Jobs

The monthly employment figures were released this morning by the Labor Department, and once again showed better than expected growth. While expectations were for payrolls to increase by around 175,000, the actual increase was actually 288,000. In addition, last month's surprisingly strong number was revised higher, from 308,000 to 337,000. This is now eight straight months of increases, with 867,000 jobs created so far this year. At the beginning of the year, the Administration predicted increase of around 2 million for the year and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for such rosy predictions. It now appears that at the present rate, this number is very achievable. And as predicted, the payroll numbers started growing significantly exactly one year after the last of the Fed rate decreases. In addition, the deficit, a fairly meaningless number but one that is politically important, has already been revised down by more than $100 Billion because of the economic growth

This is all fairly bad news for Kerry and the Democrats. The "jobless recovery" is no longer jobless, and Bush's economic policies seem to be working. The events in Iraq don't seem to be helping Kerry either, as I mentioned in an earlier post. At this point in the campaign the Democrats' line has been that despite the $50 million that the Administration has spent in campaign ads, Bush's standing has not improved and Kerry is still even. This is simply not true. If one looks at the poll numbers before the Bush campaign's ads, one sees that Kerry was leading by 5-8% and as much as 12% in one CNN/USA Today poll. Now Bush is consistently ahead by 3-5%. While this is still within the margin of error, the trend is definitely in Bush's favor.

New Laser

The MTHEL (Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser), a joint US-Israeli anti-missile system achieved another benchmark today.

Our Weird Way of War

In today's National Review, Victor Hanson perfectly describes the problems we face (almost entirely self-imposed) in our current war in Iraq as well as our greater War on Terror. It is clear that militarily the US can defeat any another military in the world. Our problems arise from our self-imposed demands on our own morality - our need to behave better than those we are fighting. Our enemies have understood this, and are trying to exploit this vulnerability:

"So our enemies realize that the struggle, lost on the battlefield, can yet be won with images and rhetoric offered up to alter the mentality and erode the will of an affluent, leisured and consensual West. They grasp that we are not so much worried about being convicted of being illiberal as having the charge even raised in the first place.
[...]
If, on occasion, an exasperated and furious West sinks to the same level - renegade prisoner guards gratuitously humiliating or torturing naked Iraqi prisoners on tape - all the better, as proof that the elevated pretensions of Western decency and humanity are but a sham. A single violation of civility, a momentary lapse in humanism and in the new world of Western cultural relativism and moral equivalence, presto, the West loses its carefully carved-out moral high ground as it engages not merely in much needed self-critique and scrutiny, but reaches a feeding frenzy that evolves to outright cultural cannibalism.

For someone in a coffee-house in Brussels the idea that Bush apologizes for a dozen or so prison guards makes him the same as or worse than Saddam and his sons shooting prisoners for sport - moral equivalence lapped up by the state-controlled and censored Arab media that is largely responsible for the collective Middle East absence of rage over the exploding, decapitating, and incinerating of Western civilians in its midst.

Key here is our own acceptance of such moral asymmetries...."

Probably most perverse is that in this election season the Democrats seem to want the US to lose, or to at least appear to be losing. They think that the worse things are in Iraq, the bettor off Kerry will be. This has not yet been borne out, as no matter what has happened so far, people still trust Bush more than Kerry to handle a war. Even after all the news about the events at Abu Ghraib Bush is still leading in the latest polls. It is not Kerry who has gained from this but Nader, as John Podhoretz asserts in this article.

New "Peace" Plan?

A report from Reuters is saying that there is talk of a new "peace" plan between Israel and the Palestinians. The main points are that Israel would withdraw from all of Gaza and 89% of the West Bank, with the major settlement blocs being retained by Israel. Its unclear if this would mean the creation of another Palestinian state or "custodianship" of those territories by the US, Jordan and Egypt. This seems like a terrible idea. It would be rewarding terrorism and would only intensify terrorism against Israel. Its unclear to me how Israel could even consider such a proposal.

Abu Ghraib, again

The story of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison continues, fueled in large part by the press which has latched on to a story with seemingly sensational pictures. What US soldiers did to these prisoners is without a doubt horrible, however, this all need to be put in context, something the press refuses to do. Why was this done to these prisoners? As mentioned in a previous post, the idea of humiliation is very important in the Arab culture. Humiliation is also a very important technique in interrogation of prisoners - the interrogator must break the spirit of the prisoner before good information can be obtained. For Arab men to be naked and powerless before women and to have pictures taken of this, would accomplish these goals. If we assume that these Iraqi prisoners are in Abu Ghraib not for something like petty theft, but for activities against the Coalition now or against other Iraqis in the past, and that they may have information that would be helpful in preventing deaths of Coalition soldiers and Iraqi civilians, then their treatment should be seen in a different light than that presented by the press.

For other Arabs to be shocked at these happenings is the height of hypocrisy. It reminds one of Captain Louis Renault saying in the movie Casablanca "I'm shocked ... shocked to find that gambling is going on in here." When four US contractors were brutally murdered and mutilated by a mob we heard nothing from the Arab world, yet a few pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners cause outrage. (Cox&Forkum had a perfect cartoon of this a few days ago.) Not even to mention what goes on in the very countries where people are so "upset" at this treatment of prisoners.

This is in no way to compare or excuse the behavior of these US soldiers by pointing to the abuse so prevalent in every single Arab regime; we rightly hold ourselves to a higher standard. But these events perfectly illustrate the differences between us and them: we are appalled by these images, we investigate and punish the people responsible; they, on the other hand commit the most horrible atrocities and always find ways of justifying it.

Bernard Lewis

The Atlantic Magazine has a very interesting interview with Bernard Lewis, considered (at least by the Right) to be the dean of Middle East studies. His main point seems to be that most of the problems between the Arab world and the West stem from our misunderstanding of them, and their misunderstanding of us.

The Apprentice

This is what socialist labor laws lead to: Sorry, this brothel needs an apprentice

Abu Ghraib

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal Victor Hanson wrote about the alleged torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers (article from Benador Associates site). He makes no excuses for this behavior, but does put it in perspective:

"If a small number of soldiers has transgressed, then let us punish them severely, as well as the officers who either ordered or ignored such reprehensible behavior. But let us also accept that the reaction to this incident is indicative of larger moral asymmetries that are the burdens of the West when it goes to war, a culture that so often equates the understandable absence of perfection, either moral, political, or military, with abject failure -- a fact not lost on our enemies.

We have seen terrible things since September 11 -- monotonous public executions, taped decapitations, videos of brutalized hostages, diplomats gunned down, aid workers riddled with bullets, children's bodies blown apart by improvised explosive devices, nuts, bolts and rat poison added to suicide bombs -- most under either the sponsorship of some autocratic Middle Eastern governments or of terrorist cabals that could not exist without at least the tacit support of thousands in the Arab street.

So as we in America address the moral inadequacies of a handful of our soldiers, let those in the Middle East take heart from our own necessary and stern democratic inquiries and audits, and thus at last now apply the same standards of accountability to tens of thousands, far more culpable, of their own.

On the other hand, there are now reports that the pictures of British soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners were faked.:

Col Black said: "[From] the evidence we have seen so far looking at the photographs, there are too many inconsistencies."

He said the vehicle, the Bedford MK, which appears in the photographs, was "not deployed by the army to Iraq at all because of difficulties with local fuel.

"That vehicle can't operate with fuel that was available in Iraq. So obviously the photograph was probably not even taken in Iraq."

Col Black said the soldiers would have been wearing helmets or berets, not floppy hats as in the photographs. They would have had a regiment identification flash and a brigade flash on their sleeves and the rifle should have had a sling and an attached radio button.

The "Moral Authority" of the UN

If there was any doubts about the ridiculousness and depravity of the UN, this should dispel them:

"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Sudan won an uncontested election on Tuesday to the United Nations (news - web sites)' main human rights watchdog, prompting the United States to walk out because of alleged ethnic cleansing in the country's Darfur region."

In the last 20 years, more than 2 million people have been killed and 4 million displaced by this bastion of human rights, yet they are on the Human Rights Commission of the UN, while Israel is regularly condemned by this august body.

The Fallacy of "Even-handedness"

Much has been made recently about the need for the US to be even-handed in its approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to be an "honest broker". Serge Schmemman in his op/ed piece in the New York Times today that continues this argument. To say that the US has been even-handed shows ignorance of history; to say that the US should be even-handed shows moral relativism.

Historically, the US supported Israel (after 1967) for its own purposes; support for Israel was a counter-weight to Soviet support of the Arab states (regardless of the resistance of the Arabist US State Department). The Middle East was very much part of the proxy wars fought by the US and Soviet Union, and as such, Israel was very useful to the US. It was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union that the US has been forced to assume a more even-handed stance.

On the moral side, US support for Israel is fairly obvious, especially in light of the Bush Doctrine. To not acknowledge that the US should support a democracy over corrupt, tyrannical regimes is moral idiocy.

Schmemman ends his article with the phrase that the "critical illusion of symmetry has become more elusive" in US dealings with the Palestinians. Maybe Schmemman should think of this "symmetry": September 12, 2001 was a day of national mourning in Israel, and a day of celebrations for Arabs.

Suitcases

The New York Post reported yesterday that Police have found a number of empty suitcases at a few locations in New York City - Penn Station, Federal Building. Its unclear what this is, but some fear from authorities that these are practice runs for suitcases filled with explosives.

Annan's failures

The record of the current Secretary-General of the UN is a dubious one, at best. In the last 10 years Annan, in his posts at the UN, had many opportunities to live up to the grand ideals that supposedly are represented by the UN. Yet, in virtually every instance, he and his organization have failed miserably, and in so doing were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. In today's The Australian, criticism comes from an unexpected source, the former deputy Prime Minister of Sweden:

"That is the culture of the UN: believe the best of barbarians, do nothing to provoke controversy among superiors, and let others be the butt of criticism afterwards. Even subsequent revelations about Annan's responsibility for the disasters in Rwanda and Bosnia did not affect his standing. On the contrary, he was unanimously re-elected and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

[...]

Now, despite revelations about bribery in the UN's oil-for-food program for Iraq, the world is clamouring to entrust Annan with the future of more than 20 million Iraqis who survived Saddam Hussein dictatorship. That is because of who Annan is and what the UN has become: an institution in which no shortcoming, it seems, goes unrewarded."

The Costs of War

On Friday Ted Koppel dedicated that night's Nightline news show to reading the names of the American soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. There was much controversy before this episode was aired, mostly regarding whether this was a political stunt pulled by the anti-war (and anti-Bush) newsman. Undoubtedly it was a political statement, and as Mark Steyn points out a potentially very damaging one:

"Here's where it's worth considering the cost of Ted Koppel in the broader sense. Our enemies have made a bet -- that the West in general and America in particular are soft and decadent and have no attention span; that the ''sleeping giant'' Admiral Yamamoto feared he'd wakened at Pearl Harbor can no longer be roused. If he could, he'd be a problem. But he's paunchy and effete and slumped in his Barcalounger, and he's defining decadence down: In Vietnam, it took 50,000 deaths to drive the giant away; maybe in Iraq, it will only take 500; and maybe in the next war the giant will give up after 50, or not bother at all. He has the advantage of the most powerful army on the face of the planet, but he doesn't have the stomach for war, so it's no advantage at all. He's like the fellow with the beautifully waxed Ferrari in the garage that he doesn't dare take on the potholed roads. If you're predisposed, like many Islamists and many Continentals, to this stereotype of the soft American, then the lazy, ersatz pacifist mawkishness of ''Nightline'''s gimmick pretty much confirms it: That's the cost of Koppel reminding us of ''the cost of war.''

[...]

The cost of war is the cost of losing it measured against the cost of winning it. We can reach our own conclusions about which the coalition's dead would opt for.

Powell's Occupation of Iraq

It is always difficult, and often pointless, to go back in history and say "what if". And in part, Barbara Lerner's article in National Review suffers from this issue. On the other hand, it is important to identify mistakes and evaluate what can be done differently in the future. This is especially true when the mistakes are used as fodder for attacks against individual politicians.

Attacks against Rumsfeld have intensified as the situation in Iraq has gotten more difficult and it is important to realize and publicize that the fault does not lie entirely with him.

Niger from Uranium

In last year's State of the Union speech Bush brought up Iraq's attempt to buy Uranium from Africa as a reason for the necessity of invading. This claim was was criticized as unsubstantiated by the "anti-war" crowd, and especially Joe Wilson, the diplomat that the Bush Administration sent to Niger to investigate Iraq's attempts to procure the "yellow-cake". British Intelligence, which was the source of this claim asserted that the information was correct and continued standing behind it despite the very vocal criticisms. Now the same Joe Wilson has written a book (who hasn't at this point) and it turns out that British Intelligence was correct, the Washington Post reports:

"It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.

That's according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium. Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.

This is just another in the long line of things that the "anti-war" crowd has gotten wrong. Does this mean that it was they who "lied"?

Flying the Friendly Skies

Ann Coulter writes today about the ridiculousness that is airline security. A bit shrill, but some good lines.

The Silence is Deafening

The Wall Street Journal raises a good point in today's editorial about the attack that was averted in Amman last week - why is no one talking about the fact that al Qaeda terrorists planned to launch an attack with chemical weapons. Their answer to this question is:

Perhaps the problem here is that covering this story might mean acknowledging that Tony Blair and George W. Bush have been exactly right to warn of the confluence of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Jordan's King Abdullah called it a "major, major operation" that would have "decapitated" his government. "Anyone who doubts the terrorists' desire to obtain and use these weapons only needs to look at this example," said Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

It is also interesting to note that these chemicals were brought into Jordan from Syria, a country that has been accused by both Israel and the US of taking in and hiding WMDs that Saddam shipped out before the war.

The End of Al-Sadr's Rebellion

Stratfor (registration required) has a very interesting and optimistic analysis of Al-Sadr's rebellion. Al-Sadr's mentor, Grand Ayatollah Kazem Hossein Haeri who is based in Iran, has unexpectedly withdrawn support for Al-Sadr's rebellion and attacks against Coalition forces. This is a very important move since it shows that the mainstream Shiites are distancing themselves from Al-Sadr, and that this uprising is coming to an end.

At its core, the statement signals that the Iranians still want to work with the United States in managing Iraq. This is no small achievement for Washington. Since Iraq's population is majority Shia, any permanent resolution in Iraq will be colored by U.S.-Iranian relations.

Second, the statement makes clear that the portion of the Islamic leadership most tightly affiliated with al-Sadr feels he is overstepping his religious and political bounds. Haeri's statement could mean Iran will try to rein in al-Sadr; if they fail, they will not interfere when the United States moves against him.

Finally, and more speculatively, it is possible that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is nearing an agreement with the United States to defuse the situation in An Najaf. The recent U.S. agreement with the Sunnis of Al Fallujah is likely a key factor pushing al-Sistani's negotiations with Washington. Al-Sistani will not be outflanked by the Sunnis if he can help it, which is exactly why Washington made the Al Fallujah deal in the first place. Iran wants an Iraq that is whole, at peace, Shiite-controlled and Iranian influenced -- not one that resembles the wrong side of the gates of hell. They do, after all, live next door.

The best way to make the 30-year-old al-Sadr simmer down is to send him a blunt message from his mentor -- the same mentor whose backing allowed al-Sadr to advance his position to its current level.

In short, this move demonstrates that Iran -- despite all posturing -- continues to work with the United States to attain its goals of a unified Iraq dominated by its Arab Shiite allies. While Iran and the Iraqi Shia might be able to achieve most of what they had hoped for, the real winner in this latest round is the United States. Sunnis are patrolling Sunnis in Al Fallujah, Iranian Shia are reining in Iraqi Shia, and for the first time in weeks, there is a serious possibility that no major combat will take place anywhere in the country.

Humiliation

There have been many suggestions of what we must do to triumph in this war against Islamofascism, ranging from a total war of annihilation to acceding to the demands of the Arab world. In this article from the Asia Times, Spengler proposes another strategy - humiliation.

"Radical Islam has risen against the West in response to its humiliation - intentional or not - at Western hands. The West can break the revolt by inflicting even worse humiliation upon the Islamists, poisoning the confidence of their supporters in the Muslim world."

Spengler goes on to make a point that I would disagree with, namely that the West may withdraw because our populations will be horrified at the scale of the destruction that we may cause - Vietnam being given as an example. Times have changed a lot since that war and many people see this as a war of survival for us, especially given the numerous attacks on the US and its allies, whereas Vietnam was one of choice.

According to Spengler, a small example of the start of the humiliation that the West must impose on Islamists is Bush's support of Sharon's plan to keep the West Bank settlements, and his open rejection of the Palestinian "right of return".

"A host of Western commentators attacked President George W Bush for taking the Israeli side over settlements and the Palestinian right of return, on the grounds that it humiliated the Arab world, and a plethora of Muslim voices bemoan their humiliation at the hands of the United States.

Much, much more is to come. The "rope-a-dope" tactic Dr Mansoor cites can work both ways. Israel offers many things to Washington, including Arab-language translators, intelligence operatives, and tactical expertise in urban search-and-destroy missions. But its transcendent value to American strategy lies not in what it does, but what it is, namely an ever-present source of humiliation to the Muslim sense of self-worth. The price of recalcitrance, Bush has told the Palestinians and indirectly the Arab world at large, is that some part of the Dar al-Islam has fallen to Jewish hands for the indefinite future."

If the West can continue to humiliate the Islamists, their supporters will eventually lose faith in that ideology, and the West will have triumphed. This will require the abandonment of our "political correctness" toward Islam, because if we don't we will never be able to convince our enemies of our determination and their powerlessness.

Historical Comparisons

One of the main problems in the perception of current US policies among a large segment of the population, specifically US policies in the Middle East, is the general lack of historical knowledge. Most people know very little about this region which now occupies so much of our attention. Yet, regardless of their lack of knowledge, most have an opinion and express it fairly vocally.

Victor Hanson imagines the questions that Abraham Lincoln would have received during a press conference.