Why Won't We Take Them Seriously

The US may be the Great Satan, but on the Jihadi Map of the World, Europe is part of the new Caliphate. Do Europeans not understand that, or do they just not take it seriously? Like those whack-jobs in Texas that are always setting up their own republic and "seceding" from the union. Sure Bubba, whatever.

Well, Mark Steyn reminds us why we should win first and laugh later:

Furthermore, there’s a lot more of the world that lives under Sharia than there was, say, 30 years ago: Pakistan adopted it in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984.... Fifty years ago, Nigeria lived under English common law; now, half of it’s in the grip of Islamic law. So, as a political project, radical Islam has made some headway, and continues to do so almost every day of the week: since the beginning of the year, for example, some 10 per cent of southern Thailand’s Buddhist population have abandoned their homes — a far bigger disruption than the tsunami, yet all but unreported in the Western press. And whatever one’s opinion of the various local conflicts around the world — Muslims vs Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs Jews in the Holy Land, Muslims vs Russians in Chechnya, Muslims vs Christians in Africa — the fact is that the jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you’re not shy about taking on the Israelis and Russians, why wouldn’t you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Spaniards?

Someone To Watch Over Me

Daily Pundit, following up on this Malkin post, writes about America's Waterway Watch, The Eagle Eyes Program, and Highway Watch, all programs designed to encourage and instruct the public on reporting criminal/terrorist activity. That's great. Why not use the people who are already there to extend the reach of law enforcement? So you've got the coasts and waterways, the skies and the highways covered by citizens trained to watch for illegal or suspicious activity.

But do you notice what isn't covered? Call the feds on suspicious guys circling the airport and you're a hero. Call the feds on suspicious guys crossing the Mexican border and you're a vigilante. Why the blind spot?

Wolf Brigade

I just saw a report on ABC News about how Abul Waleed, commander of The Wolf Brigade, Iraq's elite police commandos, is like a celebrity in Iraq ever since the brigade got its own TV show, "Terrorists in the Grip of Justice." I hunted all over ABC's site and can't find it, but I did find this article on the Wolf Brigade in the Billings Gazette:

While the nation's fledgling police and armed forces are derided as corrupt or incompetent, the Wolf Brigade is the exception. Their logo is a snarling wolf, and their TV show, "Terrorists in the Grip of Justice," is the most watched program in the country. Harassed parents silence noisy children with threats to call the Wolves. Housewives swoon over their "broad shoulders" and "toughness."

"Every time I see them in the street, I feel safe," said Ahmed Kanan, 25, who works at a menswear shop in Baghdad. "I feel that we have a country with a government."

Set America Free

Speaking of non-violent ways of getting serious about the WOT, Set America Free has graphs and articles galore on the topic of reducing America's dependency on foreign oil. This seems like a no-brainer, since we can't really tell the Saudis to get stuffed if we import 60% of the oil we need. And, of course, there's the whole issue of competing for that oil with the Chinese.

I always doubted that hybrid cars could put much of a dent in our oil imports, but in their Blueprint for Energy Security (pdf), Set America Free says that gasoline accounts for 45% of US oil consumption. So if we could cut that in half, which they claim we could, that would be worth doing.

One of their favorite ideas is the hybrid electric car. They say that half of all Americans drive their car less than 20 miles a day, so if your battery could take you 20 miles, and then charge up at night when the electric grid has excess capacity, you could use no gas at all and not require any addition infrastructure to be built. The cars would run on gas after 20 miles, so drivers wouldn't be inconvenienced. They've got several ideas that use existing technology.

After all, we're spending $87 billion in Iraq for national security. Our dependency on foreign oil has a much more obvious connection to our security. Why not throw in another billion or so for something that would be good for the environment and good for national security? There's not much that would disturb the House of Saud more than America no longer being interested in their long-term survival.

(via The Corner)

Netflix

Well, I finally cancelled the newspaper that I haven't read in about a year and used the found money to sign up for Netflix. Hence the light blogging. I've been watching movies, instead of surfing the web after Mia goes to bed.

What we've seen so far:

Team America: I thought this would be funnier. I recently saw the South Park episode where Cartman becomes the "hippie pest-control" man and saves the town from a hippie infestation. It was one of the funniest things I have ever seen, so my expectations were extra-high. It definitely had hysterical moments, buy mostly, it was just gross.

Amelie: I really enjoyed this. Quirky, romantic comedy. This movie has lots of narration, so there are lots of subtitles to read. That could be a problem, if you don't like subtitles. Otherwise, sweet and funny.

Bourne Supremacy: If you liked the first one, you'll like this one. Lots of excitement and intrigue, but no embarrassing sex scenes or naughty language. I could watch this with my mother.

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days: All Kate Hudson's attempts to drive the guy away are very funny, but it got a bit implausible towards the end. As usual, boy meets girl, boy loses girl, then boy chases girl to the airport where she's leaving for a job interview to do the important writing she wants to do instead of the fluff she has been doing. Naturally, she gives up the interview for the hunky guy she met a month or two ago. Good move girl.

"John Roberts: The guy every suburban housewife...

meant to marry, before she settled for the guy she did marry". Thus sayeth Woody Cozad, one of our local pundits on the local pundit show. Hmmmm. I almost feel like I should be offended, but I can't summon the energy.

To Bomb or Not to Bomb

So, I've been following the "Bomb Mecca" debate around the blogosphere with some interest. There seem to be two crowds, one that might get serious on the second nuclear detonation and the other that wants to nuke something right now on general principle. Not much in between.

And over at Captain's Quarters we get:

...neither does Tancredo really support the idea of incinerating 350,000 people and setting a match to the quick-burning fuse of world wide holocaust by "bombing Mecca" in response to a nuclear terrorist attack.

Because, naturally, it wouldn't be New York going up in flames that lit the fuse, it would be our response. Just like it's never the bus bombing that ends the cease-fire, but always the Israeli response.

Ace of Spades says, almost apologetically, as if he's being too war-mongery:

If Al Qaeda gets a nuke and blows up a US city-- well, under those sort of circumstances, I don't think it will necessarily be verboten to suggest that the next nuclear detonation on US soil results in a detonation on the Arabian Peninsula.[emphasis mine]

Okaaay. Give 'em one free city. Sure, why not? Can we stipulate that it be Ace's city and not mine?

Seriously though, I just don't understand why no one wants to make that suggestion right now. Sure, Osama and company can't be reasoned with. But what about the Saudi princes who fund the hate-teaching madrassas and the hate-preaching imams? They might not be able to stop every last subway bombing, but no one could put together a nuclear attack without serious support. I have no problem letting the Saudis (or the Iranians, or the Syrians or the Pakistanis)know that the days of plausible deniability are over. If they are indeed over. If not, I guess there's no point.

I can see why everyone is horrified at the thought of actually bombing Mecca. I'm a softy, steeped in liberalism and whatnot. I have no interest in seeing a bunch of dead Arabs. But then again, I have no interest is seeing a bunch of dead Americans. If a little saber rattling helps focus the Saudi mind, I'm OK with it. I don't see much difference between that and the Cold War policy of MAD .

However, as I've said before, I'd like to see some tough, non-violent action being taken right now that will hopefully eliminate the need to make these decisions in the future. Here's a good list of the kind of actions I'm talking about.

Rod Dreher captured our dilema:

It occurs to me that it is insane that we're even having this conversation. It occurs to me that given the events of 9/11, and the determination and capabilities of our enemies, it is even more insane not to. God help us all.

I almost feel sorry for the Dems

They have a joker like Howard Dean as their party chairman while the Republicans have an intelligent, well-spoken guy like Ken Mehlman. I'm watching him on the NewsHour right now and he's really good.

The Jacksonian Tradition

Stephen Green has an excellent analysis of why most Americans aren't freaked out by Gitmo, and why that doesn't make us torture-loving psychopaths. In other words, Gitmo fits into Americans' traditional sense of fair-play:

While reading that last paragraph, maybe your mind wandered. Maybe your brain recoiled, and was haunted by questions. "Do we live perfectly by the Geneva Conventions?" "Don't our soldiers sometimes hide in civilian homes?" "Weren't we asking to be attacked?" "Didn't they attack us by the only means at their disposal?"

If you asked yourself those things, you're certainly no Jacksonian.

But millions of Americans - probably a wartime majority - do hold by Jackson's traditions. We try to play fair, and mostly we succeed. But we will not play fair with those who refuse to honor the rules of the game. In fact, we think it speaks pretty well of us that those Gitmo prisoners are being treated as well as they are.

Anti-omlette

Ace on why the Dems can't be taken seriously on national security:

They cannot come right out and admit they oppose war and covert operations on principle, so they simply object to every conceivable part of warfare or covert ops or interrogation in their details.

Then they can claim they are not reflexively anti-this or anti-that, they're just very outraged by this particular practice.

Trouble is, they're outraged by every particular practice of war or intelligence-gathering.

It's like saying you have nothing against Western omlettes, except you despise eggs, loath ham, destest green peopers, and find onions gob-smackingly vile.

And also-- you're not too crazy about the toast and orange juice they give you on the side. And that you frankly find toast and orange juice "unAmerican" and "contrary to the spirit of our living Constitution."

Let's stop talking of eggs and ham and such and just admit you're anti-omlette.

Creative interrogation techniques payoff

Check out this article from the American Forces Press Service. It's a nice summary of this whole Gitmo "torture" story. From General Craddock's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

By the fall of 2002 Kahtani had successfully resisted all interrogation techniques for eight months, so interrogators at Guantanamo requested, and received, permission to use more aggressive techniques. Craddock said officials were particularly interested in information about any possible attacks on the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. The application of these more aggressive techniques between November 2002 and January 2003 "led to breaking Kahtani's resistance and to solid intelligence gains," Craddock said.

And I learned something new. Kahtani admitted to being the 20th hijacker. I thought he was still the "suspected" 20th hijacker. That bit of information came from the Senate hearing, but, oddly enough, the only clip of the hearings I saw on TV was the bit about how the techniques were "abusive". (via Betsy's Page)

What he said

From Samizdata:

So next time there is some hideous atrocity, be it here in the UK, in the USA, in Iraq, in Israel or anywhere else in the world that Al Qaeda or Hamas have infested, can you kindly resist the urge to say "But Islam is a religion of peace...". We heard you before and we have not reacted to previous incidents by torching mosques from London to Lanarkshire. Please. PLEASE...just.shut.the.f***.up.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds these ubiquitous pleas for restraint annoying. As if we're the ones who are dangerous. As if any of us who might be dangerous would listen in the first place. Condescending and ineffective all at the same time.

Don't these politicians get that the reason Westerners don't torch mosques is that we see it as the government's job to enforce the law? The mosque torching will commence only when citizens feel the government is helpless to protect them. So maybe our leaders should stop lecturing the choir and get about the business national security.

Politics: The Kiss of Social Death

Portia Rediscovered is a little frustrated at usually being the only politically aware person in the room:

I was recently at another "gathering" when a slightly political topic came up among the group I was talking to. One of them made a remark that would work in a perfect world (and believe me, I wanted her suggestion to be a possibility), so I quickly spoke up saying, "Well the reason that would never happen is because their government is completely corrupt and could care less about the nation's inhabitants." Cue the blank, uncomfortable stares and cricket noises. Cue my frustrated silence at once again talking outside the realm of typical feminine topics. AGH!, again.

I've had this experience plenty of times, although being a Poli/Sci major in college alleviated the situation to a degree. Most of my classmates were, by definition, interested in politics. But my best friend joined a sorority and, if she deigned to invite me to one of her parties, would literally follow me around making sure I didn't talk about politics. Probably for the best. I just would have said a lot of things I'd be embarrassed by now:)

(via The Cottillion)

Education: The New Big Tabacco?

I spoke too soon. Within two weeks of my complaining that conservatives are paying no attention to the runaway judiciary in Kansas, NRO has not one, but two editorials on the subject. From the second one:

But, in the end, Kansans were as unsuccessful restraining the judiciary as everyone else, and as a result, the state’s taxpayers will be made to do what citizens in 45 of the 50 states in the nation have already been asked to do: pay a tax imposed on them by a judge seeking to fund state education in a way he or she finds agreeable, usually as a consequence of a ruling in an “equity” lawsuit. There are dozens of these lawsuits going on at any given time, often involving hundreds of millions of dollars. For lawyers, education is the new tobacco, and business is smoking.

We know all about that here in Kansas City, where the school levy was doubled by court order after city voters had rejected a levy increase 3 times in one year ('86?). Yet, while still under court supervision, the KC School District still lost its state accreditation in 1999. But hey, we've got some nice $500 million buildings in which to not educate the students, so it was all worth it.

Are we used to it?

Maybe we just can't be shocked, and therefore, can't be moved to act against the Islamists? That We're Not Afraid site that everyone is linking to is charming, but it gives me an uneasy feeling to see people just shrugging this off. As Mark Steyn put it, "It's hard not to be moved by the sight of Londoners calmly going about their business as usual in the face of terrorism. But, if the governing class goes about business as usual, that's not a stiff upper lip but a death wish".

I've been wondering about this since Thursday, but I should have just turned to Victor David Hanson, who lays it all out:

Bin Laden has so far only made one mistake: He took down the entire World Trade Center rather than the top floors, and had the misfortune of having George Bush as president. Thus he lost Afghanistan and ended up with democratic reform from Iraq and Lebanon to the Gulf and Egypt. Train bombings in Madrid and bus explosions in London, like the carnage in Iraq, are preferable, since they are enough to terrify and demoralize the Westerner but not quite enough to knock sense into him that only military resistance and victory will save his civilization.

The violence is part of a plan, and the only person not going along with the program is Bush. That's why I continue to like him, even though he's not perfect. (via Peaktalk)

Victory Before Magnanimity

From the Corner on negotiations during the Falklands War:

She [Thatcher] had to maneuver very carefully, however, to ensure that a reasonable compromise did not become a disguised surrender in the course of negotiations. And not just maneuver, but sometimes say firmly and clearly that she was having none of it. The climax of this more subtle battle came when Reagan himself asked her to accept a truce that would allow the hard-pressed Argentines in Port Stanley to avoid outright defeat. She turned him down flat, saying in the memoirs that she believed in the Churchillian motto of magnanimity in victory, but not in magnanimity before victory.

Update: And, explaining the consequences of getting it backward, here's Derbyshire:

Wars should be fought with the utmost ferocity, to the complete destruction and humiliation of the enemy, and without any regard to casualties among noncombatants in his territories. To fight a war in any other kind of way is to sow dragon's teeth, as the second half of the 20th century illustrates. Yet such a war is impossible under present Western sensibilities. America has now been fighting the War on Terror for longer than we fought WW2 -- yet we have not even captured Osama bin Laden!

I do believe that people know these things instinctively and will not for long whole-heartedly support a half-hearted war -- not in Britain, not in America. These kinder'n'gentler wars of the present age will never have strong public support, and so will always be tied, or lost.

Most likely the terrorists will get nukes and destroy a couple of our cities, with casualties in the 6- or 7-digit range. We shall then revert to tribal-warfare mode and do to our enemies what our fathers did to the Japanese, or perhaps even what our great-grandfathers did to the Plains Indians. It would be better to do those things before we lose the cities, but of course we can't. "Ripeness is all."

This is exactly what I am afraid of. I think we Americans are quite capable of pulling the trigger if we face an existential threat. Not to get too dramatic. I don't know where the tipping point is, but we are nowhere near feeling that threatened yet, as evidenced by our rather pathetic border control and immigration policies. But 6-7 figure casualties? It won't just be the commenters at Little Green Footballs calling for some glass making in the Middle East. That's why I hope that we get serious, treat this situation like the war it is, and win it before we get to that point.

Update: Just to clarify, I'm as soft as anyone when it comes to violence. I have issues with Derb's suggestion that we fight "without any regard to casualties among noncombatants in [the enemy's] territories" That's why I'd like to see us getting tough in as many non-violent ways as possible, with the hope of eliminating the future need for total war. Where we could do better:

• Why, oh why, are we still taking grandma's nailclippers at the airport, but letting God-knows-who walk over the border?
• Let's stop whining about Guantanamo. In fact, let's get more people in there.
• Dual citizenship. I'm going to post on this later.

In a Word

The Rules of War

Educational article by Andrew McCarthy at NRO, discussing "Protocol I" to the Geneva Conventions, to which the US is not a signatory. It goes a long way towards explaining the differences between the US and Europe on the treatment of "detainees" and the conduct of the WOT generally.

He reminds us:

Further, the British revile our Guantanamo Bay detentions of captured enemy combatants, to the point of insisting, with success, that British prisoners (some of whom were among the worst terrorists held in Gitmo) be returned to England, where most were promptly released into the population.

Seems like a bad plan today. And he astutely notes:

Too often, in Britain and throughout Europe, the humans whose rights are the subject of obsessive concern are the ones doing the killing rather than the ones doing the dying.

You've got to hand it to the Brits

From the TimesOnline picture gallery:

Going home: commuters surge towards Liverpool Street mainline station as it re-opens after the morning terror attack (Gareth Fuller/PA)

Cowed? Apparently not.

Democracy Guy notes that the buses were running before the evening rush hour and the Underground will be running tomorrow where possible. Nope. Not cowed.

There is nothing like a major terrorist attack to put one's problems in perspective. I just heard on the radio that the death toll is likely to be around 50, not 37 as is currently being reported. I've been in a terrible mood for days over this and that, but today, I'm just going thank God that my family is safe and sound. I can't imagine the panic while you wait to hear if your loved ones are OK or the horror of finding out they're not. I also can't imagine what it's going to be like for all the Londoners who have to get on back on those trains and buses in the next few days. My condolences to the British people.

Some thoughts from Britain

From Rich Lowry at the Corner:

A few quick thoughts from a British friend: 1) Everyone knew something like this would happen; 2) It was almost certainly planned to coincide with the G-8 summit. The uncertain timing of a British election makes it hard to undertake long-term planning for an attack around one--so G-8 was natural target instead; 3) London won't buckle. It withstood the Blitz and the IRA bombings; 4) Although the toll is terrible, the attacks weren't spectacular or massive enough to rock Britain to its core the way you assume the terrorists wanted; 5) There should be retaliation. Find a terror camp somewhere and hit it. Terrorists should, for these purposes, be treated as one nation, and all should be held responsible for any one attack.

These are all good points. I especially liked the last one. Treat terrorists as one nation. They may not be taking orders from the same guy, but they are all working towards the same goal. They are all the same enemy.

One Question

Will the Moonbats still march against Western Civilization today?


(via Instapunk)

Update: Michelle Malkin answers.

Land of the Free(ish)

That's the title of Perry de Havilland's post wishing America a happy birthday, Libertarian style:

Today is the 4th of July, when Americans celebrate their independence and much talk of freedom and constitutions occurs. This day is in many ways an orgy of self-congratulation, much of which is entirely justified (I make no secret of my pro-Americanism Atlanticism).

But perhaps, just perhaps, the 'shot heard around the country' that was delivered by the Supreme Court of the United States with the Kelo verdict will snap a great number of Americans out of their understandable but entirely misplaced complacency regarding the benevolence of their own nation-state.

The Fourth of July

God, how I loathe it. I know that's not very patriotic of me, but combine a kid with a fear of loud noises, a yapppy dog with a similar fear, a lite-sleeping mommy and half-a-dozen ill-supervised teenagers setting off bottle-rockets at 3:30 in the morning and the whole thing loses its shine. Maybe I'll post some inspiring ode to the Declaration of Independence after a nap. But I doubt it.

Update: Wow. I had no idea our neighborhood was this trashy. We've always been at my mom's in the country on the Fourth, but this year she's on vacation so we're home. The fire department was just here because of all the smoke. It's like we've been tear-gassed. My eyes are stinging. Luckily, Mia is handling it well, as long as we don't leave the house. She wouldn't even go out to see the fire engines.

Update II: And then the police descended on the neighborhood and peace was, for the most part, restored.