|
|||||
|
|||||
How Not to Get Out of Iraq - Max Boot, Commentary
The current build-up of American forces in Iraq—universally known as the “surge”—was unveiled by President Bush on January 10. The earliest units shipped out in the middle of February, and the full complement of roughly 160,000 troops arrived only in June. Yet, by then, a vociferous chorus of voices back home—consisting mainly of Democrats but also of a growing number of middle-of-the-road Republicans—was already pronouncing the entire operation a failure and demanding a “change of course,” a “new strategy,” a “Plan B. Such a new strategy would of course involve not more troops on the ground but fewer, in response to the overwhelming impetus of public opinion to start bringing soldiers home. Nevertheless, while increasingly eager for an end to American involvement in the Iraq war, most legislators have continued to endorse what Senator Richard Lugar, in a much-heralded June speech, declared to be “four primary objectives” in Iraq. These are: “preventing Iraq or any piece of its territory from being used as a safe haven or training ground for terrorists or as a repository or assembly point for weapons of mass destruction”; “preventing the disorder and sectarian violence in Iraq from upsetting wider regional stability”; “preventing Iranian domination of the region”; and “limiting the loss of U.S. credibility. That is a very tall order. And so, all summer long, and even as reports surfaced attesting to initial successes of the surge, the search has been on for a plan that could accomplish these goals with a smaller commitment of resources. Does such a plan exist? It is worth surveying the major proposals to see if any of them offers a credible way forward.
On the Brink – Michael Ledeen, National Review
President Bush is annoyed that Afghan President Karzai and Iraqi President Maliki are both speaking about Iran in words reserved for an ally, rather than the main engine driving the terror wars in their countries. But if you look at the world through their eyes, it is easy enough to understand. They fear that the Americans will soon leave, and the Iranians will still be there. They know that Iran is a mortal threat, and they are now making a down payment on the insurance costs that are sure to come if the Democrats in Washington have their way. For extras, Maliki has certainly noticed that the United States is paying off the Middle Eastern Sunnis, hoping that the Saudis, Jordanians, and Gulf States will manage to contain Iran in the future. This cannot be good news in Baghdad, where the Shiites are struggling to put together a government capable of managing the country’s myriad crises. There are many reasons for the respect of Iraqis for our fighters, starting with the fact that the military is currently the best institution in America, and our military men and women are several notches above the politicians, intellectuals and journalists in moral fiber and bravery. You can see that in the way the military deals with the Iranian intrusion in Iraq and Afghanistan. The politicians, diplomats, and spooks downplay the Iranian role, reshaping the facts to fit their desire for a “negotiated solution” they know in their heart of hearts will never be accomplished. But our military officers, whose troops are being blown up by Iranian explosives or Iranian-trained suicide bombers or gunned down by Iranian-trained snipers, are laying out the facts for anyone who cares to know what’s going on.
A New Way of War - Evan Thomas and John Barry, Newsweek
How do you defeat a foe who can destroy million-dollar machines with devices that can be built off the Internet for about the cost of a pizza, especially if that foe doesn't particularly worry about dying? When the insurgency began, there were about five "master bombmakers" in Baghdad, each with a recognizable style. Their model was the roadside bombs that were used in Lebanon almost 20 years earlier by the Iranian-backed group Hizbullah. Primitive versions used rudimentary triggers—sometimes just a car battery and a long wire. Today's IED makers have inexpensive gadgets like garage-door openers and disposable phones to detonate their bombs. The insurgents in Iraq have perfected a new way of war. America is still the world's greatest superpower, and the U.S. military's capacity to take out a moving vehicle using a drone piloted from half the world away should still provoke a little shock and awe. But the IED—cheap, easy to make and adapt, and deadly—has in its own way proved equally powerful. The bombs have bled the U.S. military in Iraq. And thanks to the ubiquitous videos of IED attacks shot by insurgents and put up on YouTube, they will be credited with driving us out of the country whenever we do leave. Guerrillas, even armies, elsewhere are watching: most of the world's conventional militaries would be vulnerable to similar tactics. Already, locally made devices have begun appearing on battlefields from Somalia to Thailand to Pakistan.
Innocent in Haditha - Kathleen Parker, Chicago Tribune
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a favorite, if sometimes ignored, American trope. We are reminded of that once again with charges being dropped against two Marines in the so-called Haditha massacre of November 2005. As well, we are reminded of the difficulty in applying civilian perceptions and standards to military conflict. From a civilian perspective, the case seemed clear-cut. How does one ever justify intentionally killing civilians? The answer is: We don't. Americans struggle with the horror of civilian casualties, while insurgent and terrorist forces in Iraq devise ways to effect more, not fewer, civilian deaths. What we deplore, and punish, they celebrate. And replicate. There is a difference, one that is both our strength and our weakness. Though some Americans, like other mortals, are capable of inhumanity, our national conscience compels us to examine the impulses that degrade our character and purpose.
The Lesson of Basra - Baltimore Sun editorial
The British have substantially pulled back their military operations in southern Iraq, and now the area around the city of Basra is being violently contested by several Iraqi factions - all of them Shiite - and an overlapping group of criminal gangs. British bases are taking increasingly potent mortar fire. It's starting to look like a mission that has failed. For all the talk of progress after the U.S. troop surge in Baghdad, and the emergency reconciliation summit called this week by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, there's no particular reason to believe that the British experience in the south is anything but a foretaste of Iraq's future. The only difference is that the rest of Iraq (not counting Kurdistan) is far more riven by sectarian hatred than Basra is. The Pentagon believes it has clamped something of a lid on the violence for the time being, but that hasn't opened the door to political progress, and it can't go on indefinitely.
Good News From Iraq - New York Post editorial
News out of Iraq continues to be encouraging: High-profile attacks have fallen nearly 50 percent since the start of the troop surge, USA Today reported this week. Gen. David Petraeus, commanding the war in Iraq, says hundreds of al Qaeda fighters were killed or captured in just the past month alone. Tips about the enemy are up fourfold over the last year - to some 23,000 a month. "Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad, in the USA Today report. "They are turning against al Qaeda." It's a sign of the preliminary success of a number of operations now under way, as troop strength has finally reached the maximum planned by the surge. To think that just a month ago, Democrats were trying to pull the plug on Iraq. Maybe they feared exactly what is happening: The tide in Iraq seems to be turning in America's favor - and that spells bad news for the Dems, who've pinned their own political fates on the White House failing in the war.
The Men of MiTT – Matt Sanchez, Weekly Standard
Briefing begin at 0800 at FOB Prosperity, and I was ready for the typical "SIGACTS." Small push pins on a magnified satellite image map on the wall showed where each significant act occurred: SAF, IED, EFP, a morse-code of letters that usually meant danger, explosions, and possibly a dead body. But these were the Rogues, the 3rd Battalion, 5th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division Military Transitional Team (MiTT), and they had a different mission than most stationed here in Baghdad. First Sergeant Joseph McFarlane, a career Army man whose father served in Vietnam and whose grandfathers both served in WWII, read the latest news from the place the soldiers cared about most--back home. The Rogues were sent to this troubled zone as a result of the troop surge. Before, they had been on Haifa Street, where, in January of 2007, they were ambushed and had to hold their ground for nearly six hours. "Everyone survived," said Major Chris Norrie, an armor officer cross-trained to supervise the mentorship of the 5th Brigade Iraqi Army. During the firefight, the Rogues tried to rally their fellow Iraqi soldiers, some fought, and some disappeared. The surge sent more troops into Haifa--by the time I got there in July, the 4-9 Cavalry remarked how much calmer one of Baghdad premiere boulevards had become. So, the 3-5/6 was sent to another tough neighborhood where they were to make another go at mentoring the Iraqi military.
‘Sunk Costs’ and the War - Bruce Wydick, USA Today
Our inability to think clearly about sunk costs is impeding our ability to make clear decisions about our involvement in Iraq. Failing to correctly identify sunk costs (those that are irretrievable), and deal with them properly, biases our decision-making in favor of prolonging the war. It is clear that some of those who argue for extending the war in Iraq never learned about the importance of identifying sunk costs. Consider the following type of statement, the likes of which we have all heard many times: "A current withdrawal would dishonor the memory of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of liberty." Whether one is for or against the war, is this a good way to think about whether we should press on? Like the psychology that underlies putting in another quarter into Silver Falls, such statements perilously incorporate sunk costs into decision-making. Let's refer to all of the casualties and material costs of the war that our country has already realized in the conflict as X. In other words, if we were to withdraw today, we would lose X. Here's the problem: As our involvement continues, X gets bigger and bigger, making withdrawal increasingly costly, pressing on easier to justify, and the decision itself less sensitive to the potential and rewards of victory. Incorporating sunk costs into our war decision-making does wrong to those called upon to make future sacrifices as we strive to make lost lives count.
Rudd Pulls Rank on Troops Talk – Peter Lalor, The Australian
Mike Kelly, a Labor candidate has been widely condemned this week for suggesting Australian troops were only engaged in a flag waving exercise by George Bush’s favourite ally John Howard. Kelly was swiftly denounced as the Australian incarnation of Hanoi Jane by all and sundry. Foreign minister Alexander Downer said it was “deeply offensive” and before anybody could even think the “wedge” word or the “soft” word or the “left” word or the “principle” word Kevin Rudd rode up the rear shouting his would-be candidate down. While considering Kelly’s statement you may recall the anonymous soldier who confronted defence minister Brendan Nelson during his June visit to that country. He was obviously as ill-informed as Mr Kelly when he sidled up to the defence minister and said it was a little, ahem, embarrassing to have to hide from the action. ”It certainly can be argued that Australia is not pulling its weight in these conflicts," the digger told Dr Nelson. ”There’s a very real sense that our forces are being withheld from actual combat roles." The solider revealed that the overworked and overwrought Americans on the frontline of the battle were even starting to suggest that Australian troops were not doing their bit. The truth is that Mr Howard committed a token force to the Iraq war for political not military ends and he insisted that they be hidden away from danger the moment the initial invasion ended.
Rebuff to the U.S. as Karzai Forgoes Local Ties - Bronwen Maddox, London Times
You can’t fault Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, for ambition. Yesterday at a summit with President Ahmadinejad of Iran he said that his country might be able to bridge the divide between the US and Iran. Never mind that no other broker has managed that since the 1979 Iranian revolution. The feat would go some way to offset Afghanistan’s most significant influence on the wider world, as supplier of nine tenths of its heroin. But although American intransigence towards Iran shows only occasional signs of softening, it is not a ridiculous proposition, but simply one unlikely to go far. Iran has clear interests in stopping the drugs trade too, and its claims to have been helpful are justified, for all the US’s dismissive scepticism. The mere fact of the summit in Kabul is a rebuff by Karzai to the US, let alone the warmth of his welcome. “Afghanistan has strong ties with Iran – we share the same religion and language,” Karzai said yesterday. The summit follows his bitter demands that the US rein back immediately on military operations that have caused significant civilian casualties, because of the anger rising in the country towards a foreign presence.
Democrats Disagree – Tony Blankley, Washington Times / Real Clear Politics
Sometimes we can better understand where we are politically from afar than from within. Consider this assessment from Europe's biggest and Germany's most influential magazine, Der Spiegel, this week: "The wind has shifted in Washington. America, not just its president, is at war. The Democrats are still critical of the failed Iraq campaign, but they are no longer opposed to the "War on Terror" in general. It has been accepted, and not just as a metaphor ... Ninety-two percent of Americans are opposed to an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and a majority doesn't want to see the U.S.'s special detention camp at Guantanamo Bay closed. At the moment, the American electorate's biggest criticism of Bush is that he has not been aggressive enough in pursuing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. "Indeed, when voters hit the ballot box in November 2008, they will be looking for more than just a candidate charismatic and clever enough to lead the country politically. They will also ask themselves which of the candidates is sufficiently tough, crafty and brutal to win the multi-front war that the Bush administration has begun.
Dealing with Annihilation – Richard Rahn, Washington Times
At some point, it is almost certain that some group will set off one or more nuclear devices or other weapons of mass destruction in major cities of the U.S., such as New York, killing tens or hundreds of thousands, or even millions. How will we, as a nation, deal with it? How will we protect our economy and our liberties? In 2006, Fred Ikle, former undersecretary of defense for policy (under President Reagan) and former director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, wrote an extremely important and readable book, "Annihilation from Within," that requires attention.
The Cheney Imperative – Stephen Hayes, Wall Street Journal
Mr. Cheney has not moved on. He still awakens each day asking the same questions he asked on Sept. 12, 2001. Then, as he sips his morning coffee, he pores over the latest intelligence on his own before receiving an exhaustive briefing on the latest threat reports. After that, he joins his boss for the president's daily intelligence briefing. All of this happens before 9 a.m. He mentions the war on terror in virtually every speech he gives, and in a letter he wrote to his grandchildren he acknowledged that his "principal focus" as vice president has been national security. The way that he has gone about his job has won him many critics. His approval ratings are low. A small but growing group of congressional Democrats is mobilizing to impeach him. Respected commentators from respected publications have suggested that his heart problems have left him mentally unstable. Others have called on him to resign. Some conservatives have joined this chorus of criticism, with one prominent columnist labeling the vice president "destructive" and another dismissing those who share his views as "Cheneyite nutjobs." This past Saturday, protesters near his home outside Jackson, Wyo., tore down an effigy of Mr. Cheney in much the way Iraqis famously toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein. So President Bush should ignore Mr. Cheney's advice and the White House communications team should keep him hidden from public view, right? Nonsense. With intelligence officials in Washington increasingly alarmed about the prospect of another major attack on the U.S. homeland, and public support for the Bush administration's anti-terror efforts reclaiming lost ground, we need more Dick Cheney.
Towards a Realistic Peace - Rudy Giuliani, Foreign Affairs / Real Clear Poltics
We are all members of the 9/11 generation. The defining challenges of the twentieth century ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Full recognition of the first great challenge of the twenty-first century came with the attacks of September 11, 2001, even though Islamist terrorists had begun their assault on world order decades before. Confronted with an act of war on American soil, our old assumptions about conflict between nation-states fell away. Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy. America and its allies have made progress since that terrible day. We have responded forcefully to the Terrorists' War on Us, abandoning a decade-long -- and counterproductive -- strategy of defensive reaction in favor of a vigorous offense. And we have set in motion changes to the international system that promise a safer and better world for generations to come.
Reengaging with the World – John Edwards, Foreign Affairs / Real Clear Politics
At the dawn of a new century and on the brink of a new presidency, the United States today needs to reclaim the moral high ground that defined our foreign policy for much of the last century. We must move beyond the wreckage created by one of the greatest strategic failures in U.S. history: the war in Iraq. Rather than alienating the rest of the world through assertions of infallibility and demands of obedience, as the current administration has done, U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a strategy of reengagement. We must reengage with our history of courage, liberty, and generosity. We must reengage with our tradition of moral leadership on issues ranging from the killings in Darfur to global poverty and climate change. We must reengage with our allies on critical security issues, including terrorism, the Middle East, and nuclear proliferation. With confidence and resolve, we must reengage with those who pose a security threat to us, from Iran to North Korea. And our government must reengage with the American people to restore our nation's reputation as a moral beacon to the world, tapping into our fundamental hope and optimism and calling on our citizens' commitment and courage to make this possible. We must lead the world by demonstrating the power of our ideals, not by stoking fear about those who do not share them.
Two-State, Two-Track Solution – Paul Greenberg, Washington Times
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian president, have met for the first time at Jericho, which would be on Palestinian soil if a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict ever emerges. Unfortunately, Palestine has become a failed state before becoming a state, with half of it (Gaza) under the control of terrorist Hamas and the rest (the West Bank) vulnerable to all the life-threatening ills that any small state is prey to in that rapacious part of the world. When shall these two meet again, and can their joint gamble against the odds pay off? For the odds are always against peace in the Mideast.
A Tipping Point in Saudi Arabia - Dana Moss and Zvika Krieger, Christian Science Monitor
When Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud was crown prince of Saudi Arabia, one of his most infamous decisions was banning the use of camera phones in 2004 – a demand from the country's Wahhabi clergy who claimed the devices were "spreading obscenity." But the decision was quickly reversed when King Abdullah faced pressure from his government ministers and, allegedly, from a cadre of foreign businessmen who threatened to pull their companies from Saudi Arabia. "Abdullah was presented with a choice between the Wahhabis and good business," says one Riyadh-based businessman. "His decision [for the latter] was clear." It is a decision that Abdullah has made time and again over the course of his reign as king, which hit its two-year mark this month. By sidelining the traditional clergy in favor of the merchant classes and more progressive religious voices, Abdullah has been challenging the "great bargain" of the Saudi state – namely the empowerment of the Wahhabi ulema (hard-line Islamic scholars) in exchange for their sanction of the House of Saud. This unlikely reformer, who has unofficially led the kingdom since King Fahd's stroke in 1995, has propelled the country through a radical transformation. From accession to the World Trade Organization to the billion-dollar overhaul of the educational system to increased criticism of the religious "police" who enforce a strict interpretation of Islamic sharia law, the closed kingdom is beginning to crack open.
Facing Up to an Army of Presidents - Michael Young, Daily Star
If Syria is pushing Lebanon toward an election whose effect will be the elevation of the army commander, Michel Suleiman, to the presidency, then four events in the past week seem to confirm this scenario. The first was Michel Murr's ambiguous expression of support for Michel Aoun as president, issued last Thursday on the "Kalam an-Nass" program, which unambiguously revealed that Murr was really placing his money on Suleiman. The second was Suleiman's visit to Diman on Saturday to visit with Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir. Despite Suleiman's denials, the meeting had everything to do with the presidency. The third was the chilling threat issued by alleged Fatah al-Islam militants, warning that they would launch a terror campaign throughout Lebanon. And the fourth was Suleiman's statement on Monday - in contrast with what Prime Minister Fouad Siniora declared several weeks ago - that Fatah al-Islam was "not affiliated with the Syrian intelligence services." This must have been music to the Assad regime's ears, a test well graded.
Jordan Gets a Mixed Report Card on Domestic Reform - Rami Khouri, Daily Star
The "reform" industry in the Arab world has been on a roller-coaster for the past 15 years or so, soaring high at moments of exhilaration and ambitious expectations, then plummeting to earth in gut-wrenching disappointment. Reforming prevailing political, economic, security and administrative systems in the Arab world is a critical prerequisite for any hopes for stability, prosperity and a normal life for a majority of citizens. A new report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace captures accurately and fairly the important experience of one country - Jordan - where the reform agenda has been simultaneously dramatic and erratic. Jordan's track record is important because its leadership has trumpeted reform as a major goal and achievement, it has make impressive progress in some areas, yet it has suffered serious shortcomings in others.
Getting Answers on Pakistan - Mark Schneider, Boston Globe
Finally, Congress is asking hard questions about Pakistan. Some lawmakers wonder what the $10 billion in aid to Pakistan has bought if Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has allowed extremists to arm themselves in the Red Mosque for months, the Taliban to recruit and plan attacks with relative freedom, and Al Qaeda to reorganize itself in the border provinces. Before it left for the August recess, Congress passed legislation placing conditionality on a portion of US military aid to Pakistan for the first time since 9/11. Moreover, it has questions: Why isn't any action being taken against mosques around the country run by the same kind of jihadi Islamic extremists who recruit suicide bombers to move across the border -- as they did in the last month? Why aren't the Taliban's command and control centers in Peshawar and Quetta being closed down? Why has Al Qaeda been allowed to reorganize in Pakistan with more ability to carry out terrorist attacks, as the National Intelligence Estimate disclosed? This fall offers an opportunity for change.
After 60 Years, Will Pakistan Be Reborn? – Mohsin Hamid, New York Times
Like my parents before me, I was born in a democratic Pakistan but spent much of my youth in a dictatorship. And like General Ayub Khan before him, the new dictator, Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq was a steadfast American ally against the Soviet Union. But whereas General Ayub Khan had been largely secular, General Zia envisioned Pakistan as a theocratic Muslim state. It became a staging-ground for the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan and underwent a dramatic process of social engineering called Islamization. Pakistan is once again turning its knife on itself. Insurgencies simmer in the regions bordering Afghanistan, and suicide bombers have begun to kill fellow Pakistanis with increasing frequency. For me personally, the 60th anniversary of independence, while worthy of note, is not of the utmost importance. My hopes are already dashing ahead and attaching themselves to the elections that are scheduled for later this year.
After Midnight – London Times editorial
Sixty years is the age of wisdom, said Confucius, when all things can be seen clearly. Picasso, unsurprisingly, took a more flippant view; 60 for him was the age when we could start to be truly young – except that by then it was too late. Pakistanis marked Independence Day yesterday in a grimly introspective mood. What they see most clearly is that their country's institutional, religious and social confrontations are no longer separate aspects of Pakistan’s complex political identity. They have acquired critical mass. India turns 60 today determined to demonstrate that it is never too late to be young. The nation has a dancing step, an élan that eluded independent India until well into middle age. The “permit Raj” of state controls that for years held back growth is not yet defunct, but the guiding force is Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Twenty years ago, casual travellers would not have found India and Pakistan to be wildly different. Guidebooks listed obvious differences: Muslim Pakistan, Hindu-plus-a-little-bit-of-everything India; democracy stifled in Pakistan, flourishing in India. But they would have felt quite similar; crowded, ramshackle countries with stunning vistas, potholed roads and safe streets. Today the world sees only contrast.
India’s Internal Partition – Ramachandra Guha, New York Times
As a liberal and secular Hindu, I should not have been worried about being found out. But my fear was symptomatic also of the deeper failures of partition. It had been meant to solve, once and for all, the Hindu-Muslim question. But in both countries, the two communities have only grown further apart. Despite their shared culture, cuisine and love for the game of cricket, India and Pakistan have already fought four wars. And judging by the number of troops on their borders and the missiles and nuclear weapons to back them, they seem prepared to fight a fifth.
All Lines Lead to Delhi - Swati Pandey, Los Angeles Times
Today, it's undeniable that Delhi has consolidated its power. Massive infrastructure, education and affirmative-action-style programs have brought the stamp of central government (if not actual progress) to rural villages. If nothing else, technology and particularly television -- featuring soap operas serializing the screwy lives of the middle or higher classes alongside poor kids competing on one of the country's numerous national talent shows -- has brought the vast income and lifestyle gap into Indian living rooms, whether marble- or dirt-floored. And the government's periodic border build-ups opposite Pakistan (a tendency that seems to be, at last, on the wane) and internal crackdowns against opposition groups and minorities also underscore the point: Delhi isn't far, and Delhi may be watching you. And Delhi has never been less far from the U.S. After decades of non-alignment, followed by an explicit tilt toward the Soviet Union and still later by punishing U.S. sanctions after India's 1998 nuclear tests, the two countries have close political and trade ties.
India's Thriving Democracy - Shashi Tharoor, Philadelphia Inquirer
A nation was born Aug. 15, 1947, on a subcontinent ripped apart by a bloody partition. Independent India came into being as flames blazed across the land, corpse-laden trains crossed the new frontier with Pakistan, and weary refugees abandoned everything to seek a new life. A less propitious start for a fledgling nation could scarcely be imagined. Yet, six decades later, the India that emerged from the wreckage of the British Raj is the world's largest democracy, poised after years of rapid economic growth to take its place as one of the giants of the 21st century. A country whose very survival seemed in doubt at its founding offers striking lessons in constructing, against all odds, a working democracy.
This Palestinian Stands with Darfur – Ray Hanania, Jerusalem Post
One would hope that what is going on in Darfur would bring people together. Instead the tragedy has blurred moralities because it has cast ethnic black Africans as victims of Arab oppression. Rather than subdue Sudan, the Arab League has stood by doing nothing, except to argue that bringing up the Arab aspect of the conflict is wrong. And why should the Arabs act when the United Nations - where Arab clout is practically non-existent - has done so little? The UN is characteristically shackled by larger political forces which have stymied plans to create a truly international force over four years of worthless rhetoric. Although Muslims around the world are quick to champion Muslim rights, even when they are "Muslim wrongs," there is a cultural hesitancy over Darfur driven by racism; the victims, who are mostly Muslim, are "Abeds" - the Arabic word for "slave," which, when used in this context, is equivalent to "nigger" in English.
Gaddafi's Libya: An Ally for America? – Benjamin Barber, Washington Post
Written off not long ago as an implacable despot, Gaddafi is a complex and adaptive thinker as well as an efficient, if laid-back, autocrat. Unlike almost any other Arab ruler, he has exhibited an extraordinary capacity to rethink his country's role in a changed and changing world. In all my public and private conversations with Gaddafi, including a roundtable moderated by David Frost and televised by BBC in March during which Gaddafi responded to unrehearsed questions, Gaddafi acknowledged his history of enmity with the West and did not deny Libya's erstwhile involvement in terrorism. But he spoke of a new chapter for Libya and backed it up with a commitment to societal change. He insisted that in the Libya that comes after him there would be no new Gaddafi but self-governance.
A Wayward Missile - Washington Post editorial
The U.N. Security Council will get a briefing tomorrow on what appears to have been a provocative move against the Republic of Georgia, a small, young democracy on the Black Sea. As we noted last week, the likely culprit is Russia, Georgia's far larger former master to the north and a permanent member of the Security Council. That might make Russia less than eager for a full vetting. Even so, the other nations on the international panel must push for a credible investigation and, eventually, attempt to hold accountable whomever the evidence implicates. Late last Monday night, a jet released a missile some 30 miles from Tbilisi, Georgia's capital. The weapon landed harmlessly next to a small village, but it did not have to explode to warrant Georgian outrage. The Georgian government maintains that the jet came from the north, and a preliminary document produced by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe seems to confirm this.
Sense on Secrecy – Washington Post editorial
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments today on the Bush administration's attempt to halt two challenges to its warrantless surveillance program. Here's what legal scholars expect: The San Francisco-based court -- a favorite liberal punching bag for the Supreme Court -- will hand down an "anti-administration" decision that allows the cases to move forward. If that happens, government lawyers won't be able to run fast enough to urge the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. While the politics of the matter are fairly obvious, what is in serious dispute is how any court should balance a president's legitimate interests in protecting national security programs with a private litigant's right to challenge their legitimacy.
Homosexuals in the Military – Daniel Davis, Washington Times
There has been a great deal of interest in the media in recent days about a renewed movement to strike down the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals serving in the military. The debate, however, has not been a dialogue so much as a monologue. It seems virtually every story written or soundbite uttered involves supporting the ability of homosexual men and women to serve openly in the armed services, but remarkably few discuss the alternative point of view. Such an important issue ought not be decided based on such an out-of-balance ratio.
-----