The Golden Gate

Captain Ed has ANOTHER great post. He also has some reasonable seculation and asks some daunting questions. Quotable:

One of the reasons that the DoD may have sat on the captured IIS files without translating or releasing them, some speculate, was that the contents may embarrass some of our allies in the overall war on terror. One document released yesterday seems to support that analysis. According to document CMPC-2003-000878, the Russians gave more active support to Saddam prior to the March 2003 invasion than previously known — and they used Syria as a conduit…

[...]

This doesn’t have much to do with WMD, of course, but the revelation of the movement of tank engines — seventy of them for every armored unit — has to raise some eyebrows about the relationship between Washington and Moscow. It also should remind people about the materiel conduit that Syria supplied to Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin, and whether or not that conduit operated bidirectionally. Perhaps the WMD that the US seeks did not stay in Syria at all, but made its way to Russia instead.

UPDATE and BUMP: Another look at our friends in Moscow comes in document CMPC-2003-001950, which details a meeting with the Russian ambassador in March 2003. The diplomats discussed the evacuation of Russian citizens from Iraq, but also discussed current American military assets deployed in the Gulf theater[...]

Be sure to check out all the materiel our Russian “allies” gave to Saddam in The Captain’s post.

Ok. I am being dramatic. Well, at least in this context. However, we all know that if you leave Islam, you can be executed as an apostate. Makes me a little hesitant to join.

Quotable:

“We expect the government to make the enemy understand that it should change its hostile positions, as the future belongs to Islam,” it said.

The paper also recalled a letter once sent by Iran’s late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, in which he suggested conversion to Islam.

[...]

In his letter, Ahmadinejad proposed a return to religious principles as a means of restoring confidence between the two countries and revisits many of the grievances that Tehran has against Washington.

“Will you not accept this invitation?” asks Ahmadinejad in the letter, written in English and sent on Monday.

“That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?” read the letter.

While for some reason Iranian’s are all excited about their “clever audacity” they US…well, shrugs:

US officials have dismissed the rambling 18-page letter — the first open, top-level communication by Iranian leaders since ties with Washington were cut in 1980 — as more of a philosophical treatise than a political overture.

They also said it did not change Washington’s position in a worsening dispute over Tehran’s disputed nuclear-energy programme, which despite Iranian denials is seen in the West as a cover for weapons development.

Check it here.

December 16, 2005 - The art of life is making necessary conclusions from insufficient premises. - anonymous

I just came accross notes I took on a book I read in the mid 90’s by Richard Brodie who writes in a field called memetics called Virus Of The Mind (a fantastic, quick read), and it got me thinking.

The wide world we experience often differs dramatically from the world we actually live in. The “facts” on which we build our understanding of what is happening are “spun” by media savvy spin doctors from every pulpit, but even more by our emotional responses to the information we are given. If our actions are a function of our thinking and values, and our thinking and values are a function of the information we get, how can we protect ourselves from the spin of our conventional media providers (polititicain, priests, professors) and the independent bloggers in the seemingly more and more conventional blogsphere?

So, take a ride with me…

“(Insert your most recent annoying person) is a big fat idiot!”

These simple and fighting words make for confrontive and often invigorating conversation. But are they an example of the very behavior they are denouncing?

Yes, I agree with Mark Twain when he said that “A person may be intelligent, but people are stupid.” At the same time, as Ken Wilber puts it, “no one is stupid enought to be 100% wrong.” We all use our intelligence to build reasonable conclusions from incomplete information. When that information is partial, inaccurate, or distorted, the conclusions we build are likewise “screwed up.”

You know, “stupid, idiotic, clueless, dumb, hare-brained, Bush-like…”

Since we are all operating on incomplete and inaccurate information of one type or another, we all say “off the mark” or “stupid” things now and again. When we do, it is often helpful for people to get in our face and point out our glaring mistakes with an epithet or two (or 20…).

However, our stupidity cuts both ways. Not only do we say stupid things, but more often, we hear intelligent things stupidly. Sometimes, someone can say something that is “right on” but we distort it according to our stupidity and end up calling them an idiot. The people who see the intelligence of the person we are calling an idiot then experience us as an idiot, often expressing their observation in lengthy and clever ways - to the delight of the crowd who agrees with them, and inflaming further invective from others…

Who wins in this battle? : The very stupidity each person is denouncing.

In blogs, this is all good and fun - I mean, HELL, I “IS” one!

In politics, when we empower the idiots with legislation, guns, TRILLIONS, and public podiums, it is tragic.

Richard Brodie gives this example inVirus Of The Mind:

–

In 1992, 37,776 people were killed by guns in the United States. An other
40,982 were killed by automobiles. Yet a casual look at reporting would
verify that guns get much more coverage than cars, even though almost half
the gun deaths (18,169) were suicides. I’m not saying guns shouldn’t get
more coverage after all, this gun problem is new and growing, while the car
problem has been with us for decades. But people get a distorted picture of
the dangers involved.

Just doing a simple calculation, the chance of any one person dying in an
automobile accident in a given year in the U.S. are one in 6224; the chance
of dying in a gun incident other than suicide is less than half as likely:
one in 13,005. If you put yourself in a low-risk group by not being a
criminal or a police officer, the odds get considerably better. But what are
people more afraid of: guns or cars?

If you’re like most people, the answer is guns. and it’s likely because of
the distorted media coverage. This kind of disturted coverage leads to an
outcry from the populace, which often leads to politicians going
off–forgive the pun half-cocked with “solutions” to the problem.

Now let’s get a handle on what it really means to have a one-in-6500 or a
one in 13.000 chance of dying. lt’s as if you lived on an island in the
South Pacific with a population of 650. You make your living by swimmuing
around in the azure waters around your idyllic paradise and spearing fish
for dinner. Yum, yum. About once every 10 years. a stray shark happens by
and eats a swimmer. That’s a one in 6500 chance of any one per­son being
eaten by a shark. just the same as the odds of dying in an auto­mobile
accident in the U.S. in 1992.

Also, about once every 20 years, two men get into an overheated argument
over a fish or a woman and one of them kills the other one with his spear.
That’s a one-in-13,000 chance of being killed in an argument, just the same
as the odds of being killed by someone else with a gun in the U.S. in 1992.
These are very sad events, and probably dinner table conversation for quite
a few days, but not the be-all and end-all of life. Fortunately, since you
live on an isolated island, these events come and go, and life goes on.

But now imagine there are 392,000 of these islands all linked by tele­vision
and INN (Island News Network). This brings the total population to about 254
million, similar to the U.S. today. Every night, INN reports on the goriest
of the 107 shark attacks and 54 spear deaths that day. Suddenly people’s
picture of the world is quite different. From a peaceful existence disrupted
only by a tragedy every few years, you go to a fear-ridden hell filled with
fear and terror.

Isn’t this interesting? Nothihg has changed except the addition of
television. Yet now it feels like you’re living in a dangerous world, not an
idyllic paradise. Same number of shark attacks; same number of spear deaths.
What happened?

Television news.

–

Thank Dick!

The question becomes: What is your “Television news?” What are the sources of information you use to get the “facts” on which to build your world, your opinions about who is or is not an idiot? Towards what emotions are they spun to inflame in you, and towards what purpose?

Intolerance breeds intolerance, and when communication breaks down, violence increases. When we cannot find enough common ground with our adversaries (political, military, or familial) to build negotiated solutions, our only alternative is to force them or be forced. And as Ayn Rand put it through the character of Francisco D’Anconia, “when force becomes the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket.”

Of course, to find common ground, to look for where people are right rather than self-righteously pointing out where they are wrong, requires energy, time, and patience.

Screw that, who was the idiot that wrote this anyway?

Mark Michael Lewis
http://LastingHappiness.com

Do terrorist atrocities in the West, such as the attacks of September 11, 2001 and those in Bali, Madrid, Beslan, and London, help radical Islam achieve its goal of gaining power?

No, they are counterproductive. That’s because radical Islam has two distinct wings - one violent and illegal, the other lawful and political - and they exist in tension with each other. The lawful strategy has proven itself effective, but the violent approach gets in its way.

The violent wing is foremost represented by the world’s no. 1 fugitive, Osama bin Laden. The popular and powerful prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, represents the lawful wing. Even as “Al Qaeda has more state adversaries than nearly any force in history,” as Daniel C. Twining observes, political imams like Yusuf al-Qaradawi instruct huge audiences on Al-Jazeera television and visit with the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. As Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr skulks around Iraq, looking for a role, Ayatollah Sistani dominates the country’s political life.

Yes, terrorism kills enemies, instills fear, and disrupts the economy. Yes, it boosts morale and recruits non-Muslims to Islam and Muslims to Islamism. It creates an opportunity for Islamists to fight for their favorite causes, such as the elimination of Israel or the disengagement of coalition forces from Iraq. It provides, as Mark Steyn notes, intelligence information on the enemy. And yes, it prompts politically correct talk about Islam being a “religion of peace,” with Muslims portrayed as victims.

But for two main reasons, terrorism does radical Islam more harm than good.

First, it alarms and galvanizes Westerners. For example, the July 7 bombings took place during the G8 summit in Scotland, where world leaders were focused on global warming, aid to Africa, and macro-economic issues. In a London minute, the politicians then redirected their attention toward counterterrorism. Thus did the terrorists stiffen, as Mona Charen points out, “whatever small residue of resolve remains in flaccid Western civilization.”

More broadly, Mr. Twining notes, “Al Qaeda’s rise has produced the kind of great power entente not seen since the Concert of Europe took shape in 1815.” (Even the Madrid bombings, an apparent exception, led to a marked strengthening of counterterrorism measures by Spain and other European countries.)

Second, terrorism obstructs the quiet work of political Islamism. In tranquil times, organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Council on American-Islamic Relations effectively go about their business, promoting their agenda to make Islam “dominant” and imposing dhimmitude (whereby non-Muslims accept Islamic superiority and Muslim privilege). Westerners generally respond like slowly boiled frogs are supposed to, not noticing a thing…

Go and read it all as they say.

…gets beat over the head like a mushy headed idiot by Cassandra at Villainous Company.

She quotes the Bi-Partisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee Report:

Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address.

AND, there’s a lot more. Go and read it all.

I would also say that critical thinking courses should be _required_ in schools of journalism. Probably way too much to ask. Way.

The American Thinker has some excellent strategic analysis: An Iranian bomb will split radical Islam. It begins:

The single greatest breakthrough in the Cold War happened when Nixon and Kissinger succeeded in splitting communist China from the communist USSR.  Our media, in their fathomless ignorance, have failed even to look for similar cracks in radical Islam.

Yet in the very bowels of jihadist Islam a bloody vendetta has smoldered and flared for a thousand years, moving fanatics like Khomeini, Bin Laden and Zarqawi to express even greater hatred for fellow Muslims than for Jews or Crusader America.

Winds of Change has a roundup of all things GWOT related. I like how the post is broken down by region/continent.

According to Instapundit this is a regular occurrence at WOC.

From US News and World Report

At a time when the United States faces a serious image problem around the world, there is one country that is bucking the trend: India.

The recent 16-country poll from the Pew Research Center found that Indians have the most favorable image of the United States—ahead of citizens in Poland, Canada, and Great Britain. In India, 71 percent of those polled had a positive view of America, a jump from 54 percent in 2002. What’s more, when asked where a young person should travel in search of opportunity, 38 percent of Indians said America, the largest percentage in any country to agree on a single land of opportunity.

Nice. And here’s the meat of it:

One sign of these changes: The 10-year military agreement reached last week between India and the United States [An emerging alliance with India (7/1/05)]. The agreement is an about-face from the sanctions the United States imposed against India after its 1998 nuclear tests and will allow for joint weapons production, cooperation on missile defense systems, and combined training exercises. Three weeks ahead of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s scheduled visit to Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Indian Minister of Defense said the pact heralds a “new era” in India-U.S. relations.

This is good. I would like to see one of these defense pacts with China within the decade [I can dream, can't I?]. We have many common interests and better for us to align on security than spend billions preparing for war with them.

An interview on the eve of the G-8 Summit that I tremendously enjoyed reading.

Hat Tip: Instapundit

Instapundit is suprised that this poll has not gotten more coverage.

Gallup announced yesterday that it had taken a snap poll after the speech given by George Bush on the war in Iraq from Fort Bragg. The poll showed some movement bolstering support for the war. In fact, it showed Bush picking up ten points on whether we are winning in Iraq (up to 54%), twelve points on keeping troops in Iraq until the situation improves as opposed to setting an exit date for their evacuation (now at 70%/25%), and seven points on whether Bush has a clear plan for handling the war in Iraq (up to 63%/35%).

I am not. And methinks he may be being facetious.

An extremely kind (and apparently well-read) reader sent over some MUST READ links that I give you below. Be sure to read them ALL.

Read through the latest edition of the The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, published by the Defense Ministry-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA). Featured in this month’s edition are pieces by Marcus Noland, Nicholas Eberstadt and a load of other folk who know a lot more than I do. Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the link.

Speaking of Nick Eberstadt, check out his essay on North Korea’s weapons quest over at the now non-Korea Foundation-funded AEI .

And while your over at AEI, Dr. Norbert Vollertsen contributed a piece on the “depraved society we can’t ignore” in the June-July edition of American Enterprise. Nicholas Eberstadt, James R. Lilley, Daniel Kennelly, Gordon Cucullu and Victor Davis Hanson also ran a piece in the magazine on the North Korean nuclear issue that, given the names involved, I might consider selling my left nut to get a hold of.

Be sure to check out “A Cold Peace: The Changing Security Equation in Northeast Asia,” (.pdf) by the Brookings Institute’s Tomohiko Taniguchi.

Check out this report from the International Crisis Group via The Marmot’s Hole:

Relations between Japan and North Korea continue to deteriorate due to concerns over Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program and past abductions of Japanese citizens. Nearly a decade and a half of efforts at normalising relations between the countries have faltered due to Pyongyang’s unwillingness to give up that program or come clean over the abductions. For Japan, normalisation would help preserve regional stability and represent one more step toward closure on its wartime history; for North Korea, it would potentially produce the single greatest economic infusion for reviving its moribund economy. Indeed, the prospect of normalisation with Japan is one of the leading incentives that can be offered to North Korea in a deal to end the North’s nuclear programs.

By Roger L Simon.

This BBC article quoting world leaders on the Iranian Election is (kind of) interesting. Worth noting are the words of that great “democrat” Vladimir Putin:

“I am convinced that your election, which came as a result of the Iranian people’s will, will guarantee continuity in the development of partnership between our countries.”

Translation: Keep the cash flowing.

The words of Israel’s Shimon Peres:

Neither the primaries nor the recent round of elections were free, and were contests between extremists. The candidates were pre-determined, as were the results…

The conclusion is that the dangerous combination of extremists, non-conventional weapons and isolation from the West will continue, and will generate a great deal of problems for the free world.

Translation: Look out below. (well, maybe not… but a lot of people might be relieved if they did)…

Wouldn’t it be fun if politicians spoke the truth? I think Roger’s translations are far closer to the truth than what was spoken.

LGF says… well, just go read the post.

Arthur Chrenkoff has compiled yet another fascinating bunch of under-reported news from Iraq. Arthur leads off with the following, which should be obvious, and the starting place of all conversations, but which is so often overlooked:

_

“You can’t fix in six months what it took 35 years to destroy.” These words, spoken by Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Iraq’s first democratically elected Prime Minister in half a century, should be inscribed in three-foot tall characters as a preface to all the reporting from Iraq. Sadly, the underlying reality all too often seems to escape many reporters caught in the excitement of “now”.

Amen. There’s all kinds of great stuff at Chrenkoff’s site, so just keep scrolling. And no, you probably will see little or nothing of this material in your morning paper, alas.

I mean, why wasn’t this given widespread coverage?

_

Samir al-Saboon, the Sunni head of Iraq’s National Security Agency, has recently shared the results of latest opinion research in Iraq, taken in May:

Recent polling data shows that fully two-thirds of Iraqis believe their country is headed in the right direction, Saboon said. While a poll in January showed only 11 percent of Sunni Muslims in Iraq shared that view, that percentage has since grown to 40, he said.

The Marmot says:

Proceed with extreme skepticism…

The right-wing Korean Internet newspaper The Independent, quoting a terrorism expert in Seoul familiar with the inner workings of North Korea, reported that North Korea has been deploying military personnel to left-wing nations in Central and South America who are preparing to infiltrate the U.S. across the U.S.-Mexico border and lauch biological attacks on the U.S.

The expert said that since the Cold War, North Korea has been sending military advisors to countries like Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Brazil. He said these personnel have recently been preparing to infiltrate the States in large numbers through its border with Mexico in order to carry out biological terrorist attacks. He said the possibility of the North carrying out such attacks was high.

If you can read Korean, check it
here.

Villainous Company has a fun post.

Here’s how it opens:

“We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent–and that the United States should support and participate in those steps.

We must not presume that these conclusions automatically will be accepted by every one of our allies, some of which have different interests both in the region and elsewhere, or will be of the same degree of concern to them that they are to the U.S. But it is my belief that we have the ability to persuade them of how serious this is and that the U.N. must not be diverted or bullied.”
- November 9, 1997: John Kerry’s speech on the floor of the Senate

via The Marmot

In the Australian: Henry Kissinger: Some atomic arm-twisting

IF George W. Bush’s first term was dominated by the war against terrorism, the second will be preoccupied with the effort to stem the spread of nuclear weapons.

This challenge is more complex than the first. Do we oppose proliferation because of the rogue quality of the two regimes - Iran and North Korea - furthest advanced on the road towards acquiring nuclear weapons? Or is our opposition generic; does it extend to fully democratic countries?

How far are we prepared to go in resisting proliferation? Is it possible for one country alone to become the sole custodian of the task of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons? And, if not alone, with what combination of powers should the US act?

It is a nicely written piece with well rounded, reasoned, yet plain-spoken advice for our talks and beyond with Iran. I especially liked this part:

One reason European negotiators have made the limited progress they have on the nuclear issue with Iran is the implied threat of actions the US may take in case of deadlock. The key issue between the US and Europe should not be over the necessity of pressure if diplomacy fails but the definition of it, the timing and precisely by what process that pressure is designed to lead to a non-nuclear Iran.

Indeed.

Let the Europeans tie specific rewards [non-nuke energy based] to specific positive actions taken by Iran AND consequences via the US tied to specific actions [or absence of them] from Iran. With timetables Short ones. And we do it now while they know crazy George is in office and has them surrounded.

The Marmot has a post with two blogger ideas for dealing with North Korea. They are both worth a read.

The first, Unilateral Magnanimity, is an interesting and creative idea. Of course you we would be relying on the Kim Jong-Il regime letting its people be aware of the fact that the goods were coming from the US. I am uncertain of this bearing out in reality. With complete state control of all media and communications [except for the occasional illegal cell phone near the Chinese border] this is doubtful. I am more inclined to believe he would somehow take credit for it as Another Example of How the DPRK has Shown Its Productive Might(tm). Take a look at some of the “news” they beam out over those state controlled airwaves here.

The second, North Korea Disarmament In Four Cold-Blooded Steps, is a little more realistic, but has at least two holes after a quick review. He overestimates both Kim Jong-Il’s rationality and balance and underestimates the Iranian national pride and the commitment of the Mullahs to get the bomb [especially with the Great Satan on three of their borders: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. See map here.]

Though I absolutely agree with this point:

Right now, the United States’ policy toward North Korea isn’t “Big Carrot” like the Europeans’ policy has been toward Serbia or Turkey; it isn’t “Big Stick” like the United States’ current policy toward Syria. Our current North Korea policy is “No Carrot, No Stick, Lots of Whining.” North Korea’s never responded to whining.

Methinks there is only one way for us to deal with Krazy Kim: the Chinese. The Chinese can put pressure on him in numerous ways–from cutting off all trade/aid and watch the regime implode or collapse rapidly to setting a coup in motion from the inside. Either way, it would be a huge with for the world and a huge diplomatic/political win for the Chinese with the International Community. The question is: what deal do we have to cut for them to do it?

Frankly, I would love to see us closer to the Chinese. Would love to see more Chinese on peacekeeping missions. They want to be recognized as a global power? I say let ‘em–and let ‘em shoulder all the responsibilities that brings.