Bet you forgot about South America, didn't you.

Hugo Chavez ain't a nice guy. Looks like he's getting ready to install himself as president-for-life in Venezuela (though lots think he already did rig elections a few months ago). StrategyPage has the details.

Bloody Sovs

A lot of people don't know that there was an assassination attempt on the Pope back in 1981. What even more don't know, was that the Soviets were behind it.

More from Lebanon

Publius Pundit has another nice Lebanon roundup.

UNSCAM Update

More on the UN Oil-for-Food Scandal, including a link to the Congressional investigation's second interim report.

"Insurgency" Break-Up Continues

Following up on the previous piece about various insurgents groups looking for a way to give up, the UK GUardian has another piece:

The Iraqi resistance has peaked and is 'turning in on itself', according to recent intelligence reports from Baghdad received by Middle Eastern intelligence agencies.

The reports are the most optimistic for several months and reflect analysts' sense that recent elections in Iraq marked a 'quantum shift'. They will boost the government in the run-up to the expected general election in May.

[...]

Intelligence officials believe that ordinary Iraqis are increasingly turning against the militants.

Last week shopkeepers and residents killed three hooded men who began shooting at passers-by in Baghdad's southern Doura neighbourhood. Hours before the gunfight gunmen in the same quarter, which is ethnically mixed, killed a policeman as he drove to work, police said.

According to Iraqi authorities, townsmen in Wihda, 25 miles south of Baghdad, killed seven of a group of militants thought to be planning a raid in the town earlier this month.

However violence in Iraq is still expected to continue for the long-term. The reports were unanimous that, even in a decade, some kind of continuing low-level insurgency is likely. They also agreed that criminal violence, the major threat to most Iraqis, was likely to remain at 'current very high levels'.

Read the whole thing.

God's Politics, or Jim Wallis's Politics? Part II

Chapter 8: “Not A Just War: The Mistake of Iraq”

In this chapter Wallis lays out his reasons for opposing the Iraq war. His reasons stem primarily from his pacifism and his belief that war is never morally justifiable, especially for Christians. He states early on that Christians have a tradition of pacifism and nonviolence which “rules out war as a way to resolve conflicts.”[1] He apparently subscribes to the belief that Christians must be pacifists and oppose war in all circumstances. He considers the idea of just war doctrine, and eventually discards it. He does not elaborate as to how he came to the conclusion that Christians are morally required to accept pacifism, but one can only assume that it stems from Jesus’s commands to turn the other cheek.[2] It is a common misinterpretation to take this passage as a general admonition against violence of any kind. However, each example given in this passage, cheek slapping, cloak-giving, and mile-walking each refer to specific circumstances that commonly arose in first-century Palestine, and are not general at all.

Besides his belief in pacifism, Wallis recycles many old and commonly used anti-war arguments. He calls the war “unilateral” many times. This is a common claim of the anti-war crowd, though they seem to be oblivious to the rather large number of nations that signed on to the coalition to remove Saddam Hussein—Australia, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, and others.[3] This is anything but “unilateral,” though in the anti-war mindset the only countries that matter appear to be France and Germany.

Wallis then refers back to a “Six-Point Plan”[4] that he describes as having a good chance of success for dealing with Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people. First, he suggests “Indict[ing] Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity and send a clear signal that he has no future in Iraq, setting into motion the internal and external forces that could remove him from power and bring him to trial at the International Court in The Hague.”[5] He is not clear on what these “internal and external forces” are. If by “internal forces” he means the Iraqi people themselves, they tried to rise up in 1991 shortly after the Gulf War and were slaughtered. If by “external forces” he means the international community, it is difficult to see what else could have been done to remove him from power. Sanctions had been in effect for over a decade, and the two No-Fly Zones were harshly enforced and patrolled. Short of the invasion that was eventually carried out, there was little else to be done.

Point two: “Pursue coercive disarmament with greatly intensified inspections backed by a UN mandated multinational force”.[6] How does one pursue “coercive disarmament” without threatening violence, which Wallis does not support? In order to coerce, one has to issue a threat. With sanctions and No-Fly Zones already in place, there was nothing else to threaten but invasion. Then, there are substantial problems with assembling a “UN mandated multinational force”. Much of the world was not interested in disarming Saddam Hussein, or at least not interested in expending the effort necessary to do so. The UN could not agree to enforce its own resolutions regarding Iraq, and it is therefore difficult to see how it could have agreed to assemble a “multinational force”.

Point three: “Foster a democratic Iraq through a temporary post-Hussein UN administration, rather than a US military occupation.”[7] This point assumes that Hussein is gone, which as has already been stated was unlikely without military intervention. The problems with the UN have already been touched on, and will be examined in more detail shortly.

Point four: “Organize a massive humanitarian effort through the UN and nongovernmental relief agencies for the people of Iraq now, rather than only after a war.”[8] It is notoriously difficult to get any kind of humanitarian aid to countries controlled by dictators—the dictators simply steal the money and resources. This is precisely what happened with humanitarian aid programs in pre-war Iraq. Not only did Saddam steal the money, but so did the UN. Again, this will be addressed shortly.

Point five: “Commit to the ‘roadmap’ to peace in the Middle East, with a clear timetable toward a two-state solution that guarantees a Palestinian state and a secure Israel by 2005.”[9] There is no problem with this, though it is difficult to see how it pertains to the Iraq question.

Point six: “Re-invigorate and sustain international cooperation in the campaign against terrorism, rather than having it disrupted by a divisive war against Iraq that intelligence officials believe will likely lead to further attacks.”[10] International cooperation against terrorism is good, though it is impossible to gauge how much such ties have been “disrupted” by the Iraq war, and whether or not they have been disrupted at all.

Wallis continues to make incorrect statements concerning the war. He claims that pre-war intelligence was either “manipulated and selectively reported to justify a worst-case scenario that had previously been arrived at on political grounds…[or] the case was fabricated.”[11] It is an article of faith among the anti-war crowd that the intelligence was intentionally doctored to make the case for war stronger than it actually was. Unfortunately, it has no grounding in reality. A Senate investigation into the matter “did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.”[12] The conclusions reached by this investigation were signed off on by prominent Democrats such as Diane Feinstein and John Edwards, and was not simply an exercise in partisanship.

Some of Wallis’s arguments suffer from the curse of bad timing. He states that the war has failed to “produce the promises of democracy in Iraq or the beginning of a Middle East peace agreement.”[13] Since the composition of his book, both of these statements have been proven false. Astoundingly successful elections were held in Iraq on January 30^th 2005, and the new Palestinian leader has indicated his willingness to accept a two-state solution, which his predecessor would not.

Wallis also makes the absurd and unsourced statement that “Already, one-third of Afghanistan is back under Taliban control.”[14] He makes a similar statement later on in the book, claiming that “outside of Kabul, the country is reverting back to control of warlords and even Taliban resurgence.”[15] Again, no source. This is likely because it is patently false. Afghanistan has made astonishing progress since the fall of the Taliban—the first of which has been free and fair nationwide elections which brought a secular, pro-Western president to power. There has been little media attention on Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban, likely because there are no American casualties and no spectacular failures to report. The construction of a new state in Afghanistan is going quite well.

Perhaps some of Wallis’s most dramatic claims come near the end of the chapter under the header “Stop the Occupation, Start the Rebuilding,” where he states:

The Americans and British cannot and should not run Iraq. The American-led occupation is leading to more suffering on all sides, and it will just get worse. The unilateral American occupation must be stopped and the rebuilding of Iraq begun, but under international authority and control. The United Nations was never given the full political authority to appoint a transitional Iraqi government and lead the process to clear elections and real Iraqi sovereignty. Security is, indeed, the immediate question, but a unilateral American military presence will never be able to provide it. We are the targets now and the biggest cause of the security problem. The international community must not simply be brought in to help the US agenda succeed; it must be given the authority to repair Iraq. American occupation is not the solution; it is the problem. And it must end.[16]

He reiterates this theme again shortly thereafter, saying that:

The Bush Administration should finally move to genuinely internationalize the peacemaking and decision-making strategy in Iraq and allow the United Nations to oversee the process of writing constitutions and having elections—they are simply better at it than we are.[17]

There are several claims here, some of which are contradictory. Namely, his first sentence is that the Americans and British should not run Iraq, which he then follows with a statement decrying the “unilateral American occupation.” If there are more than just Americans participating, then it is not unilateral. His main points boil down to this: The American occupation is making things worse, and the only institution which can effectively rebuild and lead Iraq in its transition to democracy is the UN. Let’s take a look at these in turn.

First, the US is not responsible for the current violence in Iraq, the terrorists are. To blame the Americans because they are the “targets” of the suicide attacks is blaming the victim in the worst manner possible. Besides, it is rarely true anymore. Terrorists are increasingly targeting Iraqis and Iraqis only, because they rightly recognize that the native security forces are fast becoming their primary opponents. The largest bombing to date was against only Iraqis, who were lining up to apply for jobs in the police and Iraqi National Guard. It was this bombing that sparked massive protests not against the Americans, but against the terrorists, and the following day the line at the bombing site was twice as long. The security situation and overall conditions are constantly improving[18], and ordinary Iraqis are becoming increasingly fed up with terrorist disruptions of their daily lives. Some are even taking matters into their own hands.[19]

Perhaps Wallis’s worst arguments are those concerning the UN. He seems to have a near-perfect faith that the UN can instantly solve all the security, economic, and social problems of Iraq and confer legitimacy upon a new government. Unfortunately, the UN is capable of none of these things. The UN is hopelessly inept and corrupt, especially with regards to Iraq. The UN cannot handle peacekeeping operations, and demonstrated by its experiences in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Somalia, where in each case it stood by and did nothing while genocide took place. In the Balkans and Somalia, it took US military intervention to get humanitarian aid through and to end the slaughter. Concerning Iraq specifically, the UN has been shown to be thoroughly corrupt. The Oil-for-Food Program was designed as a way for Iraq to sell a limited amount of its oil legally in exchange for humanitarian aid. In reality, Saddam, his sons, and UN officials embezzled the money and not a cent found its way to the Iraqi people. The UN is currently under investigation by the US Congress for corruption in these matters. Recent news reports claim that Kofi Annan is near resignation over the scandal, as it appears his son may have been directly involved in the corruption.[20]

The UN has no legitimacy whatsoever in these matters, especially in Iraq where it actively sabotaged efforts at humanitarian aid. Besides, the UN does not seem to want a role in rebuilding Iraq. There have been attempts to introduce new resolutions in the Security Council concerning Iraq, calling on member nations to aid in rebuilding, all of which have failed.

As for the rest of the international community outside the UN, neither do they seem to have much interest in helping Iraq’s reconstruction. To do so would require the expense of manpower and money, and none outside the coalition members already participating have offered to help. Wallis seems to contradict himself once more, when he laments the lack of participation of other Arab countries in the rebuilding of Iraq. This is interesting, considering that in the very same chapter a few pages before, he laments US support for “feudal Arab regimes protected by oil,”[21] the very same regimes he now wants the US to appeal to in order to aid in reconstructing Iraq. In reality, these countries have no interest in seeing Iraq stabilize or become a functioning democracy. If that were to happen, these countries’ tyrannical, dictatorial regimes would be threatened by the example set by a free Iraq.

Despite his claims that he is laying out a political vision grounded in theology and Christian principles, Wallis’s arguments are in reality simple restatements of unsupported and incorrect talking points of the anti-war movement. They are not supported by any kind of theology, and are simply reflections of his own views.

---

[1] Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: A New Vision for Faith and Politics in America. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2005. pg. 109

[2] Matthew 5:39-41 NIV

[3] For a complete list and troops numbers, see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm.

[4] God’s Politics, pg 118.

[5] Ibid, pg. 54

[6] Ibid, pg. 54

[7] Ibid, pg. 54

[8] Ibid, pg. 54

[9] Ibid, pg. 54

[10] Ibid, pg. 54

[11] Ibid, pg. 122

[12] Select Committee on Intelligence, United States Senate, Report on the US Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, Conclusions, # 83

[13] God’s Politics, pg. 123

[14] Ibid, pg. 123

[15] Ibid, pg. 170

[16] Ibid, pg. 129

[17] Ibid, pg. 131

[18] http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006478

[19] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/international/middleeast/22cnd-iraq.html?ex=1269147600&en=4fab5dc83f59b0ae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

[20] http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12686467%255E2703,00.html

[21] God’s Politics, pg. 121

God's Politics, or Jim Wallis's Politics? Part I

Being exposed to the more liberal strain of Christianity in college, I’ve come across some interesting ideas. I should state that for the purposes of this review, “liberal” Christian will mean liberal politically, not theologically. This review will assume from the outset that the reader is a theologically conservative Christian, as those are the only ones that should be reading Wallis’s book.

Since each chapter in the book is akin to an essay, I’ll be reviewing each one separately and posting them as I go. They will be out of order, as I find some sections more entertaining than others and therefore read them first. Until I figure out how to post them as PDF files, I will just copy-paste them here.

First up: Chapter 7: “Be Not Afraid: A Moral Response to Terrorism”

I was actually fairly impressed by Wallis’s statements in this chapter, up to about halfway through. In the first half, he paints a moving picture of his own response to 9/11, and correctly realizes that our responses to terrorism need to be deeply considered and morally just. He goes off topic at times, reverting to complaints about the administration’s domestic economic policies, but on the whole he refuses to submit to moral relativism and recognizes terrorism for what it is. Though he can’t seem to resist the temptation to take potshots against the US government for supposed injustices[1], he states that there is no morally justifiable reason for terrorism; that Bin Laden and company are not just out for a redress of grievances but want to create their own tyranny for the world. By saying this, Wallis gives himself far more credibility than many of his colleagues on the left who refuse to condemn terrorism because they hate the US.

Where Wallis goes wrong is his plan to defeat terrorism. He begins with a great insight that many people miss. He sympathizes with those in the Third World living in poverty, and rightly recognizes that:

Grinding and dehumanizing poverty, hopelessness and desperation, clearly fuel the armies of terror…Therefore, the call for global justice, as a necessary part of any response to terrorism, should never be seen as an accommodation, surrender, or even negotiation with the perpetrators of horrific evil. A serious agenda of global poverty reduction, for example, would be an attack on the terrorists’ ability to recruit and subvert the wounded and angry for their hideous purposes, as well as being the right thing to do…We must drain the swamps of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terror breed.[2]

Wallis could not be more right in this. Unfortunately, he fails to make the leap of logic that in order to do something about poverty in the Middle East, one first must do something about the corrupt and tyrannical governments that directly benefit from and intentionally perpetuate that poverty. He never elaborates on his poverty reduction plan, so it’s impossible to say whether what he wants to do would work or not. The fact of the matter is that most attempts at charity work on a vast scale in these countries fail, because their governments won’t allow them to succeed. Money intended for humanitarian purposes is simply stolen by corrupt officials. His plan to deal with this unfortunate reality, and therefore runs into the same problem that most simplistic and nonviolent solutions do—they are usually overly idealistic and are easily subverted by men with evil intentions.

The last section of this chapter is a 10-point plan for defeating terrorism. The first four are calls for moral clarity and consistency. His fifth point reiterates the plan for poverty reduction, which is quite necessary, but not in of itself sufficient. Points six, seven, and eight are admonitions against violence and war, and unilateralism. These will be addressed in greater detail in the next chapter. Point nine is an insight that eludes most pacifists—he calls for people to be peacemakers rather than just peace-lovers. Point ten recognizes that the fight against terrorism is indeed spiritual in addition to political, again something most shy away from for fear of being labeled a religious fanatic. Wallis should be given credit for not shying away from stating important spiritual truths.

UPDATE: I should say more about Wallis's anti-terror plan. He feels that the best way to defeat terrorism is to treat it as a law enforcement issue, relying on international cooperation and policing. This is all well and good, but the problem is that this is the way terrorism has been treated in the West for the last several decades, with no effect. Terrorists were arrested, tried, convicted as criminals, and sentenced to prison terms. The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing were all prosecuted as normal criminals and sent to prison. This was greeted with ever escalating attacks, and finally culminating in the 9/11 attacks. Additionally, not all international actors are as committed as the United States to defeating terror. When one wishes to rely on the UN for counterterrorism, one must realize that the UN is populated by dictatorships that either actively support or passively condone terrorism, and will not aid or actively sabotage attempts to combat it.

[1] Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: A New Vision for Faith and Politics in America. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2005, pg. 97.
[2] Ibid, pgs. 99-100

Happy Easter

He is Risen!

Who wants an exit strategy?

Interesting story at the Financial Times. It seems the terrorists are the ones looking for an exit strategy.

I just picked up the book God's Politics by Jim Wallis from the library. This one is relatively popular with some on my circle of acquaintances, so I'm going to check it out, then review it and post the review here. Since each chapter seems to be like a mini-essay, I'll be posting the review chapter-by-chapter, and probably skipping around to the parts I find more interesting. In the interests of full disclosure, I'm already familiar with some of Wallis's previous work, which predisposes me to be antagonistic towards him. I'll let the reader decide whose arguments have more strength. Hopefully part one of the review will be up this weekend.

Mom day

Another light day today. I have decided to spend time with my mother today. Yes, yes, get your "awwwww"s and your "how sweet"s out while you can.

Out day.

Blogging will be light today, as I've a dentist appointment, then I'm spending the rest of the time with my favorite person. Have a good day everyone.

They aren't letting go.

Another bomb has gone off in a Christian neighborhood in Lebanon. This one has killed people. My money is on Syria or Hezbollah.

No, they aren't "minutemen".

I wish, wish, wish the msm would stop calling them "insurgents" and start calling them terrorists. Ordinary Iraqis are getting increasingly fed-up with these masked thugs, and are fighting back.

Some excerpts:

Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon today, a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming towards his shop and decided he had had enough.

As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhia and his young relatives shouldered their own AK-47's and opened fire, police and witnesses said. In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Two of Dhia's young nephews and a bystander were injured, the police said.

"We attacked them before they attacked us," Dhia, 35, his face still contorted with rage and excitement, said in a brief exchange at his shop a few hours after the battle. He did not give his last name. "We killed three of those who call themselves the mujahedeen. I am waiting for the rest of them to come and we will show them."

Is the tide turning? The DOD seems to be reluctant to say so, but it seems more and more like it everyday.

Oh Howard, Howard, Howard...

Heh.

Behind the scenes

An interesting article in the NYT describes the last couple years behind the scenes in Lebanese politics, and the struggle of the opposition leaders against Syrian domination. It's truly worth reading, as it shows you just how cold-blooded the Syrians are, and how far they may be willing to go to keep their puppet state.

Well, he's a better choice than Jimmy Carter.

Though I don't always agree with everything he says, Tom Friedman has a decent piece up in the NYT today, highlighting the role that Ayatollah al-Sistani has played in helping rebuild and reshape Iraq. It's amazing how in one country, clerics and an Ayatollah are so blindingly brutal and power-mad that they plunge it into 25 years of darkness, and in the neighboring country the Ayatollah champions democracy and (somewhat) secular rule. Friedman is certainly correct in outlining the great contributions that Al-Sistani has made to the Iraq reconstruction progress, and it is great to have the #1 religious leader in the country endorsing a legal, constitutional process rather than religious fanaticism. Sure, he's no Thomas Jefferson (he wants Islam to be one, but not the only, source of inspiration for Iraq's new government), but for the Arab world he's pretty damn good, and we should be thankful.

On the road again...

Blogging will be light today, as I'm going to be driving back to TO sometime this afternoon where I will remain all Spring Break. Gimme a call if you're in the neighborhood.

They aren't giving up that easily...

Car bomb detonates in largely Christian neighborhood in Lebanon.

No word on culprits, but my money is on Hezbollah. The message they and their Iranian/Syrian masters are trying to send is, "Look what we can do. This is what we can do to you if you force Syria out." I doubt it will cow the freedom-seeking Lebanese, but we could see a lot more bloodshed before this thing is over. Let's hope Assad comes to his senses and pulls out peacefully.

Finally, something interesting.

Stuff is happening in Egypt. Via Publius Pundit.

Something interesting:

A large force of riot police surrounded the protest and dispersed the men, beating some with electric prods and batons. Ten men were detained, police officials said. The men dispersed, but at least 200 women remained, screaming “We want our children” and “The Jews were better than you” — referring to the Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula after the 1967 war.

Egypt is the most modern, westernized country of the Middle East. President Hosni Mubarak (for almost 20 years running) has recently decided to allow opponents to run in the Presidential elections. It's no much, but it's something. Hopefully there will be more protests like this, and more meaningful reforms.

"Well, don't all the nuts roll downhill to Florida."

It's all Terry Schiavo in the news today. Call me callous, but I just can't get myself all worked up over this. It's an awful situation, but I haven't the slightest clue as to who's right or wrong in this case. The Corner is almost exclusively Schiavo today. Where are you, Jonah Goldberg??

The infamy!

Heh.

Freedom

Liberty! New Life! Resurrection from the dead! Unspeakable moment!

Notes from the House of the Dead, by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

GOP Congress? What GOP Congress?

Medicare spending is out of control, everyone knows it. One would expect, then, that the GOP-controlled Senate would take steps to curb this. After all, the GOP is supposed to be the party of limited government, right? Apparently not. When President Bush proposes a 1% budget reduction, not to cut Medicade but to attempt to curb its exploding growth, the supposedly conservative Senate slaps him down. Whither the conservatives?

Unreported Good News in Iraq

Strategy Page has a good article.

Lessons from the Cav in Iraq

Rich Lowry over at The Corner posts an enlightening e-mail from an officer in the 1st Armored Cavalry Division. Some highlights:

3. He showed a graph of attacks in Sadr City by month. Last Aug-Sep they were getting up to 160 attacks per week. During the last three months, the graph had flatlined at below 5 to zero per week.

4. His big point was not that they were "winning battles" to do this but that cleaning the place up, electricity, sewage, water were the key factors. He said yes they fought but after they started delivering services that the Iraqis in Sadr City had never had, the terrorist recruiting of 15 and 16 year olds came up empty.
[...]
6. Said that not tending to a dead body in the Muslim culture never happens. On election day, after suicide bombers blew themselves up trying to take out polling places, voters would step up to the body lying there, spit on it, and move up in the line to vote.

7. Pointed out that we all heard from the media about the 100 Iraqis killed as they were lined up to enlist in the police and security service. What the media didn't point out was that the next day there 300 lined up in the same place.

8. Said bin Laden and Zarqawi made a HUGE mistake when bin laden went public with naming Zarqawi the "prince" of al Qaeda in Iraq. Said that what the Iraqis saw and heard was a Saudi telling a Jordanian that his job was to kill Iraqis. HUGE mistake. It was one of the biggest factors in getting Iraqis who were on the "fence" to jump off on the side of the coalition and the new gov't.

Read the whole thing.

Iran Rioting

According to Michael Leeden over at NRO, there are yet again mass street demonstrations in Iran that the regime is violently suppressing. Leeden seems to think that the Bush administration should eschew negotiations in favor of publicly supporting the people of Iran. Personally, I would like nothing better than to give the demonstrators public words of support. I'm sure it would go a long way to energizing the opposition. I just don't know if that's the best course of action, as it would limit the President's options for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. I have to believe that the administration isn't stupid, and that it's actively aiding and arming the opposition covertly. So, I'll echo Dr. Leeden's plea: Faster, please?

The lit paper.

I plan on using this blog for political postings. However, I feel compelled to complain about my blasted Russian lit paper, which has proven to be the bane of my existence. As much as I like Dostoevsky, I really wish I didn't have to write about him right now. There may be some political posts later today if something good comes up, so stay tuned.

And so it begins...

Fist post. Let's see how long I keep this up...