Yet another article from the Boston Globe asking the question: Are we really at war with "Terror"?

As always, I appreciate your comments . . .

"Eleven suspects were brought to court in London this week, charged with involvement in the plot to blow up several airliners over the Atlantic. The foiling of their alleged conspiracy will inevitably be scrutinized for what it reveals about the terrorist threat five years after Sept. 11.

It should be reassuring that the plotters were not as well organized or as successful at keeping their plans secret as the Sept. 11 masterminds and the terrorists who did their bidding. If British and Pakistani officials are correct, knowledge of the airline plot was disseminated among scores of people. The conspirators failed to prevent a mole from infiltrating their network. And they were careless enough to permit U.S. agencies to intercept their communications.

If the scheme to use liquid explosives to blow up the airliners was conceived or directed by top Qaeda figures, as Pakistani intelligence has claimed, then it seems obvious that Osama bin Laden's lieutenants are less capable of carrying out a complex terrorist spectacular than they were before they lost their sanctuary and training camps in Afghanistan.

If Al Qaeda was not orchestrating the airline scheme, or if Qaeda figures were involved only tangentially, the thwarting of the plot suggests that local terrorists and jihadists are best fought with sound intelligence"

They may be capable of mass killing, as the London train bombings last summer showed, but the threat they represent is very different from that of Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany. Inflating the danger from jihadi terrorists into an existential threat and invoking a grandiose third world war, as President George W. Bush and his advisers have been doing, only plays into the hands of bin Laden and the other deluded megalomaniacs hiding out with him in the mountains of South Waziristan. - The Boston Globe

I'm sitting by the pool again, drinking Rum & Coke, playing online poker (not losing too badly), and just generally thinking about the world in which I live.

More and more I think people are generally good. Growing up, my father (who grew up in Iran) told me many parables from Persia. One of the ones that sticks out to me the most goes like this:

Back in the days when cities had walls around them, a very old blind man sat at the city gate and begged for alms. One day, a traveller came to the gates and asked the old man, "Sir, I have been travelling for many days. Tell me, what sort of people live in this city?"

"Son, what kind of people live in the city you are coming from?"

"Oh, people are very bad where I come from. It's hard to find work and people are always looking for ways to pull their neighbors down. I don't believe I've found one honest man in my city. That's why I've come here - looking for a place that's different."

The old man's face became sad. "I'm sorry," he replied. "I believe you'll find people here to be the same." The young man continued on in his search - determined to find a better place.

Later on that same day, another traveller came to the gates and asked the old man, "Sir, I have been travelling for many days. Tell me, what sort of people live in this city?"

"Son, what kind of people live in the city you are coming from?"

"Oh, the city I come from has people who are second to none on Earth. Everyone looks for ways to help each other. I don't believe I've met one unhappy man in my entire city. That's why I've come here - to see if people like that exist anywhere else."

The old man's face broke into a smile. "Welcome," he replied. "I believe you'll find people here to be the same."

Abraham Lincoln may have said it best: "If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will."

I have found the people here to be some of the most generous and welcoming people anywhere I have travelled to. I will miss their easy laughter and thoughtful questions. But most of all I will thank them for an added dimension to my own perspective that I will take with me forever.

Full disclosure: I haven't yet read the book.

This article provides Scheuer's perspective on the current state of affairs with regards to Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel/Hezbollah.

 

You guessed it, more cowbell.

Let me start by saying I have a lot of sympathy for the people of Lebanon.  In my opinion the country of Lebanon has for the most part been an innocent bystander in the Arab-Israeli conflict, sending only token forces if any in the great battles against Israel.  In many ways Lebanon is similar to Israel, a very fragile and small country.   And it has been hijacked by some brutal people (Iran via Hizbollah) in the name of regaining Palestine.  Only recently have they ousted Syrian secret police only to have the power vacuum filled literally by Israeli bombs and Hizbollah.  I share the sentiment of the (warning this links to an Israeli website which is designed to burn the eyeballs of all peace and justice loving individuals) Lebanese PM when he says, "I Hope the (Lebanese) army will be the only military entity to be recognized by all residents of southern Lebanon ,"  Amen, brother, and good luck with that.

I go on the record to say that the attack on Beirut by Israel was totally unfair, and Lebanese civilians surely suffered the most of this conflict.  I don't think, however, Israel was unprovoked as Scottie implies.  10 men an invasion, when rockets are being shot into Israel, as they had been LONG before Israel set foot in Lebanon?

Can the U.N. enforce sanctions on a non-state like Hezbollah?  Can Amnesty International report on them?  Well, here's what the most recent report said,

"The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of power and water plants, as well as the transport infrastructure vital for food and other humanitarian relief, was deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy," Gilmore said in a press release."

That transport infrastructure was "roads and bridges".

Meanwhile, from the same report,

"During the four week war Hezbollah fired 3,900 rockets at Israeli towns and cities with the aim of inflicting maximum civilian casualties.

 

The Israeli government says that 44 Israeli civilians were killed in the bombardments and 1,400 wounded.

 

AI has not issued a report accusing Hezbollah of war crimes."

There's a fine line between being harmless and being incompetant.  AI wants to make Israel accountable for it's aggression that is understandable.  But not to condemn Hezbollah for having bad equipment and missing targets is basically having a double standard, since Hezbollah's goal was to maximize Israeli casualties.

Then of course I have to put up a youtube clip.

Now, maybe this isn't legit, but hey, it's YouTube.

 

If you read Wonkette, you'll probably have gotten a good laugh out of this already:

Just a few months ago, the absolute greatest threat to American Freedom was a guy slipping across the southern border to pick lettuce for a few bucks an hour so that the U.S. agriculture industry could continue to operate. (Remember, no ag industry means no massive federal farming subsidies!)

Actually, that wasnt the real issue. Mexican migrants made the news only when they had the audacity to rally for the right to legally do menial jobs in the USA.

Then some other things happened, all forgotten now, and suddenly Mexico was no longer a big deal. Theres a civil war about to break out South of the Border, and yet the liberal mainstream media doesnt seem to care.

Leave it to the Christian Grassroots Conservative movement to finally put the spotlight back on the real problem (besides Iran and France and Frank Rich). We are, of course, speaking of the Islamic Terrorists crossing the border dressed as Mexicans.

CNS News reported Monday:

The chief law enforcement officers of several Texas counties along the southern U.S. border warn that Arabic-speaking individuals are learning Spanish and integrating into Mexican culture before paying smugglers to sneak them into the United States. The Texas Sheriffs Border Coalition believes those individuals are likely terrorists and that drug cartels and some members of the Mexican military are helping them get across the border.

(CNS News is the wonderfully hysterical website run by L. Brent Bozell III, who has dedicated his life to revealing the horrific fraud known as the Main Stream Media which is three words now, because truth wants to be free.)

While the terrorists may be evil and cunning, they also seem to be retards. The Mexi-terrorists made a crucial misstep that got the attention of Texas sheriffs deputies working the border region, because the alleged terrorists have allegedly been leaving Iranian (or Arab) military uniforms and badges along the Rio Grande.

Jesus! Really? Is it time to start calling tortillas Freedom Pancakes?

Anyway, regardless of what your boss tells you to believe this week and El Presidente says Latin American immigrants deserve the chance to come here and do all the dirty jobs white kids wont do just try to imagine Washington before the Latino Invasion.

Yeah, were talking about the only Mexican food being Taco Bell and some dubious place in Alexandria selling Tex Mex food, which is about as Mexican as Frito-Lay. Were talking about no Latino markets selling delicious items you simply could not buy in D.C. even a dozen years ago. We are talking about the nannies who care for all the neglected children of the lobbyists and the members of Congress and the Senate the Latino immigrants who say te quiero to the children who will never hear I love you in English, because their parents are heartless criminals.

Texas Sheriffs Say Terrorists Entering US from Mexico [CNS News]

Hard-Line Immigration Stance Angers Some Business Groups [Wall Street Journal]

Bush's New Iraq Argument: It Could Be Worse

Finally the President seems to be getting realistic about the situation on the ground in Iraq. The transition from "unseen progress" being made - that the media was supposedly blatantly ignoring - to "Hey, it could be worse" actually is refreshing for its (long overdue) candor.

Now - what's the strategy to move forward, Mr. President? Can we move now from "Stay the Course" to something a little more . . . strategic?

A good article on Cameron, without the irritating commentary about how horrible America is:

The Boudreauxs are growing weary of the name Katrina, particularly the media’s coverage of New Orleans. Regina says, “You hear all these celebrities with Katrina this and Katrina that. They have a Katrina fund and all this stuff. I think our governor almost forgot us.”

“She’s beginning to wake up to the facts over there,” J.C. says. “We do exist. But we didn’t holler enough. We just sucked it up and went back on back to work. People in New Orleans there squawked and howled.”

     For a very candid interview with a British member of Parliament, George Galloway, in which he agrues positions with a SKY NEWS anchor woman :
   
     He ecchoes my exact sentiments on Israel's Lebanon campaign and tangentially discusses how Israel can achieve peace, and that is by letting justice occur by seeing Israel evacuate the OT, all of them, The West Bank, East Jerusalem, get the IDF out of the Gaza, and return the Golan Heights to Syria, and return Sheba Farms to Lebanon.

    Please view :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw


      

A vacuum in Lebanon, and Hezbollah fills it - Africa & Middle East - International Herald Tribune

I've been struggling for a couple of days with Scottie's questions. This column will not completely answer his questions :), but it will give my thoughts about moving forward.

For more, visit DC Offline.

The article above really opened my eyes about the situation in the Middle East and helped me put the pieces together for the first time. My developing thoughts are below for your comments.

There is a stated aim of Bin Laden as well as a concerted effort that we are seeing right now with Iran's outstretched arm to the citizens of Lebanon through Hezbollah to recreate a Muslim Caliphate in the Middle East, free of Western influence and a world power in its own right.

There does seem to be a fight over which branch of Islam will own this Caliphate, once it emerges - the Shi'ite branch from Iran (and already we are seeing a Shia Crescent develop from Iran through Syria and down through Lebanon via Hezbollah), or a Sunni branch from Al Qaeda.

America has just helped this enterprise along, however unknowingly, by deposing Saddam Hussein (a pain-in-the-ass, but an avowed secularist who saw himself as the second coming of Hammurabi) and opening the door to a Shia vs. Sunni Civil War in Iraq.

It is no longer a question of whether this Civil War will happen - it is only a question of who will influence the outcome: The United States on the side of a secular outcome regardless of the brand of Islam OR Iran toward a definitive Shi'ite state under its direct influence if we vacate our position there as some statesmen (I use that term with some levity) here in the States are now advocating.

As should be apparent, I am no Bush fan. His policies have been so disastrous to our image and to the Region itself, it will take decades to recover - IF we can navigate the months ahead successfully. But the counterpoint to his Middle East policy is NOT to leave our position there right now. The certain occupant of that power vacuum would be Ahmedinejad and the Shi'ite influence from Iran with their bloated oil treasury buying influence and good will the exact way they are doing through Hezbollah in Lebanon right now.

The pattern is obvious and will be repeated in Iraq to win the cultural victory and repair all the infrastructure we have destroyed and have been, up to this point, unable to properly restore. Just read the above article to see the real effects of this on the ground in Lebanon and translate that to Iraq if we leave right now.

The correct counterpoint to the Bush policy in the Middle East is a change in strategy. A real battle to win "the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. Terence Daly notes: "This is scoffed at by many conservatives as the equivalent of sitting around a campfire singing "Kumbaya." But in fact it is a sophisticated, multifaceted, even ruthless struggle to wrest control of a population from cunning and often brutal foes. We must be ready and able to kill insurgents - lots of them - but as a means, not an end."

We were led to Iraq with false intelligence, false links to Al Qaeda, false motives, even false expectations and budget projections - but the question of "Should we have gone in there or not?" is no longer important. Rather, the question of "What do we do now?" is of paramount importance given the stakes of those we are playing this game against. They have already gamed out their strategy several moves ahead of us. Will we stop reacting to events as they take place, define victory and form a strategy to win, or continue to try to figure out how to retreat as quickly as we can from a war we never should have entered into in the first place?