." Such a definition jibes with Islamic law, which, for example, permits the killing of "non-Muslims at war with Muslims." Muhammad also told the AP he wanted revenge against the U.S. military for its perceived offenses against Muslims and the Koran.

We haven't heard much about the case since Pulaski County prosecutor Larry Jegley asked for a gag order on the gabby jihadi -- a step a prosecutor will take, former prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy tells me, to prevent the jury pool from being "poisoned" and to ward off potential defense claims that a fair trial was not possible.

But lead prosecutor Jegley has now entered bizarro territory, telling the New York Times this week that his team, as the paper put it, "considers (the attack) a straightforward murder case and that they intend to try it without delving into Mr. Muhammad's religious conversion, political beliefs or possible ties to terrorists. `When you strip away what he says, self-serving or not, it's just an awful killing,' said Larry Jegley ...`It's like a lot of other killings we have.' "

It is? Do "a lot" of middle-class murder defendants in Pulaski County convert to Islam in 2004 and worship at an Ohio mosque frequented by convicted terrorists in 2005 and 2006? Do "a lot" of them travel to Yemen in 2007 where, ABC News reported, "it is believed that Muhammad attended the Damaj Institute, an Islamic institute attended by a number of radicalized U.S. converts (including) John Walker Lindh? Do "a lot" get themselves arrested for overstaying their visa in Yemen, and possessing a fake Somali passport? Do "a lot" finally get deported back to the States in 2008? (Bio highlights courtesy the NEFA Foundation.) Do "a lot" fire on U.S. soldiers at a military recruiting center?

I'm not the only one confounded by the prosecutor's inexplicable and highly disturbing decision to follow a see-no-Islam strategy. Muhammad himself recently wrote to the judge claiming he was encountering legal obstacles to changing his plea to guilty. Avowing affiliation with al-Qaida as a member of "Abu Basir's Army," Muhammad further emphasized the fact that the incident was a "a Jihadi Attack ... justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad -- To fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims."

This was an act of war against the United States and should be treated as such. Especially for the sake of the fallen, this is no time for the prosecutor to run off the battlefield.

Capt. Roger Hill Tonight on CNN's "AC 360"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:55:00 GMT

Left to right: Capt Roger Hill, Officer in Charge of the Honor Guard at Ronald Reagan's funeral, and in Afghanistan.

Remember Capt. Roger Hill? Almost exactly one year ago to the day, I wrote:

After four years at West Point, nine years of honorable service, including two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and a Bronze Star for valor, Captain Roger Hill now faces a "less than honorable discharge" in a massive miscarriage of military "justice."

The story?

As three retired senior officers--Army Col. Andy O'Meara, Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerny and Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely--explained his case in an op-ed posted at the time, Capt. Hill was commanding a lonely outpost in 2008 in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, "an area the size of Connecticut with many Taliban lurking amid its half a million people."

And also, as it turned out, inside Capt. Hill's outpost. Some of the Afghan interpreters were passing information to Taliban forces leading to ambushes that had left as many as 30 Americans wounded and two killed. Capt. Hill detained about a dozen suspects and called for them to be evacuated to headquarters for interrogation. His request was denied.

Since detainees can only be held for 96 hours without charges, Capt. Hill and his men interrogated the detainees. The retired officers write:

Worred about the safety of his men, Capt. Hill reportedly made verbal threats, allowed his first sergeant to sit on the prisoners' chests demanding answers and is even said to have fired his pistol near the blindfolded heads of prisoners to trick them into thinking one of their comrades had been killed. The prisoners were not physically hurt ...

But Capt. Hill's military career was over. Incredibly, our Pentagon, our White House (Bush and Obama) seem to believe our country is better served by officers who are content to allow their men to remain subject to ambush and death due to Taliban infiltration. Remember what they did the LTC Allen West (now running for Congress).

Long story short, Capt. Hill ended up leaving the military with a General ("under honorable conditions") Discharge -- which was not only a rank injustice but, injury to insult, also a block on the VA medical coverage he needed for the assorted injuries he had sustained over years of combat.

Sickening.

But, happily, the story resumes. You can pick up with Capt. Hill's story at his new website MoreThanBrothers.com, where he writes that he is appealing his discharge. Today, he told me that his VA medical coverage issue has finally been resolved satisfactorily (but only as of last month!).

Tonight, the Afghanistan experiences of his and his company (Dog Company 1-506th Infantry) will be airing on CNN's AC 360 tonight at 10pm. He continues:

Here is the background and the details on what I can tell you:

This past fall, I was approached by CNN about doing a piece on my experiences in Afghanistan. ... We expect a fairly in depth look at the circumstances surrounding my case, totaling around 30-35 minutes of total story line, interview, commentary, etc. and all focusing on the need for more effective ROE and detention policies to better match up to the asymmetric enemies we face today, especially in NATO-led Afghanistan.

Don't miss it. If CNN gives Capt. Hill even a barely fair shake, it will make it clear to Americans that the US military is greatly the worse without him.

Finally, Someone's "Skeptical"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:42:00 GMT

Photo: A U.S. soldier returns fire as others run for cover during a firefight with insurgents in the Badula Qulp area, West of Lashkar Gah in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, on Sunday, Feb. 14, 2010. (AP Photo/Pier Paolo Cito)

-----

At the end of an AP "analysis" today by Anne Gearan and Anne Flagerty comes this comment from C. Christine Fair in response to happy talk from national security advisor James Jones about how Marjah "will demonstrate, I think successfully, that the new elements of the strategy will work." Jones, the AP writers note, "listed economic reform and good local governance in the same breath with the security bought with military might."

"That's where I get really skeptical," said Georgetown University professor C. Christine Fair, a former U.N. official in Afghanistan.

"I don't know where they found 2,000 Afghan police [mentioned earlier in the peice] who are competent" to lead security for such a large and strategic place, Fair said, and she doubts the U.S. assertion that most Taliban foot soldiers are motivated by money or expediency instead of ideology.

"Where is the data coming from to support that optimism?" she asked.

Thin air?

Of course, Prof. Fair is not unique in her skepticism -- see, for example, John Bernard's excellent commentary at his blog "Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home" -- but her statement is eye-catching both for her perch in academia and its appearance in the MSM.

Here's more from the AP:

With combat under way in strategic Helmand province - the first major offensive since Obama ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan - U.S. Marines are meeting stubborn resistance and slower going than some expected in the early days of the offensive around the rich farming district of Marjah.

Beyond the immediate battle, it's not clear whether meaningful numbers of Taliban fighters can be scared off by U.S. firepower or bought off in a future amnesty outreach.

"Scared off" -- literally. "For us, just pushing them out of town is enough," said Capt. Ryan Sparks, who leads Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment. "Our goal is to take care of the people, not kill the Taliban."

Ambitious plans to install a responsible local government once the fighting stops raise questions about how long the Americans intend to stay. On its face, the campaign to make Marjah independent and strong enough to resist the Taliban commits the United States and other countries to a lengthy stay in a bad neighborhood.

Obama has promised to begin bringing U.S. forces home in July of next year. He has set no deadline for ending the war outright, but military analysts assume U.S. forces will have to remain in volatile southern Afghanistan far beyond that initial drawdown....

Experts say that the next couple of months should reveal whether the operation worked.

"The center of gravity is the Afghan people," said Richard "Ozzie" Nelson, a former White House counterterrorism expert now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Please. Spare us the therapeutic talk.

"The Afghan government has to maintain security and operate on its own," Nelson said. "But the Afghan people have to accept the government" and reject the Taliban.

Says what man's army?

In a bid to try to win over the local population, U.S. officials waited to launch Saturday's operation until they had explicit permission from the Afghan government and were able to storm the town with significant numbers of Afghan forces.

But were they numbers of significant Afghan forces -- or just bystanders?

About 15,000 NATO and Afghan troops are taking part in the big offensive around Marjah.

Military officials say they are learning from past mistakes. The offensive is designed with an "Afghan face," meaning more and better trained Afghan soldiers and a reserve of some 2,000 trained Afghan police slated to take the lead in policing the town after shooting subsides.

Economic development will quickly follow, with military and civilian workers striving to "show a better way of life" to the town's inhabitants, White House press secretary Robert GIbbs said Tuesday.

What if they don't think Western-ish is "better"?

Gibbs said the operation "demonstrates the security forces of Afghanistan in the lead, working with others as partners to make progress against the Taliban."

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, says he is ready to unwrap an Afghan "government in a box" to take over in Marjah after the Taliban are expelled as a fighting force. Police, courts and local services are at the top of the to-do list.

What about drill teams and organic food cooperatives?

It's all part of the counterinsurgency theory Obama has adopted that says if people feel safe and fairly treated, they will reject the insurgents who oppress them while also providing services the ostensibly legitimate government cannot.

It's have-a-hug time at the Pentagon again.

Implicit in the Marjah strategy is the assumption that the Taliban cannot be defeated in a military sense, only marginalized and hollowed out.

No, not "in a military sense" -- in a hands-tying ROEs, hearts and minds, "counterinsurgency" and nation-building sense.

It also depends on a steady flow on international aid and development expertise that has been promised but over which the Obama administration does not hold full control. ...

Uh-oh. The UN is opting out. The story winds up with Prof. Fair. One more time:

"That's where I get really skeptical," said Georgetown University professor C. Christine Fair, a former U.N. official in Afghanistan.

"I don't know where they found 2,000 Afghan police [mentioned earlier in the peice] who are competent" to lead security for such a large and strategic place, Fair said, and she doubts the U.S. assertion that most Taliban foot soldiers are motivated by money or expediency instead of ideology.

"Where is the data coming from to support that optimism?" she asked.

I don't know that it's data that missing so much as common sense.

Hayworth vs. McCain: No Contest

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:01:00 GMT

Oh, to see former US Rep. J.D. Hayworth (GOP) trounce current Sen. John McCain ("Maverick") in Arizona's Republican Senate primary on August 24. Hayworth announced his candidacy this week.

McCain is everything wrong with the Republican Party, and despite the deep despair the Obama administration inspires, I still think (I think) a McCain presidency would have been somehow worse in the long run (if there is a long run ...).

A McCain administration would have been merely lousy. But it would have left the republic adrift in some similar and significant ways -- the disastrously prosecuted war, the drumbeat for illegal alien amnesty (one of Hayworth's major claims to fame is his staunch determination to protect US borders). More important, a McCain White House would also have failed to ignite tea-party activism just as it would have tied institutional GOP hands for the duration. In other words, hitting Obama-bottom with an existential crash just might -- might -- save us by triggering a rejuvenating political Big Bang, something that would have seemed impossible in an oxygen-deprived McCain admininstration.

As for veep candidate and star-powerful Sarah Palin? Her raw political instincts were always better for this country than any of the final three (McCain, Obama, Biden) -- which, granted, isn't saying much -- but with her self-respect-cancelling and politically contradictory endorsement of John McCain in the Arizona Senate race, I confess to hoping that both of these "mavericks" are finally put out to pasture.

COIN in Action (3): "Courageous Restraint"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:00:00 GMT

I don't know why the British newspapers seem to offer better war coverage, but they often do. Here, vivid and extremely disturbing reporting (compare to Wall Street Journal here) from Ben Anderson of the Times of London on what our ROE-handcuffed troops are going through to take that prize package Marjah (above).

We clung to the steep sides of the canal trying to find some safe ground halfway up the bank. A rocketpropelled grenade came in just over our heads and exploded against the wall behind us. The Marines either side of me were hit with shrapnel. One, Doc Morrison, took a chunk of metal in his leg that severed an artery. The helicopter called to evacuate him came under machinegun and rocket fire.

Captain Ryan Sparks, Bravo’s commander and a veteran of some of the US military’s bloodiest days in Iraq, later said that the 12 hours of fighting on that first day in Marjah were “at least as intense as anything I experienced in Haditha and Fallujah”.

The plan had sounded ominous to begin with. Bravo company landed 800m (2,650ft) from Marjah’s most populated district, known as the “Pork Chop” by the Marines. It is an area in which the Taleban has had months to prepare home-made mines and defences so extensive that Brigadier-General Larry Nicholson, the Marines’ top commander, described it as “the most significant IED [improvised explosive device] threat faced by any Nato force in history”.

The Marines had no choice but to walk into well-planned attacks on a terrifying day of combat.

No choice? Maybe in COIN lala land, but I'll some crack military strategist could come up with something a little better than that.

Bravo Company, 1st Battalion 6th Marines, knew what was happening before the first shots were fired — one man on a scooter appeared to be dropping fighters off at a compound but they were powerless to do anything.

The new rules of engagement, dubbed “Courageous Restraint” and designed to prevent civilian casualties, meant that when the Sun came up over Marjah all they could do was wait. From either end of the road they were on, which leads towards Marjah’s northern bazaar, and from the fields, they were being watched.

Eventually the Marines had to break cover and came under heavy fire. They ran to a canal but were open targets on top of it and exposed if they slid towards the water.

Bravo had landed two hours earlier at 3am. Rain had turned the ground to cloying mud and most of the 150 Marines stumbled in it when they left the helicopters. Many carried so much equipment that they could not get up without help.

Now pinned down in the canal our position seemed potentially catastrophic. There was no consideration of retreat however and a fightback began. Three soldiers around me claimed to have killed four enemy fighters and eventually the Marines battled their way to the relative shelter of a nearby compound. The family were ordered to leave and seek shelter in another building nearby.

The Marines punched holes in the mudwalls and exchanged fire with attackers who seemed to have surrounded us. Eventually three fighters were identified in a compound about 200m away and a Harrier jet was called in to attack. It did so, twice,

Thank goodness for that. Gens. Nicholson and McChrystal must have been out ot lunch.

and the Marines resumed their progress towards their original objective — a petrol station at the edge of the bazaar.

Within minutes though they were taking fire from the same three men in the building struck by the Harrier. Everyone dived to the ground and bullets fizzed inches above our heads for 20 minutes. It was a pattern that would be repeated throughout the day, with each incremental advance met with fire from the Taleban. “Those guys were much better than the guys we faced here last year,” said Corporal Hillis. “Training can’t explain that, they had to be foreign fighters.”

We occupied a former police headquarters that night and in the morning the Afghan National Army (ANA), which has 17 soldiers with the company’s 3rd platoon, held a flag-raising ceremony. Said Asrar, their captain, said he hoped that the fighters of Marjah would join the ANA in its fight against terrorists and the Taleban but, if they chose not, “then we will fight against them and we will kick their ass”.

Within seconds of the flag going up enemy fighters fired several rounds.

Bravo started clearing adjoining compounds and again met resistance. At one point enemy fighters were in the neighbouring complex and Marines hurled grenades over the walls.

The last compound cleared that day was home to an Afghan family who agreed to rent a few rooms to the Marines for the night.

A family elder said that life under the Taleban had been preferable to rule from Kabul. “It was not like under the Government. There was no crime, no thieves and robberies,” he said. “I am not for either side, I just want to live in peace.”

For now peace seems at least several weeks away. Civil affairs teams were supposed to be at work within two days but one Marine, who had been told that the whole operation would take a month, was convinced it would take at least two.

Several times air support was called in but either denied final attack permission because the Marines could not be sure that no civilians were in the buildings, or was delayed for so long that they became pointless. Clearance had to come from the very top.

Later on that second day a Taleban sniper began to wreak havoc on our position, injuring two Marines on guard duty on the roof. Three suspected suicide bombers tried to storm a small outpost that was set up by the Marines. At least two were killed with grenades.

After 48 hours of relying on whatever they could carry fresh supplies arrived on the third day and the initiative began to swing. The Marines managed to ambush 20 fighters leaving a building, killing 18, but the enemy threat remained constant.

On that third night another Taleban sniper hit a Marine who was on the roof — his bullet struck his helmet between his eyes. Incredibly the Marine escaped without a scratch.

The big test now will be clearing the “Pork Chop”, where the threat will shift from war fighting to IEDs.

Meanwhile, Back in the Hague ...

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:54:00 GMT

Radio News Netherland reports:

A conference centre in The Hague has cancelled the launch of a book criticising Islam. The book launch was scheduled for Thursday at The World Forum, but was cancelled because the director of the venue does not believe he can guarantee the safety of his guests.

The book in question is Islamofobie? (Islamophobia?), written by Islam critic and PVV supporter Frans Groenendijk. The PVV, or Freedom Party is an anti-Islamic opposition party led by Geert Wilders.

Must be Geert's fault somehow.

COIN in Action, Cont'd.

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:25:00 GMT

Photo: Afghanistan Marine BG Lawrence "Eat Lots of Goat" Nicholson

The Battle of Marjah continues, only it's not a "battle" as understood in the traditional sense of the word. Marjah is a deadly foray into "armed social work" for US troops who probably thought they had signed up to fight for their country.

Wrong country.

“What are we here for?” Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, the top Marine commander in Afghanistan, would shout to his troops.

“The people!” was the troops’ refrain.

And yes, that would be "the people" of Afghanistan.

Avallone: "Flirting with Afghanistan" 3

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:00:00 GMT

Here is the third installment of "Flirting with Afghanistan," text, photos and captions by Paul Avallone. Catch up on Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

GIs inspect a school, built the previous year through US aid and contracts, and subsequently destroyed by the Taliban. 2008.

A villager says his piece in a meeting with American soldiers. 2008.

"Afghan TV": With GIs in or passing through villages, the men just hang out to watch, photographed here from a Humvee.

GIs on patrol 2008.

Thirty-six hours without sleep patrolling, exhausted GIs find comfort on their steel mattresses.Wardak province, 2008.

So, we fight in Afghanistan as a battle on the frontline in the War on Terror, or, on an even grander scale, in the Global War on Terror, or GWOT for short, and in refusing to define our enemy we then commit a cardinal error in a nation's execution of war. One would think that a nation would have learned after having committed the same error in a previous war less than fifty years earlier. Yes, in the Vietnam War. By 1967 everyone knew that the war there was no longer between the home-grown Viet Cong guerrillas and the South Vietnamese government and its American sponsors. The enemy was the North Vietnamese. Invaders. Regardless the rightness or wrongness of their cause, it was an invasion, and the Americans were fighting it. As an invasion. Fighting them. In South Vietnam. I have not read Sun Tzu but have heard of and accept completely his theory that in warfare one must strike at the heart of his enemy. A body dies without a working heart. A strike at the heart is a killing blow. A strike at the heart is not a bomb-drop here a bomb-drop there, a truce, a bomb-drop, putting off-limits the Russian freighters in the Haiphong Harbor unloading SAM missiles, more bombs here, more there, a truce. Whether or not back then America was willing to recognize and define the true enemy, regardless of the geo-political fears and cautions dictating our behavior, we did not strike at the heart of the enemy, and we lost. We did not invade the North, we did not bomb their dikes, we did not nuke 'em to the Stone Age. Insane, immoral, isn't all war? I don't know if it's one of Sun Tzu's principles in the art of war, but it's common sense: One does not go to a fight, whether it's in the playground, the sandlot, the alley, the bar—wherever—unless one is willing to bring his all and is prepared to lose his all. Lose everything. Have his hair pulled, groin kicked, teeth knocked out, eyes gouged out, and ribcage crushed to powder by a guy or guys who are just bigger and tougher and meaner than oneself. Or give it right back to him or them. If you're not prepared for both, don't go. If you do head that way, you had better have weighed every conceivable pro and con and have concluded that a total loss, your disfigurement, injury or death, is worth it. And you had better know just exactly who the hell your enemy is. And had better to have judged the fight as warranting your striking at his heart, as he, by God, will be doing the same to you. Striking at the heart.

The Vietnam War was a failed strategy for America, but just fifteen years later, recognizing and defining the real enemy and striking at its heart, America pulled off a brilliant victory in El Salvador. With, of all things, congressional peacenik restrictions on warfare that limited the number of American troops in the country to a pinhead sized fifty-five. Fifty-five. Two numbers. 55—it's not a misprint. What started as an internal guerrilla civil war within El Salvador, the American leaders and commanders soon enough recognized as a proxy war fought with men and materiel from Nicaragua, most coming through Honduras. When closing the porous borders proved impossible, America formed the Nicaraguan refugees living in Honduras into an army, the Contras, and sent them into their homeland Nicaragua. An invasion. Striking at the heart of the enemy. And it worked. Nearly overthrown by the Contras, the communist Nicaraguan government negotiated a peace, and suddenly, the civil war in El Salvador was over. No bombing of dikes, no nuking to the Stone Age, but, at the same time, accurately measuring the value of victory or defeat, and precisely defining the enemy then striking at his heart.

So, why are we in Afghanistan? Who is our enemy? How much do we value his defeat? How much are we willing to sacrifice for his defeat? How will we know when he is defeated? Where is his heart, and how do we strike at it to kill him?

I'm just a regular Joe voter, who won't even be voting this year because there is no way to get me an absentee ballot way over here and get it back in time to be a counted vote, and I'm sure not privy to National Security Council White House briefing notes, nor CIA analyses, nor Pentagon and CentCom conference calls, nor closed-door congressional Foreign Affairs Committee hearings, nor ISAF memos to the commanding American general here and his right back at them, nor Obama or McCain's advisors' whispers of the real reasons behind the candidates' foreign policy positions, but I haven't heard one word out loud from any of these leaders that truthfully, rationally, raises or attempts to answer those questions.

Now, were these same leaders, both left and right and in the media, to admit that Look, we blew it with the WMDs in Iraq, but we're there now and we're stuck because, in a nutshell, the place has got oil and lots of it, the gas-guzzling, air-conditioned, energy demanding American public, with $5/gallon gasoline and $8/gallon milk, might not be comfortable with the morality of "War for Oil," but they'd buy it. And then demand of their leaders accountability for their twenty-year energy policies of ignoring a growing China and India while restricting our own homegrown product production, and they would demand instant drilling-based resource enhancement and government-sponsored Manhattan Project-type initiatives into alternative energy sources to sooner-rather-than-later make imported oil irrelevant.

Big-picture for Iraq—Iraq now, not Afghanistan—talk all you want about "democracy" and "containing Iran" and "bases in the Middle East" and blah blah blah—it's oil. For Afghanistan… Where's the oil?

Oh, didn't anyone mention it? There is no oil in Afghanistan. Sure, there was lots of excited blabber here a few years ago about the possibility of bringing Kazakhstan oil in a pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Indian Ocean. That sounds like a pretty good reason for a strong U.S. military presence in a stable Afghanistan, but I haven't been hearing any of that talk recently. Maybe because everyone realized that the pipeline is impractical because of the cost of securing it alone. This place would have to be one very stable country to not have the thing blown up here and there on a daily basis. And, even with a heavily-armed Afghan National Army (ANA) guarding the length, with the country's cultural acceptance and encouragement of corruption—baksheesh—each little guard post and each individual guard would be selling spigot rights, and the line would be tapped into the entire length, so that the drips that came out going into the ocean tanker at the port end would be so miniscule that they could be dabbed away with one of those little penile piss-dribble wipe stones.

Since there's no oil to be fighting for, and since, with the increased Taliban insurgency this year, the word is finally now being widely broadcast that the insurgents are coming across from their Pakistan-based training camps, another argument is coming out between the lines, and it too fails to define the enemy, judge the value of the fight, lay out an end-state, or rationalize an aim for the heart.

This undercover argument says that America owes it to Afghanistan to rebuild it because America, after helping the Afghans defeat the Russians, left the Afghans—"neglected" them—to make something of their country all by their little ol' warring, helpless selves. It was our neglect, it is argued, that allowed Afghanistan to fall into chaos, which led to the Taliban taking over, which led to al-Qaeda being welcomed in, which led to 9-11, etcetera. The argument is based in part on guilt-trip, part on practicality. The poor country needs our help to avoid chaos; chaos will allow al-Qaeda a stronghold again. And in rebuilding, to rebuild we must at the same time secure the country—"hold it," if you will—against an internal/external insurgent enemy.

Isn't it a bit presumptuous of us to believe that the Afghans would think that they needed us or would ask for our help? Say what I will about the Afghan culture, and a lot of it is not good, but I will give it this much: The people are extremely proud and self-reliant, and they neither like to be told what to do nor told what they need and surely don't like to be told what they need to do. Don't misunderstand, the Afghans are shameless in asking for and taking whatever one has—a stick of gum, a cookie, a pen, a well, a road, a school, a hospital, a factory, a hydroelectric dam, a box of cookies, two pens, three pens, an MRE, a Humvee, a thousand Humvees, four pens, a case of MREs, a pallet of bottled water, a jingle truckload of bottled water, a fleet of brand-new Ford Ranger pickup trucks for their ANP, fifty thousand BDU uniforms for their ANA, a hundred thousand Kalashnikov rifles—but they are too proudly independent to allow there to be any strings attached to their taking. Any, period, end of discussion. You want to give it to them, give it—ask for nothing in return. Because you're not going to get it. It works both ways; when an Afghan gives he has no strings attached and expects nothing in return. Giving, sharing, hospitality is a part of his culture, and it is a shame for an Afghan not to offer, and as shameful to add strings to the offer.

Americans gave to the Afghans Stinger missiles and the training in their employment to defeat the Russians, but that's where the American influence would end, regardless if America had followed the Stingers with dollars, well diggers, State Department advisors and brigades of the 82nd Airborne. Don't accept that? Thirty-five thousand deployed U.S. soldiers presently in-country later, along with more than 150 billion dollars burned over time, as well as road-pavers, well-diggers and who-knows-how-many State Department advisors, and in 2008 we've got an increasingly aggressive and successful Taliban insurgency against a weak, corrupt federal government that is still standing only because it's backed by those 35,000 GIs and another 20,000 from NATO. What the hell do you think we could have done in the early 1990's to have kept chaos from reigning? How many American troops would we have had to have deployed over here then?

It is the Afghans and their culture that is solely to blame for their decline into chaos after the Russians picked up and took their marbles home. The Afghans are a warrior culture, no denying it, and a people who can be rallied to unify to fight an invader and, once the invader is thrown out, they explode into their own tribes to fight each other. That that American aid (the Stingers, etc.), in a clever move in Cold War Risk, was key to the mujahedeen victory over the Russians, does not mean that America was any more responsible for the aftermath than France, helping us throw out the British in our revolution, would have been responsible to ensure that afterwards Massachusetts didn't attack Rhode Island and George Washington didn't lob cannon balls John Adams' way.

It may be a harsh, harsh, harsh reality to admit, but Massoud, Dostum, Hekmatyar, Abdul Haq and the rest of the warlords were not and are not any George Washingtons or John Adams'.

It may be harsher still to declare, in these times of Western non-judgmentalism, that the Afghan culture is on a moral par—or, even, on a practical life-sustaining par—with that of America and the West.

With no viable argument for American economic self-interests in Afghanistan, (such as oil), none to sustain any longer the terrorist training camps rationale, (their camps are in Pakistan), and none given rationalizing for a strategic geo-political stronghold in the area, (Iraq will have to do, as it does have the oil), as both presidential candidates Obama and McCain are one-upping each other in increasing, almost to doubling, the American military in the country, I expect that the sloganeering justifications to be coming our way now will be emotionally based, heart-string arguments playing on an American guilt for past neglect and the overall generosity and kindness of a modern, rich American nation to a 7th century, impoverished, shambled one.

There are more poor or impoverished countries and peoples in the world than wealthy ones, and Americans instinctively know that giving to each and every one as we're presently giving to Afghanistan—thirty-five thousand troops and about thirty-five billion dollars a year—would bring our own country into shambles and ruinous poverty. A hundred countries could properly demand what the Afghans are getting from us. Choices must be made then. The crazed uncle in the attic, remember?

Until now, we've assumed that guy up there to be an uncle, but he may not be. He may be a vagrant who climbed the trellis, broke the window and just staked himself a comfortable spot out of the rain and cold. He's getting louder, we know that. We're sending up food now six times a day, and double portions each time, and the tray's always coming down empty. Our house cat's been missing since last week, and we haven't seen Rex the Black Lab since Tuesday, and something is starting to smell like dead meat from up there. What is he doing up there, really? Who, really, is this man? Blood relative or street vagrant? We don't really know, but one thing we sure do know is, for all we've done and are doing for him, we've yet to hear a thanks.

Then again, remember, what one gives to Afghans one gives with no strings attached, even that bare-hair-thin string called a thank-you. Afghans make marvelous, generous hosts but extremely demanding and taking, ungracious guests. And, in an insane irony, turning the uncle-in-the-attic metaphor upside-down, diplomatically we the Americans and NATO are the "invited guests" here and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (IRoA) is the host, yet we're doing all the giving and they all the taking. Hot damn, if there were a hint of thankfulness in the Afghan culture (to anyone but Allah), instead of those five-times-a-day prayers just to Allah, the Afghans would reserve one, just one, to say Thank you, Osama bin Laden and your al-Qaeda for 9-11, for you brought us all these goodies for free!

It may all lead to nowhere and nothing except blood and dollars dropped down that dry well, but we did throw out the then-feared and despised Taliban, who had effectively brought law-and-order at the muzzle of a gun and ignored any bureaucratic aspects of governing—such as roads, schools, water, electricity—and who (hold the phone here, another irony coming up) nowadays are looking better and better to the Pashtun Afghans, as at least the Talibs are Pashtun, brothers, unlike the fifty-thousand foreign "infidels" who have "invaded" their land. And as those who threw out the Taliban and have given billions of dollars worth of all the bureaucratic governing things the Taliban ignored presently plan to increase their "infidel" numbers in the country, (Warning: We are parked squarely in Irony Central now), they, these "infidels," the Americans and NATO partners, will be mistrusted, despised and hated even more. And you think you're going to get a thank-you? Remember, the uncle's crazy, or he's a vagrant, not even a blood relative. Or, is he? Again, who the hell is he?

Don't ask, don't tell as applied to Afghanistan suits our leaders just fine, and the military folks on the ground here are expected to unquestioningly fight a war and (re)build a country "putting an Afghan face on it." In a tiny spark of wisdom in recognizing that the Afghans do look at us as infidel invaders, our leaders, in a desperate attempt to downplay and whitewash our presence here, demand that all our gifts of schools, clinics, roads, hydro-electric dams, pens, bags of wheat, battlefield victories, government institutions and standards and practices have an "Afghan face." That is, have Afghan government up front, whether federal or local officials, the ANA, ANP, whatever, as if it is the Afghans who are bringing and giving the wells, schools, clinics, roads, pens, bags of wheat, victories, institutions, etcetera. The Afghan people may be ignorant and uneducated, but they are not stupid, and they certainly know their own culture and fellow Afghans, and regardless of the face the U.S. tries to put on the giving, the Afghans know that the gifts don't come from their fellow Afghans. Afghans give as hosts only, it is shameful not to, but they are tribal in their sense of obliged shared responsibility, not provincial and definitely not federal. They know their own people. They know that their politicians in their provincial capitals or in Kabul, if they had a road, a school, a bag of wheat, or a hydroelectric dam to give away, they'd keep it for themselves or for their own tribe rather than let some other tribe get it. Remember those competing warlords after jointly throwing out the Russians and overthrowing the communist government turning on each other, If I can't have it neither can you? Without being negatively judgmental, allowing Afghans to be whichever way they want to be—This land is your land, this land is my land—should we not at least, if we're giving away those bags of wheat, hydroelectric dams and our son's lives and limbs, know who we're giving them to?

That the Afghans have made so little of their land for more than two thousand years is due equal parts to fate and choice. There is an Afghan saying that goes something like this: When God made the earth, He had all kinds of rocks left over, and He dumped them all in Afghanistan. I would add, And then he created the Pakistanis, so that the Afghans could have a permanent enemy and someone to hate and to blame for all their problems, and I wouldn't be able to find an Afghan even who would disagree with that. More, the Afghan would go on and expound for thirty minutes why the Pakistanis are the root of all their problems and, what God didn't do with the rocks, the Pakistanis are doing just because they're Pakistanis.

The Afghans do deserve credit for surviving on and making something, however little, out of such a worthless land. They have taken those rocks and the dirt of a dry earth and without mortar or cement have built their houses and villages, and they have taken those rocks and terraced the inclined foothills and with them have laid down and lined irrigation ditches to bring the water from the snow-covered mountains down into dry soil to grow their patches of wheat, vegetables, fruits and nuts, hashish and, of course, opium poppies. More importantly, centuries ago they realized that the real value of their land was in its geography, as a transverse point, a way station, between East and West, and they made themselves the gatekeepers, the toll takers, living contently on the tariffs extracted, mostly by bandits, for little or no work done and even less product produced or provided. When conquerors invaded, from Alexander, to the Persians, to the Mongols, to the British to the Russians, the Afghans collapsed docilely, holding out their hands and taking what was offered, then asking for more and taking it happily, then, when a return (those strings) was asked or demanded of them, they unified into a strong force of absolute passive aggressive disobedient non-compliance, or directly aggressive warrior armies, with the positive end result the same: the invaders, considering the effort way not worth the bottom line of what they'd get from the land or people, leaving. Leaving the Afghans with nothing more than they'd had before the invasion and, apparently, winsomely content with that. Anyone got the pot of chai boiled up yet?

Ignoring for now the Islamic religious and cultural conversion post-Mohammed, the harshness, the miserableness, the near absolute worthlessness of most of their land itself is a pretty valid excuse for the Afghans having given the world nothing really of tangible value. No moon shots, no wheel, no vaccines, no Boulder Dams, no 32-gigabyte jump drives, no Citizen Kanes, no William Faulkners, no Grouch Marx' even. Again, ignoring for now the Islamic religious and cultural conversion, the common American soldiers' speculation upon first reacting to the Afghan landscape and people in a sense of wondered disbelief, "Man, it's like going back to Biblical times," is less a condemnation or insult upon the people than a quiet statement of reality.

Yes, indeed, and then came the Americans.

The all-powerful Americans it was back in 2002-03. As soldiers, whether in the cities, villages or settlements, we would arrive, and the men and boys would stop what they were doing and just stare at us, mouths often agape, eyes intense and curious—it was awe. They would even crowd close, not to touch, they would not do that, but just to draw near, pulled in by the power. All-powerful. And that's what it was, what they were in awe of. We were taller than them, bigger than them—healthy, strong, well fed, well bred Americans—and our clothes and weapons and equipment were different and modern. And deadly. So deadly that, even if the people had not seen our brothers before us in combat action, they'd heard the stories about them, and to them we were the same soldiers, it did not matter, of a power that was so mighty that it had just defeated in a matter of weeks the Taliban enemy that their own brothers of the Northern Alliance could not defeat in years of fighting and still now, today, 2008, seven years later, would not have been able to defeat. They would still be stalemated, the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, at a draw. Heralded worldwide as great warriors, the Afghan fighter has an undeserved reputation, unless it's his bravery we're talking about. He's got bravery in spades, as I've witnessed dozens of times, as he'll run toward the fight, run toward the bullets. Our own militia soldiers, back in '02-'03 when I was a warrior too here, would insist on putting themselves in front of us to take the bullets to protect us. It's a part of their culture, a good part, where a man's courage is a part of his honor. As for the other qualities of soldiering—discipline, accountability, responsibility, technical knowledge, tactics and consistency—the Afghan is piss-poor at best. For one, he just doesn't care. It's the inshallah (if God wills it) part of the culture. Leaving everything to fate. For another, he just doesn't like to take orders. It's the stubborn, hard-headed independent part of the culture. That hard-headed independence is the great irony of the culture that is tribal, paternal, warlord. A man is subservient to the family, tribe and warlord, yet little more than a showing of respect for the family, tribal elders and warlord is asked of him, except that he not bring shame upon the family or tribe. Shame—remember the flatulence?—is big in the culture, it's huge, and it might be the best explanation for the Afghan warriors' reckless bravery and piss-poor soldiering. There is family and tribal shame in running away from the bullets; there is none in not caring about or being lousy or mediocre at one's job. Inshallah. Ironic also is that soldiering is the perfect job for an Afghan. There is almost no skill required—just know how to load and shoot a Kalashnikov, no aiming necessary—with even less work. Soldiering is like a family or tribe, with meals and lodging provided, and it's men being with men all the time. All the time, which is what Afghanistan is all about. Men doing nothing, hanging around with men. Basically, daily soldiering. Even a couple of Afghan soldiers on gate guard duty, there will be with them two or three more not on duty but just hanging out and maybe another four or five civilians too—all sitting, squatting, whatever, just shooting the breeze. Oh, yes, and drinking chai. Hour after hour after hour. In no hurry to do anything else. Which makes the Taliban/Northern Alliance stalemate years of the 1990's seem reasonable and natural. I was not there among them, but I can imagine a group from one stumbling upon a group of their enemy sitting around drinking chai, and the enemy inviting the first to join them, and they all do, rinsing the chai cups and boiling up a couple more pots, chit-chatting the afternoon away. They separate in the evening, and the next day, one group casually shoots a couple of RPGs at the other from one ridgeline, and the other returns fire with a couple of RPGs, and they separately call it a day and report to their commands it a battle well fought.

Then along comes the U.S. in a wham, bamm, 30-second match knocking out the Taliban, it's normal that the people would be awed by such a power. A power that had rained down 500-pound bombs from heard but unseen jets, and we too a year later, when needed, all powerful, would beckon those jets above. And call them down to fly low, at treetop level at ear-splitting decibels, shaking the ground like an earthquake, for their split-second flight overhead, terrifying. All powerful.

It's no wonder the people would stop and crowd and stare. In awe. That stopping and staring and crowding—for ten minutes, for an hour, it was the same—we called it "Afghan TV." We were on Afghan TV. We were the only channel, we were on all the channels. We were the show. No cameras, no television sets needed; it was live. Must See Live TV. We would leave the villages, and we would know that the Afghans would go back to their homes and, like us around the water cooler a few years earlier rehashing the previous night's Seinfeld episode, they'd be replaying the show they'd just seen, The Americans Coming to Town.

By 2006, the awe was gone. As well as the crowding. In the cities the people would just glance up and by at the American soldiers, then go back to what they were doing. In the villages they'd still stop and stare, it was still Afghan TV. But the mystique of power was gone, though the Americans' equipment, weapons and vehicles were yet again bigger and even more deadly. Without that mystique the Americans were accessible, approachable, and the kids would come close, to ask, with hands out, for candy, or "Pen," or "Book," in English. No question mark in the asking. Just, "Pen." "Book."

In the villages this year, 2008, it's still Afghan TV, and in the friendly ones, the kids will crowd the soldiers, chattering "Pen," "Pen," "Pen," quick like clucking hens—again, statements, demands, not questions. In the unfriendly villages in Taliban sanctuaries, where the nature of warfare demands so many American patrols go, it is still Afghan TV, but the boys don't come close, and will even be behind the men, who are all squatting, silent, with stares that are closed, angry, threatening. And one knows that these Afghans would change the channel if they could, because this show they don't want to watch. Most times they are not even Taliban, they're just villagers, but the Taliban are around, near, somewhere, or are coming back, and the men fear the Talib reprisal should it be learned that they spoke with the American soldiers, never mind actually helped them. In a nutshell, the villagers fear the Taliban, they do not fear the Americans. They would change the channel, they don't want this live show; they just want the Americans not to have come, and their hard stares relate that. There is no good that can come to them from the Americans' visit. When questioned by the soldiers, they mumble indecipherable answers and shoo away the relevance of being questioned with fibs, and then, noting the politeness of the Americans, confident that they will not be harmed by them no matter what, they grow ever bolder and laugh it all off with the outright lie, translated, "Taliban? No, no, we have not seen Taliban here for two years. Two years. More." And, please, their eyes are saying behind the false chuckles and spoken words, leave, leave us alone.

Battle of Marjah: COIN in Action

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:38:00 GMT

Via ISAF: Valentine's Day at the Battle of Marjah.

The news from Marjah is increasingly surreal as "counterinsurgency" theory goes into battle -- "counterinsurgency" being a fancy word for hearts-and-minds nation-building.

Example: A rocket hits the wrong compound, killing 10 "civilians." Since COIN means always having to say you're sorry, the commanding general not only "apologizes" in the middle of the battle, he suspends the further use of the rocket in the middle of the battle. This is in line with the guiding fantasy of COIN warfare -- that it is possible to "win" the confidence, trust, "hearts and minds," whatever of the "people," as though war were a popularity contest, and after eight-plus-years the Muslims of Afghanistan still can't make up their minds who, between us and the Taliban, should win their coveted Miss Congeniality prize.

Of course, this rocket ban is just one more sicko rule of engagement to add to the passel of sicko rules of engagement Gen. Stanley McChrystal has imposed on his own troops to, as he has said, to protect the Afghan people from everything that can hurt them.

Other such ROEs include:

No night searches. Villagers must be warned prior to searches. Afghan National Army or Afghan Police must accompany U.S. units on searches. Searches must account, according to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters, "for the unique cultural sensitivities toward local women." ("Islamic repressiveness" is more accurate, but that's another story.) U.S. soldiers may not fire on the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first. U.S. forces may not engage the enemy if civilians are present. U.S. forces may fire at an enemy caught in the act of placing an IED, but not walking away from an IED area. And on it goes. As McChrystal says in a video briefing shown to Marines, "It's not how many you kill, it's how many you convince."

Now that the COIN battle in joined at Marjah, Fox News today reports:

Marines said their ability to fight back has been tightly constrained by strict new rules of engagement that make their job more difficult and dangerous. Under the rules, troops cannot fire at people unless they commit a hostile act or show hostile intent.

"I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this," said Lance Corp. Travis Anderson, 20, from Altoona, Iowa. "They're using our rules of engagement against us," he said, stating that his platoon had repeatedly seen men dropping their guns into ditches before walking away to melt among civilians.

But, in fact, is this a "war"? That is, it is a war, all right, to our brave forces under fire, but is it really a war to their superiors? Or, is this in fact the old "Great Society" redux, now advanced as what the Pentagon has conceived of as "armed social work"? That's literally how one often-interviewed officer, LTC Christian Cabaniss, likes to describe this war -- approvingly -- recently adding: "Shooting is getting in the way of winning."

And so Operation Moshtarak, the battle of Marjah, continues, with not just shooting seen as getting in the way of winning by military brass, but now also rocket support.

"Moshtarak," by the way, means "together" in Dari -- pretty cute, no? -- probably since ISAF/ Afghan Army togetherness is also part of hearts and minds strategy. Of course, according to McChrystal, the Afghan Army isn't just "together" with ISAF forces. Afghan Army is, he says, actually leading the operation. (See McChrystal's video statement here.) Hate to say it, it sounds as if the general sound has lost his own heart and also his mind.

CNN reports today:

About 15,000 Afghan and NATO forces are taking part in Operation Moshtarak.

U.S. troops are leading the mission. "The majority of the fighting, the majority of the headway being made, is by the U.S. forces," Abawi reported.

She added that she had seen many Afghan soldiers "and to be quite honest with you, they're not ready to fight."

But maybe that's perfect for armed social work.

LTC Allen West for Congress

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:32:00 GMT

LTC Allen West (ret.) is a man who isn't afraid of enemy fire or speaking the truth, and voters in Florida's District 22, from Jupiter to Ft. Lauderdale, are lucky pups to be able to vote him into Congress this November. When they do -- and they better not blow it -- the rest of the United States will finally have his leadership where we need it ... in Washington, DC.

Via Andrew Bostom.

Questions for Pentagon: Why Was There a COP Keating, and Why Was It a "Kill Pit"?

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:13:00 GMT

Asia Times map via Long War Journal report on post-Keating Taliban rule in Kamdesh.

This week's column is about an age-old story, how Big Fish sacrifice small fry to stay Big Fish. The story the column was triggered by came out last Friday, when the Washington Post reported on military investigations into battles at Wanat, Ganjgal and Kamdesh, all in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military has reprimanded an unusually large number of commanders for battlefield failures in Afghanistan in recent weeks, reflecting a new push by the top brass to hold commanders responsible for major incidents in which troops are killed or wounded, said senior military officials.

Fyi, "top brass" = Big Fish in this story.

Having covered -- no, railed about -- the rules of engagement inflicted on commanders by top brass in thrall to the PC doctrine of "counterinsurgency" " for some time now (in part here, here, here), I smelled one of those rats you hear about. It certainly sounded as if the Big Fish were throwing over the small fry for carrying out their own indefensible orders that, tragicallly but predictably, had resulted in indefensible US combat fatalities. The full reports leading to these reprimands have not been released. But the rank and role of those reprimanded, according to the Post story, suggest that investigators did not look very high up the military food chain to ascertain where both doctrinal and executive responsibility lay.

Which, of course, is the way the powerful stay powerful and, in this case, protect the failings of "counterinsurgency" doctrine from urgently needed debate.

The column focuses on the battle of Kamdesh, which really was the battle of COP Keating. Video footage of Keating prompted Marine Sgt. Maj. Jim Sauer (ret.) to call Keating a "kill pit." If you take a look, you'll see why.

The column:

Sorry, but this Washington Post headline -- "U.S. commanders in Afghanistan face tougher discipline for battlefield failures" -- misses the point.

The story concerns "failures" all right, but the three recently investigated incidents in question are not "battlefield" failures. No, these failures, whose names are Wanat, Ganjgal and Kamdesh, have their provenance in the climate-controlled conference rooms of the White House and the Pentagon. These are failures of U.S. military policy, and it is the top leadership of the current and last administrations, those who have formulated, approved and executed the policy, who are responsible for them -- not the mid-level officers, the squadron leader or battalion commander, who, according to the Post story on the unreleased investigations, will be taking the official fall.

I refer, of course, to the policy of "counterinsurgency" warfare, particularly as promoted by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the supreme infidel commander now waging a popularity contest against the Koranically correct Taliban for the affections of the Islamic peoples of Afghanistan. The prize, booby at best, is supposed to enable the United States, at Treasury-breaking and military-wrecking cost, to tame wild Afghanistan into a non-dysfunctional, jihad-free society. Our main weapons: "population-protection," cash and massive public works projects. (Sending troops so equipped into valleys of death like Wanat, Gankgal and Kamdesh is pure "counterinsurgency" negligence, I mean, doctrine.) The Taliban's main weapons: the Koran, jihad and Sharia. After eight-plus years, the Islamic peoples of Afghanistan still can't decide between us. Still, we keep trying, pursuing the unicorn of hearts and minds across Afghanistan even as the reality of Islamic law spreads unchecked across the West.

One place we tried too long is the Nuristan province village of Kamdesh. There, in August 2006, a foothold later known as Combat Outpost Keating was established on indefensibly low ground ringed by mountains as a Provincial Reconstruction Team. Whose criminally stupid idea was it to put an outpost there and leave it there? I doubt investigators asked.

The mission was "nation-building at a local level," as Salon's Matthew Cole reported in 2007. Under continual attack, however, the troops had switched from dispensing goodies to "simply securing the base" -- and for three, pointless years until Oct. 3, 2009. On that day, the battle of Kamdesh left eight Americans dead over a piece of real estate that -- and this is key -- the United States had already planned to abandon. Whose negligence delayed the evacuation? I don't think investigators asked that, either.

Fact is, Keating and some other outposts were scheduled to close in July 2009 -- not, alas, in recognition of the futility of "counterinsurgency," but of fighting it undermanned in remote areas. As Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti explained McChrystal's outpost-closing order to the Washington Post, "This is all about freeing up some forces so I can get them out more among the people."

But not so fast. Seems that also in July, the Post notes, Afghan President Hamid Karzai asked "senior U.S. officials" to send U.S. troops to secure Barge Matal, a remote Nuristan village, before the Aug. 20 elections. What should have taken a week stretched into months, with "ripple effects throughout eastern Afghanistan, forcing frustrated U.S. military officials to postpone plans made months earlier to abandon other remote bases."

NBC's Richard Engels reports: "Four American soldiers were killed from July through September while securing Barge Matal. But this was only the beginning. Five more American troops were killed on Sept. 8 in nearby Ganjgal, in part because resources they required (air and drone support) were diverted to help the soldiers in Barge Matal. If air assets are sent to one area, they must be pulled from another. The knock-on effect of Barge Matal" -- where, Engels writes in a bitter coda, ballot boxes were stuffed, literally, with 10 times more ballots than the number of citizens in the town -- "appears to have also indirectly contributed to the deaths of the eight American soldiers at COP Keating."

Barge Matal aside, almost seven weeks passed between the election and the attack on Keating. Why wasn't Keating at least closed in the interim? Where does McChrystal's buck stop?

Then again, maybe nothing short of disaster was ever going to shut down Keating. Roughly 10 days before the Oct. 3 attack, the Washington Post reports, Col. Randy George, who oversees U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan, told commanders at Keating and Lowell, another remote outpost, to prepare their bases ... for the coming winter.

I wonder if investigators asked why.

Kamdesh Was an Intelligence Failure, All Right

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:14:00 GMT

Touching down at COP Keating, March 2009

----

The battle of Kamdesh on October 3, 2009 is the focus of this week's upcoming column -- specifically, the Pentagon's reported decision to punish mid-level commanders for intelligence failures that preceded the brutal battle that left eight Americans dead. According to an investigation, commanders ignored local intelligence indicating that a large attack against COP Keating was likely andfailed to take appropriate defensive measures.

That may be. But why was a small US outpost in Kamdesh in the first place? And, if there, why was it based for three years in an indefensible position? The real blame for the battle of Kamdesh lies with the military brass behind this fatally pointless and needlessly dangerous mission. Before deciding whether you agree, watch the below video of the base and battle site, COP Keating, taken last summer by Britain's News 4 photographer Stuart Webb (via Burnpit, which has more Keating video.)

If anyone should be punished for " intelligence failures" it is the person(s) responsible for choosing the site for COP Keating, keeping it open and failing to close it. Throw in the chief brain surgeons who came up with Keating's mission -- "nation-building on a local level" -- and it should become apparent that the military brain trusts of both the Bush and Obama administrations, including Gens. Petraeus and McChrystal, are responsible for the whole sorry and symbolic debacle.

Pakistani-Parliamentary Pincer

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:59:00 GMT

Just another day in Pakistan, where jihadi symps last week expressed their opinion of the US conviction of "Lady Al Qaeda," Aafia Siddiqui, who was found guilty in a Manhattan court of trying to kill US personnel in Afghanistan.

Now for something completely new and different:

Headline: "British parliamentarians for public inquiry into Dr. Aafia Siddiqui's conviction"

Lead: Describing the conviction of Pakistani neuroscientist Dr.Aafia Siddiqui as “miscarriage of justice”, British Parliamentarians have called for withdrawal of case against her and repatriation to Pakistan.

British parliamentarians?

Muslim members of British Parliament is more to the point. The story from the Associated Press of Pakistan continues:

At a function organised at the House of Lords on Tuesday evening to raise support for the incarcerated Dr. Siddiqui, Lord Nazir Ahmed together with other speakers said her trial in New York was full of flaws and not based on facts.

Good ol' Lord Ahmed.

They sought the intervention of the US leadership and demanded a fair trial based on real facts and not assumptions. Lord Ahmed said he would be writing a letter to the US President Barack Obama carrying signatures of other British MPs calling for Dr.Siddiqui’s repatriation to Pakistan and withdrawal of case.

The Labour Peer further said he would also raise this question in the Parliament to ascertain how the British Government could help in this regard.

According to Lord Nazir, the conviction of Dr.Siddiqui has been received with great dismay in Pakistan which would further fuel anti-American feeling in the south Asian country.

“If US wants to create a good impression of itself in Pakistan, it should release Dr.Siddiqui and send her back to Pakistan,” he asserted.

He said no credible independent evidence was presented at the New York court and in the words of defence lawyers the decision of the jury was based on fear rather than facts.

Lord Altaf Sheikh, MP Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Saghir, a representative of Caged Prisoners which represent the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, Rabia Zia of UK Chapter of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, journalist Yvonne Ridley, who witnessed the trial and Barrister Abid Hussain also spoke on the occasion.

The thrust of their speeches was to mobilise public opinion against Dr.Siddiqui’s conviction and call on Pakistani authorities to demand her repatriation as well making efforts to find the whereabouts of her two missing children.

Sarwar said Pakistani authorities must hold inquiry at their end to know the circumstances of her disappearance from Karachi in 2003 and her appearance in Kabul five years later.

Ridley said it was now up to the people of Pakistan to organise regular rallies in support of Dr.Siddiqui and send strong message of their resentment to the USA on this trial.

Barrister Abid Hussain urged the British Pakistanis to lobby their respective MPs and sign on-line petition in support of the neuroscientist for exerting maximum pressure on the US Government.

Dar al-Yale, Continued

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:59:00 GMT

Remember Omer Bajwa, Yale's "Muslim Victory" Chaplain?

The one who was reported to have told an Islamabad audience "Muslims will win the final victory in the West if they conform to their beliefs and disseminate the message of Islam with wisdom and politeness"?

The one who slandered Kurt Westergaard by publicly stating at Yale in front of the cartoonist that he, the Muslim Victory Chaplain, had read in the New York Times that Kurt's son had converted to Islam -- when there was no such story in the New York Times, while Kurt's son has not converted to Islam?

The one who, practicing taqiyya, told an audience at Cornell that he could "defiinitively" tell them that jihad does not mean holy war, further lying that the word means nothing more than spritual or other personal struggle, including studying for exams?

(Yes, there is "greater jihad," the so-call spiritual struggle, but there is also, and far more important where infidels are concerned, jihad as defined by the Al Azhar approved guide to sharia, Reliance of the Traveller, p. 599: "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.")

Omer's back -- this time as the organizer of the "first evah" Ivy Muslim weekend (via Jawa Report) co-sponsored by the Yale chapter of the Muslim Student Association (MSA). What is MSA? According to Discover the Networks, MSA is a Muslim Brotherhood-founded group "named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum as one of the Brotherhood's like-minded `organizations of our friends' who shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation. These `friends' were described by the Brotherhood as groups that could help teach Muslims "that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions." (More here.)

The all-Ivy MSA confab took place last weekend at Yale -- and gee, it must have been swell, at least if you're a Muslim Brother. After all, the keynote speaker was Imam Mohamed Magid of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS Center).

And who's Mohammed Magid and what is the ADAMS Center?

Magid is imam of the ADAMS center. He is also Vice President of ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), another entity linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing trial in US history, the Holy Land Foundation trial. In 2005, Freedom House identified Magid's ADAMS center as one of many mosques distributing anti-Christian and antisemitic screeds. As Steven Emerson has reported in testimony before Congress, Magid has publicly downplayed mass murder in Darfur, and "is listed as an advisor to the Sterling Charitable Gift Fund, which was raided as part of the SAAR network ... According to a government affadavit, the Sterling Charitable Gift Fund was used as a conduit for for money laundering and support for terrorist organizations." In 2008, the ADAMS center hosted a fundraiser for convicted cop-killer Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rapp Brown, where jihadist imam Luqman Abdullah, recently killed in a fatal confrontation with FBI agents, addressed the gathering.

Naturally, now he's keynoting All-Ivy MSA conferences for Yale's "Muslim Victory" Chaplain ... ah, bright college years ... for Allah, for Umma, and for Yale.