I just dropped by FoxNews to see what’s going on in the world today and was faced with a grim, depressing, brutal reality: today’s news sucks.

1. It seems like a small thing--and it is in the context of some of the other stories of the day--but Patrick Swayze didn’t deserve the kind of headline that the National Enquirer ran. Jerks, Swayze was never a great actor, but I always like him. He’s done some decent movies, some seriously bad films, a bunch that fall in between, and more than I care to admit that I’ll stop and watch regardless of the category that they go in. Here’s hoping that the Enquirer was wrong about how far advanced the cancer is and that he continues to make the kind of entertainment that somehow rises above conventional standards of good and bad. He always seemed like a good guy to me.
2. Jajuan Holmes, an 18 year old boy who killed himself in front of his classmates, possibly because he had recently been charged with a robbery. What a horrible waste of a young life--and an example of why we should embrace a faith in redemption. I don’t mean that in a religious way--although that doesn’t hurt--I mean that in a practical way. People need to believe that even when they’ve screwed up they can still go on to find not only forgiveness but meaning in their lives. Some crimes are so beyond the boundaries of civilized society that I wouldn’t be able to offer up much in the way of hope; but this was a robbery charge. Proper punishment for crimes is important, but so is faith in the future.
3. A father who thought that a clothes drier was a Disney World ride might need a second chance, too. But he should probably get it without the responsibility of kids (a two-year-old girl and a three-year-old boy)--and only after appropriate punishment involving a little time in a jail cell. Obviously, he isn’t a fit parent, and that’s assuming that his story isn’t just something to cover up abuse that resulted in second degree burns on one of the children.
4. Some of the stories are just stupid people doing stupid things. Not horrific, by any means, but achingly dumb.
5. This is just a sad, strange story of elderly neglect perpetrated by a 94-year-old woman’s daughter.
6. And then, in Israel, at least 10 are dead and 35 wounded in an attack on a rabbinical seminary. Hamas, of course, “blessed” the operation and the deaths and threatened more of the same. Some days, I hope for peace; some days it just seems a mountain far too high to climb.

And that’s the news that I see today--almost all of it some unsubtle shade of bad. Tonight would be a good night to drink a beer or five, I think.

In Saudi Arabia, women can now stay in hotels and furnished apartments without express written consent (and chaperonage) of a male guardian.

But if they do, then they’re really asking for it, if you know what I mean.

It’s a brave, new day in Saudi Arabia for the fairer, and more easily subjugated, sex.

None of which makes the wacky Tom Cruise any closer to being a modern day Joseph Goebbels than he is to being a freakin’ rocket scientist. The comparison is idiotic.

I saw an interview with Katie Holmes recently and remarked that her brain and personality seem to have been sucked out forcibly with a special vacuum cleaner attachment. That doesn’t do much to make Cruise a shill for a genocidal lunatic, though, he’s really just kind of creepy.

Okay, I can’t laugh at the deaths and the general destruction, but it, as wacky weather goes, this is definitely some of the wackiest.

At least 28 people are reported to have died in Iran’s heaviest snowfall in recent years.
Eight people froze to death as severe blizzards left 40,000 people stranded in their cars, authorities said.

Although most have now been rescued, another 20 people are reported to have died in car crashes caused by the weather, officials said.

Tehran has declared two days of national holiday, urging people to stay at home to avoid the bitter cold.

The temperature has been down as low as -24 degrees Celsius, and for the first time in living memory there has been snow in the country’s southern deserts.

Maybe the Iranians are cranky this week because the weather is bad. I mean, it’s just started snowing outside my office, and I’m feeling a tad cranky.

In case you were wondering.

Read the story.

Benazir Bhutto’s assassination is undeniably a cause for worry for the West. Our tenuous partnership with Pakistan--in political partnership that acknowledges the reality of a Pakistani populace that is in large part opposed to their country’s ties with the West--is complicated by Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and its practical importance in the fight against al Qaeda. Precisely what the result of the assassination will be is pure speculation at this point.

Will it kill off democracy? WIll it galvanize fragmented opposition groups into one meaningful opposition voice for change? Most people seem to be fearing the former; Arab News is calling for the latter.

Benazir has become a martyr for the cause of peaceful, representative politics. She has died not for one political faction, but for all of Pakistan. Thus every decent Pakistani, regardless of their politics, must mourn her passing and vow to avenge her, purely by maintaining the values she held dear.

A clearly shaken Nawaz Sharif, her bitter political rival, said last night to PPP supporters: “I assure you, I will fight your war from now on”. This was possibly one of the finest responses he could have formed to the tragedy. His own rally yesterday in Islamabad had been fired on and 12 supporters had been killed. Whoever was behind this other attack, the raw truth is that in a single day, both leading opposition politicians have been attacked. The target was Pakistan, its future.

Pakistan faced challenges enough already without the impact of yesterday’s slaughter. The political horizon which was already hazy may now seem positively murky. This is precisely what the people who planned this crime will have wanted.

Therefore, once the immediate shock of Benazir’s murder has sunk in, her supporters must recognize that this was a wicked blow aimed against Pakistan itself, not simply at the PPP. Now is the time for narrow self-interest to be put aside. Assuming that the PPP can choose a new leader quickly, next month’s elections should very probably go ahead as planned, or at worse be only very slightly delayed.

Finding the group responsible for the attacks is important, but I hope that the people of Pakistan realize that what is more important is asserting the rights of a civilian populace to define their own government. Demanding that right to self-determination is vital to combating the terrorists who would bully these people into accepting a slave’s chains.

My prayer for the people of Pakistan would be that this brutal murder would bring them together in demanding a voice in their government and in combating the terrorists and murderers who are our common enemies.

Immune to successes, unfazed by improvements, and strangely devoid of holiday cheer, Harry Reid continues the fight for failure.

If it weren’t about something that is actually important, I might find myself admiring Reid’s single-minded devotion to failing in Iraq regardless of costs. As it is, it’s mostly just a little funny.

Kind of like Ron Paul talking about the Trilateral Commission, everybody talking about Dennis Kucinich’s ridiculously pretty wife, and Mike Huckabee insisting that he’s a fiscal conservative.

Now, about Elizabeth Kucinich is a post unto herself. She’d get extra hubbas if I could get past the “huh?” But my throat just seems to get stuck there every time.

By the by, two really interesting things are happening in this election, neither of which makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. The first is that a man who is, in essence, a third party candidate (Ron Paul) is raising more money than his big name opponents. Obviously, a committed and passionate core of people is doing everything that they can to keep him in the fight. But it isn’t really translating into that many votes. While he’s continued to creep up in the polls, he isn’t really threatening the top tier candidates.

Which leads to the second thing. A candidate who isn’t doing such a hot job at fundraising looks to be moving into the top tier of the vote. Huckabee is gaining ground fast even though his fundraising consistently falls short of quite a few others (like Romney and Guiliani, for instance).

I don’t believe that either of these guys will get the nomination, but it is a little uncomfortable to watch the stealth libertarian raking in the money while the XXXL government Republican is raking in the promised votes. I’d be happier if some (many, in fact) of Ron Paul’s ideas started seeping into the GOP without being coupled to what I consider to be an immature foreign policy. But Huckabee’s record on taxes and spending doesn’t fill me with hope that he would act as a good faith steward for our economy.

I had hoped that President Bush would tackle Social Security reform and privatization and leave an opportunity for the next president to follow him with other entitlement reforms that would help secure the long term economic interests of this country. Didn’t happen--although, as failures go, it would be impossible to pin that one solely on Bush. The left wouldn’t even begin to talk about the subject, the silver hair brigades fortified their positions in opposition to scary talk, and his own party mostly muttered, idly kicked their feet in the dirt, and couldn’t even muster up the support for the beginnings of an effort to change the system.

My biggest regret from the Bush years will be this: the GOP failed to deliver on any of the high-minded ideals of limited government and fiscal responsibility even though, for a good chunk of those years, the Republicans held the presidency, both houses, the majority of governorships, and a reasonably supportive public.

What an opportunity wasted.

And, at this moment in history, the Republican party would be even a few steps closer to hopeless in the upcoming elections if it weren’t for their politically incompetent opposition. Typically I would offer up a prayer of thanks for the inept left, but that would be wrong. Politics benefits from strong competition of ideas just as much as business and technology does. The best thing about Ron Paul’s campaign should be in an effective tug of the GOP toward smaller government and individual liberty; not only does he ruin the effect by talking about the Trilateral Commission and the NAFTA highway, but a good chunk of the GOP is gravitating toward someone likely to continue some of the worst of the current president’s economic ideas. In the immortal words of Jayne Cobb, “Where’s that get fun?”

So, the libertarians have yet to offer me someone that I could vote for, the GOP sends a horde who, at best, get my tepid support, and the left isn’t even playing the same game. I mean, I would vote Ron Paul before I voted Edwards, Kucinich, or Obama. If the vote magically came down to Huckabee and Ron Paul, I might just stay home for the night drinking heavily.

This country seems to be suffering from a deficit of serious, adult leadership.

Jeez, apparently (Mostly) Apolitical Sunday just got me cranky…

Thank you, Senator Reid. Your devotion to losing is something that we all marvel at.

“Every place you go you hear about no progress being made in Iraq,” said Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid.

“The government is stalemated today, as it was six months ago, as it was two years ago,” Reid told reporters, warning US soldiers were caught in the middle of a civil war.

“It is not getting better, it is getting worse,” he said.

Read the rest from one of our country’s most important leaders.

Nope. No improvement. Not a word about improving situations. Everything seems to be getting worse. Without your will to succumb to our enemies, Senator Reid, I might have mistakenly gotten the impression that a little stiffening of the backbone might be in order. So, yeah, let’s get to losing.

Thank God that Senator Reid is here to show us the way to a proper defeat.

Update: No. Nothing good to see here. Move along.

The nightmare is ending. Al Qaeda is being crushed. The Sunni tribes are awakening all across Iraq and foreswearing violence for negotiation. Many of the Shia are ready to stop the fighting that undermines their ability to forge and manage a new government. This is a complex and still delicate denouement, and the war may not be over yet. But the Muslims are saying it’s time to come home. And the Christians are saying it’s time to come home. They are weary, and there is much work to be done.”

I think that we are seeing demonstrable, often positive changes in Iraq--changes that came from Iraqis weary of war and the excesses of thuggish “insurgents”, the creative leadership of General Petraeus, more troops, the the aggressive tactics of the surge. Iraq isn’t won, but these changes do seem to be creating an environment where the political victory can incubate. A real victory seems more possible now than it did less than a year ago; nothing is guaranteed, I realize, but if we continue to let the military do its job we can give the diplomats and politicians the time to do theirs.

Which is why I am surprised by this from Nancy Pelosi--a move that seems calculated to toss some red meat to the Kossacks and progressives, but which might just confound the general public.

“This is not a blank check for the president,” she said at a Capitol Hill news conference. “This is providing funding for the troops limited to a particular purpose, for a short time frame.”

The bill would set the requirement that troop withdrawals begin immediately and that soldiers and Marines spend as much time at home as they do in combat.

The measure also sets a goal that combat end by December 2008. After that, troops left behind should be restricted to a narrow sets of missions, namely counterterrorism, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. assets.

I’ll be curious to see what support she gets from the Democrat candidates for the presidency--obviously Kucinich will like the legislation, but what will Edwards, Clinton, and Obama say publicly? This does seem to confirm that ensuring defeat is the policy of at least some of the Democrats’ leadership. Announcing to the world that we are no longer willing to support our troops or our mission will send a message of abandonment to our friends and encouragement to our enemies. Brilliant.

And, no, I’m not an absolutist. There is a time when a nation must face up to defeat and failure. You can’t fight a war forever. It’s just better to make that choice when you’re actually losing.

Read the story.

Or at least, The New Republic should need new employees. There is much in these transcripts concerning Scott Beauchamp that calls TNR’s leadership into question. They are a political magazine, so the leftward slant is understandable. What is discouraging is the dishonesty (insisting that the military was keeping Beauchamp away from the media while discouraging him from giving interviews that he had already scheduled) and slimy (using a note from his wife to try to keep the soldier from recanting).

Politically, I’m about as far away from TNR as I have ever been, but I had stayed away from much of this controversy because I felt that TNR’s leadership was misguided instead of acting in bad faith. An error is not a lie. The transcripts show something worse than I had imagined--and Scoblic doesn’t come across well at all.

I won’t be thinking of TNR as a serious publication until they find a way to address the issue. I haven’t subscribed in some years, so I realize that my disapproval is hardly a huge issue for them. I’m guessing that I’m representative of a lot of moderate conservatives right now, though. This isn’t just me.

It isn’t all puppies and lollipops, but this article from Der Spiegel seems well balanced.

Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq—it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq—not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers—are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn’t hear: Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious “Sunni Triangle,” is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction.

As the title--"Hope and Despair in Iraq"--indicates, the job is hardly finished and not all has gone well, but there is hope. Fully realizing that I’ve been a supporter of the effort from the beginning, I’m sure that y’all will find yourself a grain of salt when I say that reading the article did leave me with hope and a sense that those who have recently switched sides on this particular debate might have abandoned the ship too soon. The question for me isn’t whether the military can win a reasonable peace--I believe that they’ve shown the initiative and adaptability to do so. The question is whether the citizens of the US will have the strength of will to carry us through more difficulties.

Our troops have been in Iraq for what feels like an awfully long time, and many families have suffered horrible losses where husbands, children, wives, and parents won’t be coming home. From where I sit, Iraq still matters in a larger sense than some people seem to understand; if it was worth doing, it is still worth completing.

There have been a number of times where I let my enthusiasm lead me to believe that we were closer to that complete victory than we turned out to be; but the gradual change that has come from putting General Patreus in charge, clarifying the mission, and changing strategies seems much more solid than those previous moments of exuberance. I still have great hope for a relatively liberal, representative government in Iraq and for a lasting, close relationship between Iraq and the United States that benefits our friends as much as it does us.

Whatever your views on the subject--and chances are they differ from mine significantly--you’ll find the Spiegel article to be a good, long read. It’s worth the time and it’s hard to come up with anything other than respect for so many of the men and women serving in Iraq. These are people I would be proud to call friends, co-workers, and neighbors.

H/T Instapundit.

Pardon my language, but Scott Thomas Beauchamp fucked The New Republic. Although it would be easy to argue that TNR put themselves in this situation by failing to properly vet stories that were going to attract a whole lot of skepticism. It’s a good argument, and it carries some truth, but it doesn’t change the fact that Beauchamp fucked TNR.

See, they trusted him when they ran the stories (because, yes, it made good copy and it reinforced their beliefs about the war in Iraq), and they supported him when he came under scrutiny, and they issued statements supporting the details of his writing while he continued to ensure them that, yes, it was all the truth. Pretty much. Then Beauchamp (which, is that pronounced “Beechum"--and does anyone else know why I’m asking that question?) turned around and stabbed them in their literary heart by admitting to having falsified the stories.

Has anyone found the first story claiming that he was forced or that his newly sworn statement was coerced in some way? This whole tale is just begging for a conspiracy theory ending.

You know who else Beauchamp fucked? His fellow soldiers, all the soldiers who have served with honor, and all the people who believed his BS.

Now, here’s where I vent. Beauchamp pisses me off like you wouldn’t believe. This is on the same level of dishonor as false accusations of rape, child abuse, and racism. There is enough bad in the world that you shouldn’t have to make up horrors in hopes of aggrandizing yourself or building a new writing career. And when you throw fellow troops under the bus --inventing stories that make them look like bloodthirsty assholes--to make a few bucks, you’re screwing a group of people that has already managed to shoulder more than their share of bad PR, poor pay, and shitty working conditions. Not, of course, to mention the grave potential of extreme bodily harm, the family sacrifices that our troops make, and those damned glasses they issue in basic training.

So, if all this talk of recanting pretty much the totality of those stories turns out to be true, here’s hoping that Beauchamp pays a steep price for his lies.

As Cadilac Tight points out, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t more of a price to pay, too.

I don’t see how this wouldn’t be a disastrous amount of egg (a resignation worthy amount, actually) for Franklin Foer, either. And my god, what a blow for TNR’s credibility. First Stephen Glass, now Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

And, lastly, Jeff G has thoughts on the subject along with a lot of great links. And Michelle Malkin has great graphics. Baldilocks has a ton of responses to this news. And she’s kind enough to clean up my language for me a bit. Or a lot.

Sorry about that.

Update: Doc Melissa Clouthier has a response, too.

One begins with “Once upon a time” and the other usually starts with “This ain’t no bullshit...”

I’m a little surprised by the uproar that a little cultural education brings.

For one night, on May 9, the quaint colonial town of Amherst, New Hampshire, was transformed into a Saudi Arabian Bedouin tent community, with the help of 80 seventh-graders at the Amherst Middle School. The weather cooperated, providing 85 degree temperatures to give an authentic Saudi feel to the evening.

More than 250 guests arrived at the open tent and were welcomed with an Arabic greeting of “Marhaba” by students at a Saudi customs desk.

During the check-in, guests selected a traditional Arabic name for their name badge and completed an actual Saudi customs form, which warned in bold letters “Death for Drug Trafficking “ at the top.

Once inside, guests were encouraged to circulate among 14 different stations created by the students.

The Arabic food-tasting station offered four entrées, curried chicken, lamb, tomato chicken with cardomom, and Moroccan chicken, served with pita breads, hummus, and couscous. Fresh fruits, cardomom coffees, and spice teas were also served.

Flowing fabrics hung from the ceiling separated the family and men-only dining sections. The tables were set on large rugs and lowered so that the diners sat on the floor.

Only the seventh-grade boys were allowed to host the food stations and the Arabic dancing, as the traditions of Saudi Arabia at this time prevent women from participating in these public roles.

Dressed in traditional Arabic wear--long plaid kilts, white shirts and turbans--the boys offered food and entertained guests. The Arabic dancers enthusiastically performed to music and encouraged male visitors to join their dance.

Seventh-grade girls hosted the hijab and veil stations, where other female guests learned how to wear the required head covering and veils. An antique trunk full of black abayas worn by women, and white thobes worn by the men, were available for guests to try on.

I’ve quoted the same section of the article that one of the detractors, Kim Priestap from Wizbang, quoted just to make sure we’re working from the same context. Here’s what she had to say:

How would you feel if your seventh graders participated in this?

I found this at LGF and I was stunned. I know middle schools teach about world religions, but this project is way over the top, particularly the photos of the little girls in hijabs.
[...]
There are several reasons why this picture makes my blood boil. To begin, this picture embodies al Qaeda’s goal to convert everyone, especially Americans, to Islam, and they will use force to do so. Adam Gadahn, al Qaeda’s English speaking servant, has issued a number of videos demanding that Americans convert or die. These kids’ parents most likely have no idea the horrible symbolism these images represent. Second, hijabs, along with burqas, represent the horrible oppression and abuse of women by a misogynistic culture and religion. For example, in Iran, women were horribly beaten in public for not wearing the correct head coverings. Third, this project is nothing more than a lesson in political correctness; Muslims are the new protected class. Would the school offer a project in which the kids were required to participate in a Jewish Seder? I seriously doubt it.

Actually, I wouldn’t mind at all if my seventh grader was given an opportunity to participate in this kind of a school activity. In fact, I would embrace the opportunity that it gave me to talk to my kid about Islam and the Middle East. I would enjoy that they were being introduced to new ideas and experiences, even though those ideas and experiences were probably watered down versions of the reality.

We might be involved in a war with radical Islamists, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t appreciate the beauty of Arab culture. Nor is it a bad thing to learn about another person’s culture and traditions--and I sure as hell don’t see how the school doing this translates into a recruitment drive for al Quaeda or Islam. That strikes me as bordering on the paranoid (and no few steps from xenophobia).

Quick story time: the g-phrase, as many know, is a school teacher. Some time ago, some of the teachers at her school were teaching the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish. The parents were given an opportunity to have their kids opt out, but at least one parent wouldn’t let it go at that: he called the school, he ranted, he raved, and he angrily said that the exercise--part of a larger unit teaching about hispanic culture--shouldn’t even be taught in the school.

While we could argue the merits of teaching kids to say the Pledge in Spanish, what bugged me most was that this man was saying that his belief that it was wrong should trump all the teachers and parents who believed that it was, at worst, a harmless teaching exercise. It wasn’t enough that he could excuse his kid; he wanted to limit the opportunities of everyone else’s children.

My hunch--and it’s a very strong hunch--is that the parents of the children doing the Bedouin tent community night were aware of (and had given permission for their kids to participate in) the school activity. I would be shocked if the parents hadn’t had the opportunity to keep their kids out of the assignment.

So, what’s the problem?

Don’t completely misunderstand: as I said, I would take the opportunity to talk to my son or daughter about Islam and Arab cultures. I would explain why I felt that, ordinarily, the wearing of the hidjab is a greater sign of how women are treated in most Islamic communities, about how homosexuality and apostasy are punished, and why our culture and political systems are clashing with some of the more radical and strict adherents of Islam. Talk about an opportunity to teach your kids.

Not only would it be a chance to explain my view of the Middle East (both the good and the bad), but it would be an opportunity to talk about what I think is great and what is flawed about America. I live for this shit.

I understand that a parent wouldn’t want their child to participate. So speak against it, keep your kids out of it, and then take a moment to respect the fact that some of us hold a very different view and it isn’t because we want to capitulate to the demands of the terrorists. For some of us, it is an opportunity to open up a much larger conversation.

It’s okay to make fun of the British sailors who were taken prisoner by a belligerent Iran. Strangely, I don’t consider that funny. But, hey, maybe I just don’t have an evolved sense of humor.

Here are some more jokes that might get the “at least Iran is better than the US” crowd giggling some more.

Maybe the ladies and gentlemen over at Americablog would think that Iran’s jailing, torture, and execution of gay men is funny, too.

“We are here to condemn Iran’s execution and torture of gay men, and to demand international action against the tyrannical Iranian regime” said protest co-organiser Peter Tatchell of the LGBT human rights group OutRage!.

“The international community should issue an ultimatum to Iran: either respect human rights, or face economic sanctions.  There can be no normal relations with an abnormal regime that executes gay people, unchaste women, Muslims who renounce their faith, and political, religious and ethnic minorities.

Perhaps they’ll bust a gut over the jailing of peaceful protesters demanding rights for women in Iran.

A group of Iranian feminist activists were arrested on Sunday outside a court in Tehran where they were peacefully protesting the detainment of four other activists. Thirty-three protestors were arrested after gathering outside the court to show their solidarity with the four women who were facing trial for their activities protesting Iran’s laws that discriminate against women.

‘Cause, you know, that shit is probably pretty funny to one of the enlightened masses at Americablog.

And, let’s be honest, we can all find it funny when an uppity blogger is beaten for reporting on the violent tactics uses by the government against its citizens.

When a bruised Kianoosh Sanjari climbed from the police van last October, he immediately recognised the familiar drab buildings of Evin Prison section 240, run by the plainclothes branch of the Revolutionary Guards.

His crime? Reporting for his weblog on the violent arrest of a religious group by security forces.

In his first interview since being released, Iran’s most prominent blogger recalls the rough tactics used against him by authorities and the backlash against United States support for democracy activists in the Islamic republic.

Funniest of all these great jokes is the arrest and torment of student activists for daring to suggest that their own country needs to change.

“Finally, they blindfolded us and took us to a hall inside the building. They made me sit on a chair. Somebody came and opened my blindfold and showed me a student statement and asked me if I believed in what was said in that text. I said yes. When he left, another one in a commando uniform came in. He beat me hard.

“They only kept me one day in that building, and then I was transferred to Evin Prison and, later, a police detention center for interrogation. In that detention center, they beat me on the soles of the feet with a cable for four continuous days and I was also subject to psychological torture for a month.

“They told us that were would be executed.

“At one stage, I heard the voices of my parents from another room. They were told that I was going to be executed. Then I heard my mother faint and then my father cried and begged them not to kill me.

“I heard them say to my parents: ‘For this bastard, you should not even read Koran after his death.’ I said to God: ‘I am going to be killed for my country’s freedom and for my religion, now my parents cannot even mourn for me.’”

Hilarious stuff, that.

So, Iran acts to provoke Western powers again and Terry Jones takes the opportunity to take shots at American and British governments. Brilliant.

What is terrifying is to try to imagine what precisely Iran thinks it can gain out of this kind of brinksmanship. But, for some, it’s easier to make glib jokes (like this from a comment on Americablog: “My heart goes out to that poor woman—if wearing that scarf doesn’t give her PTSD* I don’t know what would. *Post Traumatic Scarf Disorder") than to accept that the UK and the US are actually on the right side of this particular issue.

For anyone opposing retreat, defunding, or otherwise giving up on Iraq, click here.

I’ll let the post stand for itself:

Fox, CNN and all the other big boys have video of the events leading up to Saddam’s execution, but they all wimp out and stop there. Only one minor network in the U.S. has carried the sensational image of what happened after the trap door was pulled. Rather than strain their server by linking to them, I’ve reproduced the image below the fold.

It’s nerve like his that deserves the extra-special Dave’s Indeedeheh.

See the horrific image.

From Mario Loyola over in The Corner:

And they’re not done. Building nuclear reactors for Iran, selling tons of weapons to Venezuela, using their gas pipeline monopoly in brazen acts of Eurasia-wide extortion, Russia is far more a problem in the War on Terror, than part of the solution, despite decades of of being one of the main targets of terrorism.

Which is kind of the point I was trying to make a couple days ago. It is simply becoming more obvious with each passing week that not only can we not trust the Russians to back us in our foreign policy endeavors, even as they relate to the war on terror, but we can expect them to work quietly against us.

Which, if we’re going to be getting all Cold War up in this joint, we might want to have the right musical accompaniment. (Warning: This a link to a semi-largish mp3 of Sting at his Cold Un-Warrior best.)

Okay, so it doesn’t really feel like the 80s. I’m a few decades removed from my teens, for one thing, and maps of Eastern Europe are far more jig-sawier than they used to be, for another.

But Russia is working hard to bring back that loving feeling.

Russia has begun delivery of Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran, a Defense Ministry official said Friday, confirming that Moscow would proceed with arms deals with Tehran in spite of Western criticism.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue, declined to specify when the deliveries had been made and how many systems had been delivered.

Ministry officials have previously said Moscow would supply 29 of the sophisticated missile systems to Iran under a $700 million contract signed in December, according to Russian media reports.

A report like this would have been shrug-worthy in 80s: the Soviet Union was constantly arming our enemies in that tug-of-war for global political-cultural dominance. Proxy wars and regional manipulations are, of course, safer than a face-down that would have eventually compelled one side or the other to resort to a devastating nuclear option. What is so confounding now, though, is the question of precisely what the Russians hope to achieve.

Arming Iran is a bad thing for everyone and doesn’t just act as a way to indirectly confront American interests in the Middle East. Arming Iran is a kind of vote for destabilization in the region and an inducement for more American involvement. Iran is openly hostile to the state of Israel and an Iran with a new, robust air defense technology might be tempted to act even more aggressively to destroy Israel and to solidify its regional dominance.

The US could not stand that and would be drawn into a much wider, bloodier war than we saw in Iraq. Coupled with the likelihood of Iran having nuclear weapons capabilities, an Iran-Israel war that pulls in US and perhaps Syrian involvement could be devastating--not directly devastating to the US since it would prove no existential threat to us, but devastating to life and the economic structures of the world.

I would still consider the Iran-Israel war to be unlikely, but the air defense system delivered by the Russians to Iran and the (likely false) sense of security that the system provides, makes it just a little more possible. Why would Russia want this?

This way lies oil-production disruption.

It could just be the profit motive, of course. At almost three quarters of a billion dollars, the arms deal is just one of a continuing series of big money deals between the Russians and Iran. This has been a lucrative relationship for the Russians.

A little conspiracy-theory thinking, though, may provide a different explanation.

Russia may no longer seek global political dominance in any direct sense, but the desire for economic dominance and greater political influence still exists. They may have lost the Cold War, but they haven’t retired from global politics.

Oil production in Russia is bigger than you might have thought. With recoverable reserves or perhaps 150 billion barrels and its recent ascension to being the biggest oil producer in the world (a position previously held by Saudi Arabia), Russia’s energy security is ensured. If oil prices continue to rise, Russia stands to see monumental monetary gain at the expense of its two biggest rivals: China and the United States.

Any move to destabilize the Middle East, then, becomes a way to greater profit for the Russians and economic pain for her enemies. I would hesitate to say that Russian wants to see a war break out between Iran and Israel, but I would like to point out that another war would engage yet another chunk of America’s military capacity and continue testing our citizens’ capacity to accept lengthy military commitments. The urge to isolationism would be powerful.

The Soviet Union may be gone, but the Russians still aren’t our friends. This just comes as a reminder of the adversarial relationship.

Read the story.

The title of this excellent, short piece from the Telegraph is “Islam, like Christianity, is not above criticism.” It sounds obvious, doesn’t it?

The combination of grievance-nurturing multiculturalism and instant headlines is having a disastrous effect on the worldwide Muslim community. There seems to be no limit to its spokesmen’s willingness to voice outrage; and their messages are then picked up by fanatics who mount appalling attacks on Christians in Muslim countries. When was the last time a Muslim leader apologised for such atrocities?

The truth is that barbaric attacks happen weekly. No wonder that Benedict favours an urgent dialogue with Muslims on the subject of religious violence, rather than the usual touchy-feely exchange of compliments.

Well, he has started a dialogue now, albeit not quite in the way that he intended. And it is essential that it continue. A self-abasing apology from the Pope would have postponed that discussion yet again.

Here’s the thing: the “war on terror” is really an extension of just this conversation.

This is what happens when cultural expectations that we have (a sense of tolerance for opposing ideas, a sense that diverse religious and political concepts aren’t immediately cause for violence, and the belief that our societies afford us protection when we criticize the beliefs and ideas of others) bump painfully up against a culture with a very different idea of societal behavioral norms. It’s not so bad when those differences are merely aesthetic in nature--questions of art, music, and poetry are much easier to deal with than issues like free speech, free press, equality for citizens under secular rule of law, democracy, and terrorism.

It is important that the conversation about religious violence is taken up right now: our cultures are rubbing up closer as the world continues to, metaphorically, shrink. It would be best if the conversation could happen without war and demonstrations in the street, but that’s the core of the problem, isn’t it? The simplest criticisms are met with threats of death, the burning of churches, and the killing of nuns--it makes it hard to keep up a steady conversation.

“Angry Muslims, please don’t burn down my house.” It isn’t just a joking plea; it’s an honest concern.

Read the rest.

The post title is a reference to one of Macomber’s masterpieces.

Update: Kindly linked by Kris at New Every Morning.

I can only imagine that the members of the United Nations are joking when they, essentially, say that Iran has violated the international body’s dictates in one of the world’s most pressing security issues, but, gee, they shouldn’t actually be punished or forced into compliance.

“There was a common analysis on where we were. The (IAEA) report made clear that Iran has not met the requirements of the Security Council and the IAEA,” said a senior European Union diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran was still producing uranium fuel up to an August 31 deadline set by Security Council resolution 1696.

“We had a first discussion of next steps in the Security Council following the lines of resolution 1696,” he said.

The resolution said sanctions could follow if Iran failed to meet the deadline, but the diplomat declined to say whether there was any consensus on what next steps should be taken and when. Talks between the powers will continue next week, he said.

The diplomat said all countries hoped Iran would suspend enrichment and begin negotiations on a package of incentives the six powers offered to Iran in June.

“The door remains open to Iran,” he said.

See, this is funny stuff--if by funny you mean not something that’s bound to make me life in this lifetime. And it makes me think that the UN should get entirely out of the stand up comedy business.

On this wildly important issue, the major world powers all agree on two things: first, that Iran should not have access to nuclear weapons, and, second, that Iran is doing everything possible to gain the technology to begin manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Then, after agreeing on these two very important facts, these powers have tacitly agreed to dance around the subject, make all the right diplomatic noises, and accomplish precisely nothing while waiting for what would then seem to be inevitable: a nuclear Iran.

The powers that are stonewalling even basic sanctions against Iran are, in a very real sense, complicit in Iran’s growing nuclear potential.

Why is this a big deal? Consider that the non-nuclear Iran is already funding the insurgency in Iraq. The non-nuclear Iran is funding and supplying terrorists in Lebanon. A non-nuclear Iran is already a force destabilizing the region; now imagine the kinds of acts that their government would carry out if they had nuclear weapons on their side.

A nuclear Iran would accomplish two things: it would make a shooting war more likely by pushing the United States into a war to protect vital national security interests and it would practically guaranty our failure in Iraq. An emboldened nuclear Iran would first strike out at Iraq and, at very least, continue pushing to start a civil war; the efforts would just be more overt and aggressive in nature. It would also be emboldened to provide groups like Hezbollah with even more in the way of aid and equipment. The idea of Iran slipping a little nuclear weapon into a terrorist’s hands in hopes that the weapon would be used against either an Israeli or American target is terrifying.

If you believe the Middle East is a mess right now, imagine what it would look like if a nuclear weapon hit an American Embassy in North Africa or somewhere in Jerusalem. Or London or Madrid or New York, for that matter. The prospect of a broad and bloody war--something that would make Iraq look like a playful romp in the sand by comparison--would grow tremendously with a nuclear Iran. And the further that Iran would push its influence, even without the storm of a nuclear terrorist attack on a major target, the more likely the United States or Israel will find it to react aggressively.

The best way to avoid something truly horrific would be to ensure that Iran doesn’t reach nuclear capability. It’s an unstable country with an irrational government; the idea of a nuclear Iran should make anyone uneasy, especially given the United States’ current commitments in the region.

Read the story.

Am I the only one that has been watching developments with Iran who has started to think that Iran wants to provoke a war with the United States? Seriously. I can’t understand actually wanting to start a war with the United States, but it really does seem to be the path that Iran has taken.

So, in the spirit of diplomacy and wanting to avoid the bloodshed that would come, I offer a few bits of advice to the citizens of Iran in hopes of avoiding what seems to be nearly inevitable.

1. You may have heard that America’s military forces are stretched thin and that America would be unable to respond to aggression from Iran’s military. Don’t believe it. In discussing the capacity of one country to project power on another, America has no peer. Not even close. Our capacity to project power around the globe within hours is unmatched and the range of options that we have in response is shockingly broad. We can deploy everything from a small group of covert operatives to help destroy a single enemy military installation all the way up to a nuclear strike that would instantly decapitate an enemy nation.
   
   While it is true that our ground forces have been pushed, our capability to send naval and air components around the world seems to be mostly unengaged right now. If Iran strikes, the US won’t be looking at an opportunity to rebuild an enemy nation; the US will be looking at an opportunity to destroy the military, economic, and industrial capacity of an aggressor nation. Iran would fall hard.
2. But Americans don’t want war. In general, Americans do not want to see cruise missiles raining down on Iran, but the constant provocation is getting hard to ignore. The nuclear issue is a big one, of course, but so is the funding of our enemies in Iraq and Israel’s enemies in Lebanon along with increasingly aggressive behavior in the region. Iran’s leadership is doing its best to encourage an American military response--or that leadership is so blindly stupid as to believe that they can act with impunity while America is otherwise occupied.
3. You Have the Ability to Stop the Coming War. If America is drawn into a conflict with Iran, the results will be devastating. For Iranians, that is. It will be no picnic for the rest of the world when gas prices spike, but the damage to Iran will be brutal. The destruction of the economy, the political structure, and the industrial capacity of your country will be complete; recovery will be hard fought and the cost in blood will be terrifying. Don’t let this happen.
   
   The best way for Iranian citizens to stop this coming war is by no way simple or without danger, but it would leave the future of Iran in the hands of Iranians--it would court the support of the international community instead of the bombs of an angry United States.
   
   Iran: rise up and bring down your leaders. Bring down the people who will bring blood and ruin to your cities. Bring down the tyrants who have defined your country’s existence, ensnaring it in bloody plots and the pursuit of evil. This is the path to safety in Iran.

Just a little advice between friends.

Update: More about Iran.

And Kevin Drum’s take is predictably different. While I have a bad feeling about the next pair of elections (at least in reference to national security issues), the left’s continued inability to face up to the very real threats of the world continues to encourage the belief that they will find a way to destroy their opportunity to play a little catch up. Let’s be honest, it’s what they do.

To clarify: I’m not kidding about not wanting to see bombs falling on Iran. The world will be (as Dorkafork points out in the comments) a much more dangerous place, though, if Iran manages to produce nuclear weapons. Anyone who believes that American security interests in the Middle East will be well served by an aggressive, arrogant Iran has a distinctly different view or our interests than I do. Anyone who fails to understand that a nuclear Iran will be even more open and vicious in destabilizing neighboring Iraq is simply blind.

People like Kevin Drum, though, really don’t seem to think there’s any urgency to the issue.