ElBaradei Begs Israel Not to Attack Iran

Iran continues to ratchet up the rhetoric against Israel, openly stating this week that the country should be moved to Europe. Iran also vowed to produce nuclear fuel, further inflaming the situation. In response, Israel warned yesterday that they must now prepare for "non-diplomatic methods" to prevent Israel from obtaining nuclear technology. Worried that Israel is preparing to attack Iran, ElBaradei today begged them not to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Said ElBaradei, "You cannot use force to prevent a country from obtaining nuclear weapons. By bombing them half to death, you can only delay the plans. But they will come back, and they will demand revenge." (The Jerusalem Post: ElBaradei: Don't bomb Iran's nuclear facilities).

ElBaradei is wrong on several counts. First of all, it is Iran, not Israel, that is escalating the war of words. Everything Iran has said and done for the last three months appears intended to provoke Israel into a war. Given what's at stake for Israel, Iran will likely not have to push much further. It is a given that Israel cannot afford to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

Secondly, you can indeed prevent a country from obtaining nuclear capabilities through the use of force. In fact, Israel did just that when they bombed Iraq's nuclear research facilities in the late 1980s. If the nation in question is not willing to halt the research on their own - as did Libya and South Africa - then force is the only option remaining. Iran has made it clear that they have no intentions of abandoning their nuclear programs. That does not leave Israel with any options. Sanctions are clearly ineffective in this regard. Iraq lived with sanctions for 12 years. In Iran's case, they would have nuclear weapons long before any sanctions could have an impact. Israel doesn't have time for that.

As to ElBaradei, as the head of the IAEA, he should be at the forefront of any attempts to prevent nuclear capability from falling into Iran's hands. As usual, however, he, the IAEA, and the UN in general are totally useless in this regard. They could not prevent Pakistan or India from gaining nuclear weapons, they stood idly by while North Korea developed nuclear capability, and they will be incapable of preventing Iran from doing so.

The biggest problem facing Israel is that they do not have any weapons (that we know of) that can penetrate the bunkers housing Iran's nuclear research. For that they will have to rely on the US. There's little doubt that such a strike will have to occur, however. Nothing short of a military strike is going to halt Iran's nuclear program. Will it end it? Probably not. But we can certainly set their program back a decade or more, and there's no reason the same technique cannot be used again.

As to Iran wanting retaliation for such a strike, they would be wise to think more than twice before attempting it. The US and allies now control three of Iran's borders. Dismantling Iran, should they move on Israel, would not take much longer than dismantling Iraq did. Come to think of it, that's a score that we still need to settle with Iran. We have not forgotten their holding US hostages for over 400 days in the late 70s. That debt must still be paid.

If ElBaradei wishes to issue warnings, they'd best issue them to Iran. They're talking trash and may soon pay the price for it.

Technorati: politics news IAEA ElBaradei Israel Iran
IceRocket: politics news IAEA ElBaradei Israel Iran

¡No hables español en la escuela!

Zach Rubio, a 16-year old student at the Endeavor Alternative School in Kansas, was suspended for speaking Spanish in school. According to Rubio, the incident that got him in trouble was outside of the classroom when he responded "No problema" to a classmate that asked to borrow a dollar. (Washington Post: Spanish At School Translates to Suspension). School administrators say it's not the first time Rubio and others had been admonished for speaking Spanish in school.

The intrusion of other languages into official government or business transactions is becoming increasingly problematic due to the surge in the Hispanic population in the US. One of the most frequent complaints our marketing department receives, for example, is that the customer is asked to choose between English and Spanish when making an ATM transaction. Despite it not being written into the constitution, the language spoken in the US is English and many customers are irritated by the intrusion of Spanish into daily business. I'm one of them.

Government forms are now available in Spanish. Any voice menu system you encounter (which is another pet peeve of mine) will almost always force you to choose a language. English is no longer being treated as the de facto language in government and business in the US, and I do view that as a problem

Language can be one of the most divisive cultural aspects in a society. By not forcing immigrants to learn English, we inadvertently create isolated pockets of diverse cultures that have nothing to unify them beyond the color of the money in their pockets. If you want to see what that cultural isolation can do in the extreme, look no further than Iraq. There you have three distinct cultures that loath each other and at any moment are a gunshot away from civil war. That's been true for centuries there.

My view on language is that English should be written into law as the official language in the US. All government forms should be written only in English. Business in the US should be transacted in English. Obtaining citizenship should require English proficiency. In short, there must be an incentive for anyone that wishes to live in the US to learn English.

As to young Zach Rubio, however, I'd say he was a victim of an administration that took a school policy a bit too far. While I fully support the idea that only English should be spoken in the classroom, it does not make sense to police the halls and restrooms to that extreme. In fact, it's counter-productive. Given the six-hours a day students spend in the classroom, that's plenty of language immersion, sufficient to develop English proficiency in non-English speaking students. In Rubio's case, he is fluent in English, and as such has no need for English immersion. A bit of common sense on the part of the administration would be in order.

The goal should not be to eliminate Spanish from our society. What language a family chooses to speak in the home, among friends, or while out socializing is their business. Rather, the goal should be to establish English as the unifying factor that unites all of the diverse cultures that comprise this great nation. Language should not be a wall that separates cultural districts, but that is what is happening today.

I should note here that studies of the past show that this is, first and foremost, not a new debate. The same arguments were used when Irish were the heaviest wave of immigration and again when Italians immigrated to the US in droves. English was not in danger of being replaced then and it is certainly not in danger of being replaced now. What studies show is that first generation immigrants have a very difficult time learning the new language. Second generation immigrants are typically bi-lingual, and by the third generation they are exclusively English speaking. So don't worry about English being replaced by Spanish.

What is different this time around, however, is the universal drive both in government and business to provide documentation and services in other languages. That was extremely isolated during the last major US immigration wave, which meant that second generation Americans - typically children who were frequently used as translators for their parents - had a strong incentive to learn English. (Children also learn a new language easier than adults.) We are removing that incentive, and that does have me concerned.

I suspect the debate over language in schools will not end anytime soon. For the moment, however, let's remember to support the diverse cultural aspect that makes the US the world's melting pot, but at the same time let's provide that single unifying element that makes all of those cultures part of America: English.

Technorati: Rubio Zach Rubio news Spanish Endeavor Alternative School Kansas
IceRocket: Rubio Zach Rubio news Spanish Endeavor Alternative School Kansas

Second Guessing Air Marshals Begins

America's favorite pastime, second-guessing the actions of those required to make split-second emergency decisions, has started in the case of air marshals forced to kill a passenger (identified as Rigoberto Alpizar) that claimed he had a bomb in his backpack. (Washington Post: Passenger Was Mentally Ill, Police Say). Air marshals now find themselves having to defend their actions because of reports that the passenger in question suffered from bipolar disorder.

The facts in this case are quite simple and they have been confirmed by over 100 passengers on the flight. The man looked agitated before boarding the flight. He stated he had a bomb. He ran through the aisle of the aircraft and onto the boarding ramp clutching his backpack to his chest. He repeatedly ignored orders from air marshals to stop and lie down. When finally confronted, he attempted to reach into the backpack in which he had already stated there was a bomb. Is there anyone on this planet that can reasonably conclude the air marshals acted improperly?

Questions are now being raised regarding how much training air marshals receive that assists in dealing with mentally ill travellers. To me it's irrelevant. If someone says they have a bomb on a plane, I don't want to wait for an air marshal to pull up a couch and ask the guy about his childhood. Once someone declares they have a bomb, you take him out of commission and dispose of the potential threat. We can worry about his possible medical condition afterwards.

Lydia Lewis, president of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance said, "In this case, it was a terrible tragedy and I'm not certain all the training in the world . . . would have changed this case." Well, I agree that additional training would not have changed this, but I draw the line at calling this a tragedy. What would have been tragic is if the man's threat were real and the air marshals hesitated because they were told he's suffering from mental illness. Here's a quick tip for you. Anyone that attempts to carry a bomb onto a plane is mentally ill. Mental illness is not a criteria for special treatment, it's the first clue that the passenger is a real threat.

My biggest fear in this situation is that all the second-guessing will cause air marshals to hesitate the next time, when what we truly need are air marshals that react quickly for the safety of the other 300 passengers that are not running through the aisles claiming they have a bomb. The air marshals acted properly. Stop second-guessing them and let them do their jobs.

Technorati: air marshal Alpizar bipolar depression mental illness airline security
IceRocket: air marshal Alpizar bipolar depression mental illness airline security

Rice Most Popular Cabinet Member

A poll conducted between November 29 and December 1 and containing a 3% margin of error showed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice remains the most popular government official with a 53% approval rating. (Angus Reid Consultants: Rice Remains Top-Ranked Public Servant in U.S.). The same poll gave the lowest marks to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (35%) and Vice President Dick Cheney (32%).

Speculation is mounting that the 73-year old Rumsfeld will resign in early 2006. White House insiders claim that the Defense Secretary, whom the President considers a political liability, wanted to resign just after the President's reelection, however neither he nor the President wanted it to appear as if the resignation were forced by anti-war critics. In an interesting twist, there is speculation on Capital Hill that Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) will be offered the job. (San Jose Mercury News: Sources: Rumsfeld will resign in '06; rumors swirl about Lieberman).

Lieberman was offered the UN Ambassadorship prior to the appointment of Bolton, however he turned it down after considering the offer for about a week. Putting a Democrat on the cabinet in that fashion would be an interesting political move. Lieberman has been a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq from the onset, so it would not effectively change the US military posture. Lieberman is one of the more hawkish members of the US Senate and would make an interesting successor to Rumsfeld. At the same time, the appointment would remove a top Democrat from a senate seat, throwing that seat up for grabs. That prospect certainly weighed in Lieberman's decision to decline the UN post.

The most interesting person to watch right now is Condoleezza Rice, however. She remains very popular on Capital Hill and is perhaps the President's most trusted adviser. She continues to voice her lack of desire to run for President in 2008, however she has never outwardly stated that she will not run, only that she currently has no plans or desire to run. Rice would make a formidable candidate, however. Hillary versus Rice debates could air on Pay-per-View and draw record audiences. Most importantly with 2 years remaining before that election frenzy, her denial of interest effectively keeps her out of the pre-campaign political bloodbath that damages so many prospective candidates.

Finally, the President's poll numbers are up quite a bit this week. President Bush's approval rating jumped to 40% (up from 35%) and his disapproval rating dropped to 53% (down from 57%.) The reason cited for the improvement has to do with consumer confidence and perceptions of an improving economy. This matches my belief that it will be the price of gas at the pumps, not the war in Iraq, that will influence the 2006 mid-terms and ultimately the 2008 Presidential election. People argue about the war, but they vote for their pocketbooks. In any case, 2006 is shaping up to be a very entertaining year, politically.

Technorati: politics news Rice Condoleezza Rice Rumsfeld Cheney Lieberman Bush
IceRocket: politics news Rice Condoleezza Rice Rumsfeld Cheney Lieberman Bush

Judges Can't Control Hussein Trial

The team of judges overseeing the first of the trials involving deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein appear incapable of controlling the tyrant's outbursts and disruptions, allowing Hussein to turn the proceedings into a circus sideshow. (Washington Post: In Courtroom, Hussein Acts Out Old Role With Flourish).

Hussein has repeatedly challenged the courts purpose and jurisdiction, repeatedly accusing the court of being a US puppet. On numerous occasions, he has taken to lecturing the justices on Iraqi law and on how they are conducting the trail, something that would never be tolerated for a moment in a US courtroom. Yet there, the justices meekly sit as children being scolded for their transgressions.

Regardless of the trial's outcome, Hussein is succeeding in undermining the authority of the court. His outbursts are invigorating to his supporters, and provide new fodder for the embattled insurgency. As I've said on countless occasions, holding a trial in this fashion in Iraq by Iraqi judges is a tremendous tactical error and sets a very dangerous precedent. Historically, this type of trial would be held before a military tribunal comprised of the victor nations. Nuremberg is the classic example. The side-show surrounding this trial is a clear example as to why that is necessary.

For security purposes alone it makes no sense to conduct this trial in Iraq. As long as Hussein is alive, he will be viewed by his dwindling supporters as a hostage in need of rescue. We've already seen the assassinations of defense attorneys in an attempt to disrupt or prevent the proceedings. The judges themselves have been under death threats from the beginning. It makes no sense at all to conduct this trial in Iraq where the terrorists have the ability to engage in disruption activities.

This trial needs to come to a swift conclusion. The best possible outcome is for it to end quickly, have Saddam convicted, sentenced to death, and executed before any more damage is done to the fragile Iraqi government. As long as he is alive, he remains a spark in the smoldering embers of a few militants that would like to see him back in power. Any outcome short of a death sentence is simply intolerable. Let's end this side-show as quickly as possible.

Technorati: politics news Iraq Hussein
IceRocket: politics news Iraq Hussein

9/11 Panel Issues Yet Another Final Report

The 9/11 Commission issued their final report yesterday. No, really. It's their final report. Well, until their next final report. This particular version finds fault across the board for failing to implement changes listed on one of their other final reports. For a group with more reunion tours than The Who, it's kind of hard to keep track of which final report contained these findings. (Washington Post: U.S. Is Given Failing Grades By 9/11 Panel).

Pardon me for being cynical, but when I look at the complaints filed by the 9/11 commission, I'm hard pressed to stifle a yawn. They certainly sound dramatic enough, but the fact is that none of the recommendations would have done anything to prevent the attacks on 9/11, nor would they have improved the way emergency workers responded to those attacks.

The only thing worse than auditors are auditors with access to the press, and that is precisely what we have with this commission. The one that really strikes me as amusing is the complaint that the US has not done enough to secure the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Perhaps someone needs to hand these clowns a newspaper. First, though, make sure you highlight the references to Iran and North Korea.

Other complaints have to do with failure of Congress to allocate bandwidth for emergency first responders. (There is a bill that will do just that over the next four years, however one wouldn't expect the 9/11 Commission to know that.) Now, allocation of bandwidth is the responsibility of the FCC, and emergency first responders already do have a wide range of bandwidth restricted for their use. What I'm trying to figure out is how more bandwidth would've stopped the two tallest buildings in NYC from collapsing and killing those still trapped inside. Don't suggest that evacuation would have been improved. In the case of the towers, I have a first-hand account of workers in the second tower being told to return to their desks moments before the second plane struck. Bandwidth doesn't change that.

Oh, the 9/11 Commission wants more airport screening. That will be effective. It would have kept all of the 9/11 hijackers out of the country, right? Oh, wait. All of them entered this country legally. Never mind. It would have prevented them from hijacking the planes, though, wouldn't it? Oh, wait. Everything they used was acceptable for airline carry-on usage. Never mind.

It's time for the 9/11 Commission to fold up its side-show tent and quietly go away. Remember, I said quietly. All they are doing at this point is playing a political game that is feeding the blood lust of politicians eyeing the 2006 mid-terms. They are feeding a false sense of insecurity by over-dramatizing any impact the proposed changes could possibly have on future terror threats. They are feeding their own sense of self-worth by continuing to fester long after they should have faded out of memory. The fifteen-minute alarm clock has sounded on this crew.

Technorati: politics news 9-11 Commission
IceRocket: politics news 9-11 Commission

Rice Stands Firm on Black Sites

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued the first formal response to European accusations that the US is transporting detainees through their airspace to countries that may engage in torture while questioning those detainees. Rice's tone was both firm and uncompromising, essentially telling Europe that they should be grateful for America's hard stance against terrorism. (Times Online: Tough words from Rice leave loopholes).

The Secretary of State affirmed that the US does in fact practice rendition, transferring unlawful combatants to countries such as Egypt or Jordon where there are less restrictions pertaining to the methods used in extracting information. The practice of rendition was first openly implemented by former President Clinton in the mid-1990s, and was expanded by President Bush following 9/11.

Rice's statements were right on the mark and took precisely the tone required. What she essentially told Europe was to mind your own business. We're not violating your sovereignty but neither are we accountable to you. Her stock went up several points in my view after today's address.

Everything the US is doing with these detainees is in accord with international law and international treaties signed and ratified by Congress. Even the use of limited forms of torture is permitted by international treaty - including the Geneva Convention - when the information obtained prevents acts of terror. Unlawful combatants, by international treaty, may be detained without due process for the duration of hostilities. Unlawful combatants, clearly defined by the Geneva Convention, are not afforded any protections under that (or any other) treaty.

As Rice correctly stated, “the captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice.” She continues in saying that these terrorists, “effectively stateless, owing allegiance only to the extremist cause of international terrorism”.

She is correct. In my view, whatever means are necessary to extract information from the scum that commit these acts of terror is perfectly acceptable. People that behead civilians - as these terrorists have done - deserve no protections under the law. People who strap bombs to their children and have them detonated in public locations deserve no protections. People who's sole mission in life is to terrorize the civilized world deserve no civil treatment.

I stated once before that the only outrage I have towards the use of black sites is the fact that the existence of these black sites was revealed. They are a necessary weapon in our global war on terror. Any information we are able to extract from these terrorists brings us that much closer to preventing the next outrageous act. I personally do not care how that information is extracted, nor do I care how these terrorists are treated once in custody so long as they live long enough for us to extract that information.

Kudos to Secretary of State Rice for setting the record straight and for not wavering an inch on this issue.

Technorati: politics news Rice Condoleezza Rice CIA Black Sites Rendition Europe
IceRocket: politics news Rice Condoleezza Rice CIA Black Sites Rendition Europe

Boycotts Solidify Chavez' Grip on Power

About 10% of the opposition parties in Venezuela called for a boycott of recent elections, guaranteeing a solid majority for Chavez. In some areas controlled by the opposition, only 6% of the voters turned out for the election. (Washington Post: Chavez Allies Are Poised To Solidify Their Majority). The net result of the lopsided election is that Chavez will control over a two-thirds majority, enough for him to overturn restrictions preventing his running for a third term.

The concept of boycotting elections is nothing new. We saw this same nonsense in the first Iraqi elections in which the Sunni's staged a widespread boycott. The net result was that Sunni representation was non-existent in the Iraqi parliament. Now in Venezuela we are faced with a boycott by opposition leaders, and once again we find that those that did turn out to vote have won the day. Which part of the election process don't these opposition leaders understand?

Besides non-participation, there is another major problem that plagues opposition groups in the typical Latin American election. The groups over-saturate the electorate with candidates. In Venezuela, 5500 candidates were listed for 167 seats. That's an average of 33 candidates per seat! As a result, the opposition spreads its votes so thin it becomes virtually impossible to unseat the incumbent party. The same issue plagues Peru where over thirty candidates are currently declared for the 2006 presidential elections.

What the elections in Venezuela mean for us is an even more boisterous Chavez, denouncing just about everything American. Well, everything except our money, that is. He's still willing to accept dollars in exchange for oil. Unfortunately, Chavez has a bit of support within the OAS as seen in the last round of AAFT discussions. What the states around him have not yet realized is that Chavez can only drag them under with him. Venezuela is no economic power, and they are certainly no military power. For the rest of Latin America to listen to that crackpot is sheer folly, yet that is precisely what they have been doing.

For now it appears that there will be more of the same coming out of Venezuela. Expect Chavez to declare a mandate to continue his hard-line rhetoric against the US. Expect Chavez, buoyed by his overwhelming majority, to further strengthen his alliance with Iran and Cuba. His relationship with Iran is not trivial, mind you. Both are members of OPEC, and while collectively they don't control a lot of the world's oil, they certainly do carry weight when it comes to setting OPEC policy. That controls oil production and hence oil prices.

In any event, the elections recently held in Venezuela are not to be ignored. They will certainly play a role in world affairs and possibly American politics throughout 2006. We haven't heard the last of Chavez, sadly enough.

Technorati: politics news Venezuela Chavez Iran Cuba OPEC
IceRocket: politics news Venezuela Chavez Iran Cuba OPEC

Israel Doubts Iran Accord Possible

Dan Halutz, chief of Israel's army, said on Sunday that he does not believe a diplomatic solution is possible in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Halutz told reporters, "I believe that the political means that are being used by the Europeans and the Americans to convince the Iranians to stop will not end in stopping them." (News24: Iran nuclear talks 'will fail').

Despite his skepticism over the potential success of diplomatic efforts, Halutz claims that plans for a preemptive strike are not yet under discussion, although he also states that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. Clearly Israel has the most to lose should Iran ever gain nuclear technology since there's little doubt as to where Iranian missiles would be aimed. If anyone has the incentive to launch a preemptive strike, it is Israel.

That Israel is not yet considering such a strike comes as no surprise, however. Most of the nuclear research facilities in Iran are in subterranean bunkers that Israel is incapable of penetrating. A military strike by Israel would only anger the rest of the Middle East while doing very little harm to Iran's nuclear research. In fact, a strike by Israel could turn the tide of public opinion in favor of Iran, something the Israelis need to avoid at all cost.

Personally, I believe a nuclear strike against Iran is inevitable, although like Halutz I don't believe that strike will come from Israel. The only nation that has the ability to hit the underground bunkers in Iran is the US. When diplomatic efforts ultimately fail - and I'm certain they will fail - it will be the US, not Israel that hits Iran's nuclear facilities.

The US is already preparing unilateral economic sanctions against Iran. There can be little doubt that Iran's nuclear program will be debated in the UN Security Council in 2006 with additional sanctions from that body forthcoming. What remains to be seen is the timetable for an American military strike on the Iranian bunkers. Make no mistake, though, such a strike is virtually inevitable. It's not a question of "if", it's not a question of "by whom", it's only a question of "when."

Technorati: politics Iran Halutz Israel nuclear
IceRocket: politics Iran Halutz Israel Nuclear

Christmas Under Siege

Rarely do I agree with the extreme positions taken by Jerry Falwell, but this is one case where I have to agree with him. Christmas is indeed under siege. Oh, not the secular shopping frenzy that has come to characterize this time of year. No, that is alive and well and doing just fine. Rather, what is under siege is the very reason for this holy season. (Miami Herald: Putting Christmas back in season's greetings).

First of all, this is not a "holiday season" so stop greeting me with Happy Holidays. Nothing, absolutely nothing, offends me more. What we celebrate on December 25th is not some secular holiday, it is the most sacred Feast of the Nativity. It is the Christian remembrance of the human birth of Christ Divine.

Nothing about this time of year is secular. Jews around the world celebrate Hanukkah, a sacred remembrance of the re-dedication of the holy Temple of Jerusalem. Christians celebrate the Feast of the Nativity, or "Christmas" as it is popularly called. Even for pagans this was a holy period with the religious festivals of Yule and Saturnalia. What is happening today with this secular attempt to degrade this most holy season is both offensive and intolerable.

If you wish me a "Happy Holidays" be prepared for a "Merry Christmas" in return, followed by a lecture on the meaning of this season. For those of non-Christian denominations that have religious holy days this time of year, I welcome and support greetings in your own traditions. They are most certainly in keeping with the spiritual nature of the season. For those that have no religious beliefs, however, spare me the "Happy Holidays." It offends me and is a totally meaningless sentiment.

Much of what has happened to Christmas has been the direct result of corporate greed and avarice. The shopping frenzy that accompanies the Christmas rush not only detracts from the meaning of Christmas, but it is also nothing less than a corporate attempt to profit from a holy day that few businessmen understand or support in the first place. If you truly want to embrace the true nature of Christmas while still providing a gift to your loved ones, then consider a donation to a favorite charity in the name of the person you wish to honor. Nothing could be more Christian. Leave the shopping frenzy to those who see Christmas as a reason to indulge in a meaningless materialistic secular holiday. As for the rest of us, let us remember to put Christ back into Christmas and to keep Him there.

Technorati: Falwell Christmas Hanukkah Yule Saturnalia
IceRocket: Falwell Christmas Hanukkah Yule Saturnalia

Terrorists Kidnap Peace Activists

In an ironic twist, Iraqi terrorists kidnapped four western peace activists and now threaten to kill them unless all detainees held by the coalition are not released by December 8th. (The Courier-Mail: Iraq kidnappers threaten to kill hostages). The four activists, James Loney and Harmeet Sooden from Canada, Tom Fox from the US, and Norman Kember from the UK were kidnapped in Baghdad last Saturday.

The group had been warned repeatedly by US and Iraqi officials that they were placing themselves in grave danger by traveling around Baghdad without any escorts for protection. When they were taken, the kidnappers accused them of being spies and using the peace movement as a cover. Naturally, the four deny spying on the insurgents.

The message should be clear to everyone. The terrorists do not distinguish between peace activists and war hawks. They do not distinguish between civilians and soldiers. The only distinction they make is between themselves and the rest of the world. Idealists such as the four that were kidnapped are nothing more than easy targets for terrorists who have little regard for human life.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin condemned the kidnapping, promising that "the full resources of the federal government are being made available." While it's a very nice sentiment, it would have carried more weight if Canada had supported our efforts in Iraq from the beginning. Martin's comments may sound good, but they are a hollow statement. Without troops on the ground in Iraq, Canada will have to rely on those of us that are there if there is any chance for rescue.

What I question is why the activists were allowed there in the first place. All civilians can do right now is put themselves in harms way and set themselves up as targets. They do more harm than good and have absolutely no business being there at all. What's disturbing to me is that they now become yet another propaganda tool for the terrorists.

How to deal with the situation now is harsh, but simple. Former Israeli Prime Minister Mosha Dayan had the best method for dealing with hostage takers. In his view, the hostages were considered casualties of war and Israel responded accordingly. To Dayan, a hostage was considered dead the moment they were kidnapped. By devaluing the hostage in that fashion, he not only severely weakened the position of the kidnappers, but he also prevented further kidnappings. As harsh as it may seem, that is how we must deal with this situation. Of course, the next step is to stop civilians from traveling to Iraq until the situation is stable. It's not a tourist destination right now and they have absolutely no business being there.

Technorati: Iraq hostages Paul Martin James Loney Harmeet Sooden Tom Fox Norman Kember
IceRocket: Iraq hostages Paul Martin James Loney Harmeet Sooden Tom Fox Norman Kember

Iran Girds for Showdown

Iran is assuming a militaristic posture as it girds for a showdown with the west over their attempts to achieve nuclear capabilities. On Saturday, Iran's Guardian Council approved a bill that would prevent UN inspections of its nuclear facilities if the issue is referred to the Security Council. All that remains for passage is the signature of Iran's hard-line president. (ABC: Iran OKs Bill to Block Nuclear Inspections).

While publicly preparing for this standoff with the UN, Iran has also just inked a deal with Russia to purchase $1 billion worth of anti-aircraft missiles, a move that has angered the US and EU. (Star Tribune: Russia may sell missiles to Iran). There can be little doubt as to the reason for this purchase since an inspections stand-off with the UN will likely lead to air-strikes against Tehran.

Russia's duplicity with regards to Iran is most disturbing. Having recently been approved by both the US and EU as a mediator in the current nuclear talks stand-offs, this sale of weapons to Iran is a clear indication of where Russia's loyalties truly lie. Russia is well aware of the reaction this will generate in the west. "I expect that Russia's decision to supply the complexes to Iran will meet a negative reaction from the West, but this criticism will be of a political rather than legal character," said the head of Russia's parliamentary foreign affairs committee Konstantin Kosachev.

Sale of weapons to a state that openly sponsors terrorism like Iran is tantamount to arming the terrorists. What Russia has just done is no different than if the US started selling arms to Chechen rebels. What the US must make clear to Russia is that any attack on US warplanes by Iranian missiles that were purchased from Russia will be considered an attack on the US by Russia. A nation that sells arms to our enemies is our enemy.

Since his election, Putin - a former KGB hardliner - has gone out of his way to invigor the old cold-war mentality that divided the former USSR from the west. He has increasingly sought a confrontational role with the US and appears to be succeeding in destroying the relationship that developed under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Putin is a throwback to the Kruschev and Brezhnev days and we certainly need to react accordingly. Russia is in no economic position to challenge the US, but it appears they need a stark reminder of that sobering fact. It's time to slam the door economically on Putin and remind him why the Soviet Union is now only a name on some very old maps.

Technorati: Iran news Russia Putin TOR-M1 UN Security Council
IceRocket: Iran news Russia Putin TOR-M1 UN Security Council

Propaganda or Journalism?

Senator John Warner (R-VA) has asked the military to provide a briefing on the use of a government contractor to distribute war stories written by soldiers to newspapers in Iraq. (Washington Post: Senator Seeks Answers on Iraq Stories). Warner expressed concerns that this program could undermine US credibility in the region. Said Warner, "Further, a free and independent press is critical to the functioning of a democracy, and I am concerned about any actions which may erode the independence of the Iraqi media."

The only thing being undermined by Warner is the US' ability to use the media as a propaganda tool while not restricting the enemy's ability to do so. Warner has apparently forgotten Ayman Zawahiri's words to Zarqawi, "Remember, half the battle is the battlefield of the media." Right now, the terrorists are winning that portion of the battle, due in no small part to the extremely slanted view of the war being portrayed by the American press.

Still, let's take Warner's statements at face value. What aspect of the program violates the independence of the Iraqi media? There is no coercion involved in running the stories. Positive stories were written by American soldiers and forwarded to Iraqex, the government contractor responsible for promoting the war effort in the Iraqi media. Iraqex, in some cases, paid different newspapers in Iraq to print the stories. How is that different from what goes on at virtually every newspaper in the US?

The only issue would have been if the military were forcing the papers to run the stories. They were not. These newspapers willingly ran the articles written by US soldiers knowing full well that Iraqex was responsible for distributing positive propaganda to the Iraqi media. No violation of an independent press - which only means a press not restricted by government control - is evident in Iraq.

What Senator Warner doesn't seem to acknowledge is that virtually every article written in every newspaper is propaganda in some fashion. The concept of an independent journalist is a fantasy. There is no objectivity in journalism. Every paper, every journalist, indeed every reader has their own political slant that colors what is printed and what is read. All having an independent press means is that those papers are immune to government control regardless of their political slant. It does not mean that what gets published is devoid of bias, be that personal or corporate.

The news media is by far the best propaganda tool available to all sides in a war. It would be foolhardy to restrict the US Military's ability to utilize that tool, especially when the largest battles in Iraq and in the War on Terror are not for territory, but for the hearts of the people.

Technorati: politics news Warner Senator Warner military Iraqex media
IceRocket: politics news Warner Senator Warner military Iraqex media

Montreal Talks Appear Pointless

Post-Kyoto environmental talks underway in Montreal appear pointless, based on comments made by the UK's Margaret Beckett, representing both the EU and the UK at the conference. Said Beckett, "We never had the idea that this meeting was going to sign up to a whole new lot of compulsory targets. The people who think that are living in cloud cuckoo land. This is arrant nonsense. It took five years to negotiate the Kyoto agreement with only 39 countries involved. Then two of them promptly walked away." (Guardian Unlimited: Beckett crushes hopes of new carbon deal).

The US has already refused to participate in the Montreal conference, and both Kyoto holdouts China and India are also absent. Without agreement from China and India, any hope of bringing the US to the table or having any meaningful environmental accord is sheer folly. That Beckett, considered one of the greener members of the committee, sees no firm accord coming out of Montreal really makes one wonder about the point of the conference in the first place.

Ironically, the UK has a lot to lose if some global warming theories are correct. Scientists are now reporting that there is a decrease in the amount of warm water making it to the UK via the Gulf Stream due to lower salinity in northern sea water caused by glacial melting. Eventually, as the warming trend continues and the glaciers continue to melt, the Gulf Stream conveyor will stop, plunging the UK and other northern Europe regions into an ice age.

In any event, it appears that the Montreal conference is a nonstarter. Even Greenpeace spokesman Stephen Tinsdale warns against the voluntary targets being proposed in Montreal, stating that the targets are "not worth the paper they are written on. Without mandatory targets [the Kyoto protocol] is effectively dead." I would take it a step further. Without China and India being constrained, any environmental treaty is doomed from the start.

Technorati: politics news Kyoto Montreal
IceRocket: politics news Kyoto Montreal

Bush Takes the Offensive on Iraq Strategy

In a long overdue speech to the nation, President Bush went on the offensive yesterday in promoting a lengthy strategy for winning the war in Iraq. (Washington Post: Bush Presents Plan to Win Iraq War). In addition to the speech, the White House released a comprehensive 35-page document detailing US strategy, entitled National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, a new web page that details that strategy, an an Executive Summary that focuses on the highlights of the strategy.

This offensive is long overdue and is the first in a series of speeches planned by the president to quell the growing calls of pullout coming from the left. In his speech yesterday, the president made it quite plain that there will be no pullout before the job is complete: "As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists. These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington."

If that was not clear enough, the president pledged his unwavering support for our troops, assuring them that the US will not abandon the cause. "To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief," the president told his audience at the US Naval Academy.

The president outlined eight strategic pillars detailing our Iraq strategy:

• Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgency
• Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance
• Help Iraqis Forge a National Compact for Democratic Government
• Help Iraq Build Government Capacity and Provide Essential Services
• Help Iraq Strengthen Its Economy
• Help Iraq Strengthen the Rule of Law and Promote Civil Rights
• Increase International Support for Iraq
• Strengthen Public Understanding of Coalition Efforts and Public Isolation of the Insurgents

With each strategy point comes a detailed list of the current status of that objective along with details on how the US is working to achieve it. The published strategy is the most comprehensive to date and far surpasses any strategy document released by any administration in any previous war. All that remains now is to see if the left is truly willing to assist in winning this war or if they will continue to be the voice of dissent, providing a morale boost to the enemy.

Links to the National Strategy and the Executive Summary are now included in the sidebar of this blog. They will remain there so long as those sites are active. I strongly encourage all Americans to read the strategy, understand the goals, and support our mission in Iraq and elsewhere in this global war on terror.

Technorati: politics news Bush Iraq National Strategy for Victory in Iraq Executive Summary
IceRocket: politics news Bush Iraq National Strategy for Victory in Iraq Executive Summary

Muslim Brotherhood Gains in Egypt

The outlawed Muslim Brotherhood group has made extensive gains in recent Egyptian elections, picking up 76 parliamentary seats and establishing itself as a formidable opposition group to Hosni Mubarrak’s National Democratic Party. (Al Bawaba: Egyptian authorities continue Muslim Brotherhood crackdown). Reacting to the sudden surge in the Islamic group's popularity, Egypt has begun a systematic roundup of as many as 900 members of the Brotherhood.

The sudden popularity of the fundamentalist group that wants to govern Egypt under strict Muslim law is not as troubling as it would first appear. Egypt has long been one of the most moderate nations in the Middle East and was the first Muslim country to establish a peace treaty with Israel and formally establish diplomatic relations with their embattled neighbor. In contrast, Saudi Arabia, for example, still refers to Israel as "the Zionist entity", refusing even to state the country's name.

According to Muslim Brotherhood's deputy director Mohamed Habib, the Brotherhood does not recognize Israel, however they are willing to allow Egypt to continue to honor all treaties. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has adopted a more moderate view of non-Muslim's, stating earlier this year that "Islam dignifies Christians and Jews and we hope they treat us the same way. The ignorance of people is what is causing a grudge among them and not their religion." That's a refreshing change of pace in a region where religious intolerance is a way of life.

Another major tenet of the Brotherhood is support for the development of democracy throughout the Middle East, something which could actually align the group with the Bush Administration. On that topic, 'Abd al-Mun'im Abu-l-Futuh told the International Crisis Group, "The absence of democracy is one of the main reasons for the crisis here, in Egypt and the Middle East. The Muslim Brothers believe that the Western governments are one of the main reasons for the lack of democracy in the region because they are supporting dictatorships in the Arab and Islamic region in general, despite the fact that it has been proved that the absence of democracy and freedom is the reason for terrorism and violence."

The Muslim Brotherhood, first established in 1928 in Egypt, has always promoted non-violent change, something that distinguishes them from their more radical cousins. By shedding their earlier religious intolerance and by promoting democracy in the Middle East, they may well become a welcome ally in the overall struggle with Islamic fundamentalism. These developments in Egypt bear watching, however at this point there is cause for cautious optimism.

Technorati: politics news Egypt Muslim Brotherhood
IceRocket: politics news Egypt Muslim Brotherhood

Bush Targets Illegal Immigration

In a speech to the nation yesterday, President Bush attempted to appeal to both sides of his conservative base while clarifying his position on illegal immigration. The speech in Arizona at an Air Force base about an hour north of the Mexican Border was primarily aimed at curbing illegal immigration from Mexico, which the President said accounts for some 80% of the illegals entering the US. (Washington Post: Bush Pushes Guest-Worker Program).

While the President opened with tough rhetoric, stating that America's laws on illegal immigration will be enforced, he gradually wound down towards a very moderate viewpoint by endorsing a guest worker program. On the one hand, he threatened to veto any bill that includes amnesty, yet he still advocates a guest worker program that would allow as many as 11 million illegal immigrants to remain in the US for as many as 6-years. In that period, they could apply for legal status, something that would be made far easier since the President wants to increase the number of work visas available to foreign applicants.

One of the dangers in attempting to appeal to both sides in a debate is that you end up alienating both sides. Moderates within the party are very supportive of an amnesty program, claiming it's virtually impossible to catch all of the illegals that are here already. They will most certainly be turned off by his threat to veto. It is also not likely that moderates or liberals will support the increased spending along the Mexican border and the significant increase in border patrol personnel supported by the President.

On the other hand, conservatives want no part of the guest worker program since that is tantamount to amnesty. There are 11 million foreign criminals now residing in the US and the guest worker program actually rewards them for violating US immigration laws. That is simply not going to pass muster with the President's conservative base.

What seems to be missing in all this talk on immigration is any focus on US companies that are violating US law by hiring these illegals in the first place. Were it not for the prospect of jobs here, there would be no incentive for people to cross the border illegally. Yet there does not appear to be any attempt to crack down on companies that hire them.

Of equal concern is the President's desire to increase the number of work visas available to foreign applicants. We are already over saturated with foreign workers to the detriment of the American work force, especially in high end technology jobs. Of every ten resumes that cross my desk, only two of them are from American citizens. The remainder of the applicants are typically from India, and virtually all of them require H1b sponsorship. Our current immigration policies are squeezing the American worker considerably. What we desperately need is a reduction in the number of Visas available, not an increase. We also need a crack down on companies and individuals that hire illegal immigrants.

Fortunately, the tide in the Supreme Court may shift with regards to the status of illegal immigrants once Samuel Alito is confirmed for the high court. Alito takes a very rigid stance against any rights afforded to illegal immigrants, according to briefs he filed while working for the Reagan Administration. (Washington Post: '86 Alito Memo Argues Against Foreigners' Rights). In Alito's view, people that enter the US illegally are not entitled to any constitutional rights afforded to American citizens.

Alito's view will be a welcome change to a court that has been extremely liberal in dealing with immigration issues. Perhaps with the court's shift to the right, the government will no longer be hamstrung in devising new methods for securing our borders. Perhaps we will no longer be an enticing target for illegal immigrants because of our liberal public service policies regarding medical care and welfare for those that are not here legally. Perhaps we will rescind the most absurd law currently on our books that automatically grants a child US citizenship if born here even though the child's mother is here illegally.

In any event, the President's speech will be met with skepticism across all factions. It was not tough enough for some, and it was certainly too tough for others. The proposals made by the President will have a difficult time indeed in both the House and the Senate. In the meantime, illegals continue to stream across our open borders.

Technorati: politics news Bush Alito immigration H1b illegal immigration
IceRocket: politics news Bush Alito immigration H1b illegal immigration

US Shuns Kyoto 2

Montreal is center stage for yet another world conference on developing legislation to combat global warming. The conference is being billed as the successor to the Kyoto Pact, a global warming treaty that was not signed by the US. (Washington Post: World Leaders to Discuss Strategies for Climate Control). Faced with the same fundamental flaws as the original Kyoto treaty, the US has already indicated it has no interest in pursuing the pact up for discussion in Montreal.

The biggest problem with Kyoto - and the reason it was not signed by the US - was an exemption in that treaty for developing nations, and specifically for China. That exemption would spell economic disaster for the US, giving American manufacturing firms an even greater incentive to relocate to the third world. US industry is already suffering from widespread foreign outsourcing of technology and manufacturing all in the quest for lower wages. To remove the burden of emissions controls as well, which is effectively what Kyoto did, would be the final nail in the coffin for US manufacturing firms.

Despite the misinformation being distributed by environmentalists, the US is taking aggressive steps towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush Administration has already spent $20 Billion on climate control initiatives and has cut emissions nationwide by 0.8% between 2000 and 2003. Note that this is in the wake of numerous other emissions control initiatives that started in the early 1980s and had already significantly reduced greenhouse emissions in the US.

The one disturbing trend is that many states are now starting to impose their own Kyoto-like restrictions on a local level. That spells disaster for workers in those states who will see manufacturing migrate out of their region in search of lower cost alternatives either nationally or abroad. When you look at the average wage in China coupled with the lack of emissions controls standards, that becomes a very attractive option for any company being forced to compete with a handicap here at home.

What is not being addressed by any of the treaties is the simple fact that controlling greenhouse emissions is only delaying the inevitable, and not by much more than a century at best. This planet has been warming since the end of the last ice age, and it will continue to do so with or without greenhouse emissions. We have had numerous cycles in the history of this planet where the earth transitions from ice age to tropical and back to ice age. We happen to live in that period where the earth is still on the upward slope of the global temperature curve.

Perhaps a more realistic approach for world governments is to not focus on preventing what cannot be prevented - i.e. global warming - but rather to start developing plans to cope with the eventual climate change we will face. It is simple fact that we will continue to warm. Ice caps will continue to melt, and the more they melt, the faster the planet will warm. Coastal regions will flood. What was once arctic tundra may well become tropical. What is now tropical may become desert. Where there is land today may be ocean tomorrow. This has happened at least five times in the history of this planet and it will happen again.

What the extreme environmentalists do not want to acknowledge is that greenhouse gases are lower - yes, lower - now than they were at the end of the last ice age. Much of the human impact on this planet is localized. We have very little capacity to have a global effect on the planet. A single volcanic eruption emits more greenhouse gases than any industrialized nation could ever hope to produce. The forest fires that plague the west every year have the same impact. We do not see the smog from LA here on the east coast, but we do see the smoke from forest fires in Alberta, Canada when they rage out of control. It is only man's hubris that leads us to believe that we can have such a widespread impact on the climate.

So stop wasting our time and money trying to prevent the inevitable. Start planning for how we will deal with the effects of global warming as the warming trend continues. We also need to plan for the opposite, since current scientific theory shows that the net result of global warming is an ice age, and that the transition is extremely swift. Climate change will happen. We cannot prevent it any more than we can cause it. The solution is to deal with the after-effects because that is all we can control.

Technorati: Kyoto global warming greenhouse emissions Montreal
IceRocket: Kyoto global warming greenhouse emissions Montreal

Public Not Buying Dem's War Criticism

Independent polls are showing that the criticisms against the War in Iraq being leveled by Democrats are not being publicly accepted. In fact, 70% of Americans believe the criticism is hurting troop morale. That same number - 70% - also believe that the Democrats are only criticising the war, not because they believe what they're saying, but only to gain partisan political advantage. (Washington Post: Sympathetic Vibrations). Only 16% believe that troops should be withdrawn immediately, with a plurality (49%) stating that troops should only come home when Iraq can take care of itself.

These polls will certainly have a ripple effect through the 2006 mid-terms. Democrats were hoping that the increased anti-war rhetoric would improve their chances of gaining seats in both the House and Senate, however these polls suggest that the public at large is seeing through the political double speak.

What is not reflected in the polls is not the impact of criticism on troop morale, it is the impact of criticism on the enemy's morale. Every criticism levelled against the war is another weapon in the hands of Zarqawi. Every senator that accuses the President of lying about going to war is a senator that boosts the cause of Iraq's terrorist insurgency. Every person that screams for a time-table for withdrawal is directly responsible for delaying that very withdrawal they seem to desire.

There was plenty of time for debate before going to war in Iraq. That was the time for open criticisms of the effort. It was a time to argue about the merits of going to war, the reasons for it, the quality of intelligence, the plan to rebuild Iraq, and the criteria under which US troops would be withdrawn. That is the reason it takes both Congress and the President to go to war. Once Congress approved the use of force, however, and once the President committed troops to war in Iraq, that time for debate ended. There is only one proper response for Americans once our troops are in combat and that is to provide 100% support for the war effort. Anything less is a tool in the hands of the enemy.

We have yet, it would seem, to learn the lessons taught by Vietnam. The two biggest lessons we failed to learn are mistakes now being made with Iraq. First, the press has absolutely no business being given uncensored access to the war. An unchecked press played a major role in public opinion towards the war in Vietnam, and it is having the same impact today in Iraq. Rather, the WWII method of dealing with the press is the proper approach. Induct the reporters into the military and closely monitor and censor what is being reported about the war. The goal of the war is to win, not to provide Pulitzer Prizes for embedded reporters.

Second, the greatest enemy our military faces, and the only enemy capable of defeating the US in war is the American public. The NVA did not defeat the US in Vietnam. Neither did the Viet Cong. Rather, it was the American public that turned that war into a debacle. A nation cannot win a war when the public openly withdraws support for that war. Apparently, our esteemed senators and congressmen haven't learned that lesson. Rather than standing firm behind our troops and our war effort, these spineless politicians are trying to ride the ebb and flow of public opinion with an eye towards re-election.

The time for debate ended when the first cruise missile struck Baghdad. The only acceptable response for Americans now is to support our efforts in Iraq. The enemy needs to see an America united in the cause to defeat the insurgency, defeat the terrorists, and stabilize the Iraqi government. Anything less provides aid and comfort to the enemy. Save the Monday morning quarterbacking for after the war is won. To do it now jeopardizes our troops, boosts the morale of the enemy, and prolongs the effort in the field.

Technorati: politics Iraq Polls
IceRocket: politics Iraq polls

On Vacation Until November 27th

The Grape is taking another week's vacation. This time I'm off to Italy for a week, visiting Rome, the Vatican, Sorrento, Pompeii, and Capri. I return very late on November 26th, so look for my next post on Sunday the 27th. Try not to let the country spin out of control while I'm away!