Why I Want to Keep Fighting in Iraq – Chris Brady, Christian Science Monitor
Despite strong public appeals by Gen. David Petraeus and President Bush this month, American views on the Iraq war remain dim. The latest Pew survey shows that 54 percent say US troops should come home as soon as possible, while 47 percent believe the US will probably or definitely fail to achieve its goals in Iraq. Many experts and politicians, meanwhile, have suggested the war can't be won.
I am a US soldier in Iraq. And I disagree. It's not too late to succeed. The stakes in Iraq are too high not to keep fighting for progress.
As a National Guardsman serving on a Provincial Reconstruction Team, I've seen what is working on the ground in Kirkuk, a city in northern Iraq…
Iraq's Inevitabilities – Richard Cohen, Washington Post
The creation of modern India and Pakistan entailed the uprooting of more than 12 million people. Bangladesh was itself ripped from Pakistan. The creation of Republika Srpska, an entity you probably have never heard of, was a consequence of the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, which did not exist before the 20th century and did not make it into the 21st. Countries come and countries go. It is time -- isn't it? -- that Iraq went.
The way it should go was long ago devised by Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, unbeknownst to most Americans, a candidate for president of the United States. Biden and Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council of Foreign Relations, advocate breaking Iraq into a federation consisting of three parts: a Kurdish north, a Sunni center and a Shiite south. Those terms -- north, center and south -- are the vaguest approximations, but they represent a thought, or a despair, or a resignation: The only way Iraq is going to work is if we concede that it is not likely to work the way we wanted it to…
The Struggle for Samarra – Jeff Emanual, Weekly Standard
The Development of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)--consisting of Iraqi Police ('IPs,' who are under regional control), National Police ('NPs,' who belong to the federal government's Ministry of Interior), and Iraqi Army--has been both a priority and a point of frustration for the Coalition forces who are trying to train them as quickly and effectively as possible to fill the role currently being served in Iraq by the U.S. military.
For the most part, when working with--or supported by--Americans, both their planning and their execution are carried out at a relatively high level. When working on their own, they are less proficient at their duties and more prone to attack (as they present a softer target than Coalition forces do); however, if backed by the Coalition (both verbally and through the provision of extra firepower, even if it is only to be used in the case of emergency), the forces perform relatively well, and, though they cannot yet hold a candle to their American counterparts in either proficiency or professionalism, they are showing improvement as they get more time and practice under their belts…
Road Map Toward Peace - Padraig O'Malley, Boston Globe
On Sept. 3 in Staulinna manor, a three-hour drive north of Helsinki, 15 Iraqis, six Sunni, and nine Shia, including Akram al-Hakim, the minister of National Reconciliation, appended their names to a document. The Helsinki Agreement committed them to a set of principles that, they hope, will provide the framework for negotiations on Iraq's future, bring elements of the insurgency into the negotiating process, and enshrine inclusivity as a prerequisite for accommodation. As each signed, each solemnly prayed, "In-sha'Allah" - "if God wills."
The agreement was the outcome of four days of intensive dialogue among the Iraqis and mediators from Northern Ireland and South Africa...
Networked and Lethal - Arnaud de Borchgrave, Washington Times
Former CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid says after mastering land, sea, air and space, the United States must master virtual space where al Qaeda now operates with impunity in recruiting, proselytizing, plotting and planning. "Al Qaeda's organizing ability in cyberspace is unprecedented" and "it takes a global network to beat a lethal global network."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who once denied the World War II Holocaust that consumed 6 million Jews ever took place, has had his wings clipped by his superiors. Iran's most popular TV series tells the story of an Iranian diplomat in Paris in 1940 who falls in love with a French Jew and then helps her and some 500 other Jews escape to what was then Palestine, with forged Iranian passports…
To the Extreme - Joshua Sinai, Washington Post
Al Qaeda and its myriad affiliates — whether as organized groups or self-radicalized "wannabes" — pose a grave threat to international security because they believe themselves to be divinely inspired to carry out mass destruction against their "apostate" adversaries all over the world.
The threat radical Islamists pose is not merely terrorist warfare but cultural warfare, as well. What makes their cultural aggression dangerous is that it is directed against Western values as well as mainstream Muslim tendencies. Salafi Islam, their primary religious identity, is anti-modern and nihilistic (which is why they turn to terrorist tactics to strike at their adversaries), so it is important to understand why their adherents opt for a violent form of religious extremism rather than more constructive and progressive religious ideologies…
Beware of Executive Alarms - Bruce Fein, Washington Times
The international terrorism danger to the United States falls decisively short of war. The gruesome deaths inflicted by September 11, 2001, and sister terrorism incidents in Bali, Madrid, Casablanca and London over the last six years are dwarfed by about 100,000 murders in the United States alone during that period. Neither President Bush nor Vice President Dick Cheney however, has declared "war" against murder and supplanted customary civilian courts with military commissions to try accused murderers with secret evidence and coerced confessions.
To aggrandize executive power, the Bush-Cheney duumvirate has inflated the international terrorism danger light years beyond the vastly greater risk of murder. They and their executive branch myrmidons maintain Osama bin Laden is militarily indistinguishable from V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito and Benito Mussolini combined; that a Caliphate will replace the White House unless instruments of war are unleashed against international terrorism, for instance, suspending the Great Writ of habeas corpus; detaining American citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants based on secret evidence; torture; unchecked spying on Americans in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; kidnappings and secret prisons abroad; concealing information from Congress under the banner of state secrets; and, declaring every square inch of the United States an active battlefield where military tactics and military law can be imposed at the discretion of the president. Moreover, President Bush ensures that war with international terrorism will be perpetual by embracing a utopian definition of victory: when the Milky Way is purged of any creature that might dream of threatening an American with terrorism…
That Long-Awaited Peace Meeting – New York Times editorial
We welcome President Bush’s decision to include Syria on the list of countries invited to a November Middle East peace meeting. The president’s distaste for such efforts — aides still balk at the term “peace conference” — is only slightly less visceral than his distaste for Syria. We hope this means that Mr. Bush and his aides are finally ready to push all sides to make the compromises essential for moving toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
If Damascus chooses not to attend the meeting, it would again confirm its role as one of the region’s dangerous spoilers. If it chooses to come, the chances for peace may increase. The invitation will certainly make it easier for Egypt and Saudi Arabia — whose political and economic support for any Israel-Palestinian agreement is crucial — to be there. Mr. Bush will still probably have to twist the arms of the risk-averse Saudis to show up…
Iran Flirts With UN – The Australian editorial
… The UN has long been a democracy of dictators, in that every world leader gets a vote, regardless of whether their own people are permitted the same indulgence. Membership is open to anybody who is able to describe himself as a world leader, regardless of how many dissidents have been crushed underfoot.
The General Assembly would not be complete without a performance by a special guest. This year, as for two years previous, it is Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust denier and sponsor of terror who wants Israel "wiped from the map". He used his appearance last year to launch into an anti-American diatribe.
On the one hand, it is a tribute to democracy that Ahmadinejad is allowed to set foot in New York, let alone address the UN. Some Jewish leaders have wondered whether Ahmadinejad could be arrested as a sponsor of terror while on US soil, but local authorities are likely to contain themselves. Indeed, so remarkably tolerant is New York that Ahmadinejad, who is not exactly at the forefront of the free speech movement, is considered entitled to his views, and will deliver them not only at the UN but at Columbia University.
He is taking his rights in this regard seriously. Shortly before he left Iran, Ahmadinejad's top military adviser warned the US that its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were "in the reach of Iran's fire" and that it would be "very easy for us to deal them blows"…
Mr. Ahmadinejad Speaks – New York Times editorial
There are many reasons why we find Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s policies and pronouncements loathsome. High on that list are his denial of the Holocaust, his call to wipe Israel off the map and his country’s sponsorship of terrorism. Equally loathsome is Iran’s denial of basic civil rights to its citizens, including the right of free speech.
So we are dismayed by the behavior of some of New York’s democratically elected representatives who denounced and threatened Columbia University for inviting the Iranian leader to speak there yesterday. We can imagine no better way to give hope to opponents of Iran’s repressive state than by showcasing America’s democracy and commitment to free speech. And we can imagine no better way to lay bare the bankruptcy of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s views than to have him speak, and be questioned, at a university forum…
Lesson in Absurdity – New York Post editorial
That was some show Iranian despot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put on yes terday at Columbia University. We're not sure how students who heard him gained academically - but at least they were entertained.
Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, must have had a blast. Speaking at one of America's top universities, he must have thought himself a legitimate player.
And the fact that the controversy over his speech led to its live broadcast over cable news networks likewise must have convinced him he'd won a PR coup.
But what, exactly, did Americans learn? …
Ahmadinejad’s Crackup – Los Angeles Times editorial
That Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a real cutup. The Iranian president had a hostile crowd at Columbia University laughing and applauding Monday during a controversial appearance that prompted an outcry from thousands of protesters and attracted bipartisan criticism from presidential candidates. Of course, Ahmadinejad's audience was mostly laughing at him rather than with him.
New York officials were outraged that the university provided a forum for Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier who has called for the destruction of Israel and is titular head of a country known to sponsor terrorism and aid insurgents in Iraq. They weren't alone. Democratic candidate Barack Obama made the rather contradictory statement that he wouldn't have invited Ahmadinejad to speak if he were president of Columbia, even though he has said he would personally meet with the man if elected president of the United States. Republican candidate Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has started airing a campaign commercial decrying Ahmadinejad's visit. On Capitol Hill, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) attacked Columbia for handing Ahmadinejad a microphone…
“A Petty and Cruel Dictator” Lies – National Review editorial
What’s worse, denying the Holocaust or denying the existence of gays? Judging by the reaction of the Columbia University audience for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bizarre and dishonest performance Monday, it’s a close call, although his denial of the existence of homosexuals in Iran was starker than his call for more “study” of the Holocaust. Of course, the “study” he has in mind is that undertaken by the likes of the once-jailed Holocaust denier David Irving.
Perhaps stung by criticism of Ahmadinejad’s invitation, Columbia president Lee Bollinger smacked Ahmadinejad hard in his introduction. He said the Iranian president “exhibits all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.” (Of course, that’s because he is a petty and cruel dictator.) Bollinger called him either “brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated” for questioning whether the Holocaust happened (how about all of the above, plus Jew-hating?), and doubted he would “have the intellectual courage to answer these questions.” …
Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance – Cal Thomas, Real Clear Politics
I would not be as bothered by Columbia University's decision to host Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if Columbia and other universities had a consistent policy toward those they invite to speak and the rules applied equally to conservatives and liberals; to totalitarian dictators and to advocates for freedom and tolerance.
Any conservative who has ever tried, or actually succeeded, in speaking on the campus of predominately liberal academic institutions knows it can resemble to some extent the struggle experienced by African Americans when they attempted to desegregate lunch counters in the South during the civil rights movement…
A Defining Moment – Mitt Romney, National Review
Just over sixty years ago, in the wake of atomic destruction and the horrors of Holocaust, world leaders united to say “never again.” This week, world leaders are giving a platform to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who has opened the door to both: He calls for the elimination of a nation and pursues the means that would allow him to carry it out. Instead of inviting him to speak at the United Nations and Columbia University, he should be indicted under the Genocide Convention.
In prior conflicts, the signs of impending disaster were clear in hindsight. In their wake, we asked how the world’s leaders had ignored and abdicated their responsibility to humanity. Yet, the gathering storm of the Iranian regime's vision of genocide, terror, and nuclear weapons is all too clear today. Far from hiding his intentions, Ahmadinejad held a conference to deny the Holocaust. His frequent incitement to destroy the state of Israel has numbed many to the point that statements such as “Israel cannot continue its life” or “Israel must be wiped off the earth” are met with silence from most world leaders. Yet, voices from such divergent political viewpoints as Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, human-rights advocate and former Canadian Minister Of Justice Irwin Cotler, former Ambassador John Bolton, and law professor Alan Dershowitz have called for Ahmadinejad to be indicted for inciting genocide…
Playing Democrat at Columbia – Anne Applebaum, Washington Post
The novelty of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance yesterday at Columbia University did not, as many critics would have it, lie in the fact that an august Ivy League institution had invited the Iranian president -- a Holocaust-denier, authoritarian leader and sponsor of terrorism -- to speak on its campus. The protests, the fury, the screaming New York Daily News headlines, the counterarguments about free speech -- we have seen all of that sort of thing before.
No, the novelty of Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia lies in the fact that he wanted to make that speech at all. Though a blustering Columbia dean foolishly told Fox News that "if he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion," the university would happily invite Adolf Hitler to speak, too, it's impossible to imagine the Fuhrer accepting. Hitler staged his theatrical public appearances with extreme care -- banners, uniforms, vast crowds -- and never for the purpose of creating catchy sound bites. He wasn't interested in impressing upon anyone his status as an internationally accepted "democrat" who could keep up his end of a dialogue with American students. He was interested in demonstrating his power to Germans. The same could be said of Joseph Stalin and, among modern totalitarian leaders, of North Korea's Kim Jong Il…
Squalid Mistake – Arthur Herman, New York Post
Columbia University Presi dent Lee Bollinger yester day made some cutting crit icisms while introducing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - but that doesn't make the school's decision to offer a platform to the head of a violent terrorist state any less abject, squalid or shameless.
"Abject, squalid, shameless" is how Winston Churchill described the resolution passed by Oxford University's prestigious Debating Union in 1933 - the year Adolf Hitler came to power - that "this House will under no circumstances fight for King and Country." …
Mahmoud’s Mad ‘Science’ – John Wilson, New York Post
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad updated his stan dard Holocaust denial for a rapt Columbia audience yesterday: The Holocaust is a myth, he said - just like physics. OK, he didn't use those exact words - but beneath the expected America-baiting and victimhood-posturing, his remarks contained a surprisingly clever philosophical argument.
Clever and dead wrong - as the West figured out centuries ago.
The Persian strongman delved into the finer points of modern physics in response to a student question challenging his assertion that the Holocaust - what Columbia President Lee Bollinger called "the most documented event in human history" - needs more "research" to assess its veracity…
Being Heard on Campus - Tulin Daloglu, Washington Times
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University made me think about freedom of speech on America's college campuses.
Mr. Ahmadinejad — who represents a country the State Department calls a state sponsor of terror, who represents a country that helps Iraqi militias to kill American troops and who denies the Holocaust and calls for Israel's destruction — was allowed to speak at one of America's most prestigious campuses. But Archbishop Mesrob II Mutafyan, the Armenian patriarch of Istanbul, was denied the same privilege last week at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center…
Columbia’s Loss – Ralph Peters, New York Post
The Iranian president's welcome to Columbia - following a self-serving whine by the university's president - reflected brainless activism, not academic freedom.
It was the professoriate imitating Hollywood's embrace of terrorists.
We hear a great deal about the dumbing down of students, but the real problem has been the dumbing down of the teaching class…
Burmese Days – London Times leader
Burma has been ruled by a military dictatorship for the past 45 years. And though the secretive cabal of army generals has briefly dabbled with democracy, allowing a general election in 1990 that massively endorsed the opposition National League for Democracy, the military refused to concede defeat, placed the party’s leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest and has since refused to negotiate, share power or make any concession to those inside and outside Burma demanding more freedom. The current demonstrations by tens of thousands of revered Buddhist monks have therefore shaken the junta’s authority as much as they have heartened a cowed populace.
What began as a spontaneous protest against the doubling of fuel prices last month has become an open call for democratic elections, the release of all political prisoners and an end to the junta’s rule. At first, the army reacted with customary force, arresting those few people who dared to speak out. But when their cause was taken up by monks, the Government found itself severely embarrassed. Burma’s 400,000 monks command enormous public respect, and their threatened refusal to perform religious ceremonies for the regime caused considerable difficulty to a superstitious military leadership that has assiduously cultivated the senior clergy. The marches were therefore allowed to go ahead without being broken up, and for the first time in more than four years Ms Suu Kyi was allowed to make a public appearance to greet them…
Tipping Point in Burma – Washington Post editorial
Yesterday brought momentous and awe-inspiring news from one of the world's most oppressed nations. Defying their military government, tens of thousands of Burmese marched through the center of their largest city, Rangoon, as well as in more than two dozen other towns and cities. Estimates of the crowd in Rangoon ranged from 50,000 to 100,000 -- by far the largest protest since a student-led uprising in 1988. The new movement, led by Buddhist monks, has slowly mushroomed from a protest against price increases and police brutality into a full-fledged democratic uprising, thanks to the unresponsiveness of the regime and the astonishing courage of the monks.
But Burma is not the Philippines or Indonesia, and yesterday's events were a cause for fear as well as joy among its long-suffering democratic opposition. The hope that a country of 52 million could imitate the "people power" revolutions of its neighbors is tempered by the awareness that the first instinct of the ruling junta will be to repeat the bloodbath with which it crushed the 1988 uprising -- massacres in which an estimated 3,000 Burmese died…
Monks vs. Military in Burma - Boston Globe editorial
It is being called the Saffron Revolution. In recent days, Buddhist monks throughout Burma have been leading peaceful protests against a brutal military dictatorship. And now a decisive moment is approaching.
There is a mounting danger that the swelling throngs of protesters may soon be assaulted by a regime that rarely hesitates to use violence. Heads of state attending the opening of the United Nations' General Assembly this week in New York ought to exercise all their influence to demand that the junta refrain from violence and heed the protesters' appeal for reconciliation and dialogue...
The Buddhism Bomb - David I. Steinberg, Los Angeles Times
The passive, otherworldly image of Buddhism can be misleading. In Burma, where two-thirds of the country is Buddhist, the religion has an overwhelming influence on day-to-day life and plays a continuing political role that makes the current protest marches by tens of thousands of monks through the streets of Yangon especially significant.
Buddhism has long been one of the key ingredients of Burmese nationalism, and it has been used by political leaders of all stripes as a source of legitimacy. To be in the top leadership of the military or the government requires public acceptance of the Buddhist faith. Indeed, the two most volatile elements in Burmese society, from the government's perspective, are the monks and students because they are respected moral forces. If the government represses them, it does so at its peril.
The military junta that runs Burma, known as Myanmar under the regime, is well aware of this, and it has been measured in its response to the protests, so far. The demonstrations began Aug. 19 after the government raised fuel prices, and on Sunday, the largest protests yet were held…
-----
