A STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ

The President is once again out on the stump campaigning for his Iraq policy. He spoke in front of the midshipmen of the Naval Academy this morning and will make more speeches in the coming days. The effort is designed to reverse the flagging poll numbers which indicate that a majority of Americans no longer favor the war (or think it was a mistake) and no longer approve of the President's handling of the war (and his job in general).

To achieve his political goals the President must convince those Americans who once supported the war to return to their previous position. He will, of course, never convince those who have opposed the war from the start. But, if he can regain the support of those who were once in his corner, then we will see his poll numbers start to improve. Obviously, there is much that he cannot control. The media coverage of the war will always be negative, and the enemy will do everything in their power to play into that coverage.

The President urged all Americans to read the strategy document about Iraq at his website. I have provided a link in the title above, and again here, for you to read the document.

A Canadian caller from Ottawa alerted me to an upcoming vote of no-confidence in their parliament on Monday morning. He predicted the governing Liberal party would lose that vote. Sure enough, he was right.

Seymour Hersh has another article in the New Yorker about the Iraq War. He paints George W. Bush as an increasingly isolated, religious fanatic who will not withdraw our troops from Iraq until the job is done. He also writes about the problems associated with possibly allowing Iraqis to use American airpower in the campaign against the insurgency. Whatever you think of Hersh, he is always a good read.

Mark Steyn says the people of Britain need to wake up and hear the Muezzin.

Vodkapundit has the latest U. S. military recruiting numbers. It looks like the active forces are hitting their targets.

More Iraqi troops are in the fight, according to the Washington Times. It appears that the Pentagon, after two years of trying different strategies, may have finally hit upon something that will work. They may just be at the cusp of having enough troops to secure Iraq (because of the addition of the Iraqi troops). Joe Lieberman certainly thinks that is the case.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

As I said in a previous post, if we withdraw prematurely we will be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

WBZ TONIGHT

I will be sitting in for Steve Leveille on WBZ-Boston this evening from Midnight to 5 AM. WBZ can be found at 1030 on the AM dial.

Among the topics I am considering for discussion;

Should the Federal Government spend more money on Katrina relief? Is the Congress going overboard on spending in general (again)?

Will the Iraq War be the most important issue to you when you vote next November? Should we withdraw from Iraq immediately? Are we panicking unnecessarily?

Should the military (and the CIA) have a free hand when dealing with terrorists. Including the use of torture?

Is big-time college football a fraud when it comes to educating student-athletes?

Should we build a fence to secure our borders?

Will GM go bankrupt? Why is it failing? Does it matter?

Many of these links were secured by visiting the RealClearPolitics website. I highly recommend it.

If you can't sleep, or need to get up early, and live in one of the 38 states and several provinces of Canada that can receive the big signal of WBZ-AM, please take a listen between Midnight and 5 AM Monday morning.

SNATCHING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY?

With recent polls showing the American people growing weary of the war in Iraq, and now a plurality in favor of a timetable for withdrawal, I have been giving the situation a lot of thought, especially in comparison with the historical experience of the war in Vietnam (and, to a lesser extent, Korea).

Clearly, the evidence shows that the American people cannot sustain support for a war when they cannot perceive a clear victory at the end of the tunnel. This was true in Korea, and even more so in Vietnam. The definition of success in a low-grade, anti-insurgency type of conflict is usually shaded in gray, when the average American prefers black and white scenarios and solutions (think WWII). Any attempt to quantify success is almost inevitably undercut by the images being beamed into their homes by the mainstream media. This was clearly the case in Vietnam, when Americans were told that the political and military objectives were being met, while they were seeing pictures of napalmed Vietnamese children running down roadways and the U.S. embassy under siege and, of course, the flag-draped caskets coming home. (Remember, in WWII what the American people saw was heavily censored and, besides, they could always chart the progress of our fighting forces toward victory by moving pins on a map...objectives taken, enemy armies and naval fleets defeated...inexorably until the enemy homeland was invaded and conquered or until their government surrendered). In Iraq, the President and his people keep telling us that the political and military objectives are being met (successful elections, training of police and security forces, re-building of infrastructure, etc.) while what we see on television are the awful effects of suicide bombers (and, sometimes, the actual bombing caught on videotape) and the recitation of the number of Americans and Iraqis killed every day.

If my conclusion is correct, we cannot expect the polling trends to reverse course. In fact, we can expect the trend to continue until only the hardcore pro-war base is left (I don't know what that number is, but my guess is that it would be around 30-35%). This is, of course, assuming that the negative images continue to come out of Iraq, even after the new permanent government is elected (which I fully expect to happen).

The tragedy of this scenario is that once again America will be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong was nearly destroyed by the Tet Offensive in early 1968. Thereafter, most of the fighting was done by the regular North Vietnamese Army. In 1972, President Nixon began what should have been done in 1966 or '67, the truly comprehensive bombing of North Vietnam. This effort drove the North Vietnamese to the peace table. When the Paris Peace Accords were signed, the government of South Vietnam was still in the saddle. If the U.S. Congress had not cut off military aid and, especially, if President Ford had decided to use all available air assets to pound the invading North Vietnamese regular forces during their invasion in 1975, it is very possible that South Vietnam would still exist today.

Perhaps we will, at least, learn that particular post-Vietnam lesson. If a timetable for withdrawal is adopted (and that scenario just got a big push by a non-binding pronouncement from Iraqi leaders at a meeting put together by the Arab League calling for a timetable) it should be done with the understanding that American troops will not vacate the country entirely, just drawn down to a much smaller force. If there are enough American troops to prevent civil war, but not enough to provoke Iraqi Sunnis (nothing will prevent the Al Qaeda types from continuing to attack Americans) we might be able to salvage a victory.

This would not be a new scenario. We have maintained a relatively small (in comparison with the other armies) presence on the DMZ in Korea since the armistice was signed in 1953. This troop presence is designed as a trip-wire to deter another North Korean invasion. It has worked pretty well for the last 52 years. We also maintain troops in Bosnia and Kosovo to prevent the resumption of ethnic warfare in that part of the world. Theoretically, we could do the same in Iraq. How many troops would be needed and how they would be deployed is something that could be worked out by the new permanent Iraqi government and the U.S. (with input and ultimate approval from the U.N., after all, the current military presence is governed as a legal matter under a U.N. resolution).

As you can tell, I am trying to maintain a certain degree of optimism. I cannot believe that President Bush would accept a retreat from Iraq that would result in a civil war. If he does, history will condemn him as one of America's worst presidents, and, unlike the retreat from Vietnam, America will suffer the consequences in a direct and, I fear, bloody way.

CUT AND RUN?

Though Democrats derided it as a political stunt, the GOP put a non-binding resolution on the floor calling for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. It was defeated 403-3.

Meanwhile, Gen. George Casey has a plan for withdrawal. While the reports I've heard so far don't go into specifics, I understand it involves a number of milestones that have to be met before individual units are withdrawn, so it could still leave a large number of troops in country. However, if the milestones ARE met, then a substantial number of soldiers could come home in 2006. It seems to me, based on my own experience in the Army at a brigade headquarters, that Gen. Casey didn't come up with this idea on his own. He was tasked to come up with the plan (although the media reports are indicating that he came up with it along with Gen. Abizaid). Could my earlier prediction that we would begin seeing significant troop reductions no later than Summer 2006 be coming true? It's the only thing that will save the GOP in November of 2006.

DEFEAT IN IRAQ?

The Senate passed a compromise amendment yesterday on the Iraq War that could be interpreted as the first step toward withdrawal. It is already drawing fire from proponents of the war.

Bill Kristol has one word for the compromise...pathetic.

Tony Blankley had even harsher words for the Senate action...

Monday, for the first time, the foul odor of the Vietnam War denouement wafted through the Senate chamber during the debate on Iraq. The Democrats called for "estimated dates for the phased redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq." Phased redeployment was the maneuver the French executed in June 1940 in the days preceding the German occupation of Paris. Phased redeployment is what the Vietnamese boat people did as they swam for their lives away from their homeland. The Republican Senate leadership, sensing they might lose enough Republican senators (six or more) to let the Democratic amendment pass, decided to quibble with, rather than oppose, the infamous document. So they scratched out the explicit timeline to desertion and added fine-sounding phrases, such as calling for the president to provide more information and a schedule for reaching full Iraqi sovereignty. No bureaucratic euphemism can cleanse the air of the stench of defeatism...It was 30 years ago when Congress last took the reigns of national war fighting. In August 1974, Richard Nixon had been scandalized and left office. The November 1974 election brought forth the "Watergate babies"; Congress filled with young anti-war Democrats. One of the first actions of the Watergate Congress was to vote to deny an appropriation of $800 million to pay for South Vietnamese military aid, including ammunition and spare parts. Historical records now reveal that five weeks after that vote, the North Vietnamese started planning their final offensive. The morale of the South Vietnamese was broken by that symbolic congressional act of betrayal. The actual dollar cuts forced South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu to abandon the Central Highland in March 1975, leading to the collapse of our ally and the onset of genocide and police-state brutalities that killed more Asians than all the thousand days of the war did. Now the Watergate babies have grown old — and age has not improved them. They plan to finish their careers as they started them — in defeatism, betrayal and national dishonor. Oh, that America might see the last of these fish-eyed sacks of loathsome bile and infamy: unwholesome in their birth; repugnant and stench-forming in their decline.

Senator Joe Lieberman praised the compromise (via RealClearPolitics), but decried the partisanship that has overtaken the war effort, and warned about the consequences of defeat.

If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, there will be civil war, and there is a great probability that others in the neighborhood will come in. The Iranians will be tempted to come in on the side of the Shia Muslims in the south. The Turks will be tempted to come in against the Kurds in the north. The other Sunni nations, such as the Saudis and the Jordanians, will be sorely tempted, if not to come in at least to aggressively support the Sunni Muslim population. There will be instability in the Middle East, and the hope of creating a different model for a better life in the Middle East in this historic center of the Arab world, Iraq, will be gone. If we successfully complete our mission, we will have left a country that is self-governing with an open economy, with an opportunity for the people of Iraq to do what they clearly want to do, which is to live a better life, to get a job, to have their kids get a decent education, to live a better life. There seems to be broad consensus on that, and yet the partisanship that characterizes our time here gets in the way of realizing those broadly expressed and shared goals.

Clearly, the GOP backed down in the face of a public that is growing increasingly weary of this war. While the President still holds the cards when it comes to the issue of withdrawal, I wonder how long he will stand fast as his numbers dwindle and his weakened political position makes him incapable of addressing any of the other issues he had hoped to move on in his second term.

In my estimation, Americans do not have the stomach for a long, drawn out war if they don't see the possibility of victory. In fact, I wrote my college thesis on that issue. Public opinion in favor of the war remained high during World War II, as it was clear to all that the war would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of our power until ultimate victory was achieved. The public was able to accept much higher levels of casualties than what we are seeing today because of that fact. By contrast, public opinion in favor of war slowly deteriorated during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, with the drop off becoming more stark when battlefield events seemed to preclude the possibility of victory (the Chinese intervention in December of 1950 and the Tet Offensive in January of 1968). Today, the unrelenting negative coverage of Iraq, the steady drumbeat of U.S. casualties, the seemingly unstoppable proliferation of suicide bombers, has convinced a majority of Americans that a traditional victory is not possible. Their reaction is, logically, to turn against the war. The GOP in Washington fears that the equally logical next step is to turn against the politicians who were in favor of the war. Since they can't throw the President out of office, the obvious targets will be those Republicans standing for election in 2006.

If the lessons of history are correct, the only way to avoid a Republican defeat on this issue in 2006 is for the public to become convinced that victory can be achieved and is being achieved. This will require a reduction in the number and pace of U.S. deaths and in chaotic images from Iraq. I'm not sure that can reasonably expected within the next year. I do expect the Iraqis to successfully elect a permanent government next month. The insurgents have been unable to significantly disrupt the last two elections, in fact, they even less successful in the most recent election than they were in the first. That is a significant trend. I do expect the Iraqis to continue to build their security forces, their army, police, infrastructure and economy. But those facts cannot be shown in dramatic TV pictures and, therefore, will be invisible to the American public.

My conclusion, at this point in time, is that the GOP will suffer significant losses in November of 2006 unless our troops are clearly on their way out of Iraq during the Summer of 2006. If Karl Rove is still working in the White House at that time, he will see this as clearly (if not more so) than I do. I expect that at the very least there will be a timetable for withdrawal by then.

Republicans in Washington are getting very nervous about the political ramifications of the Iraq War. So nervous that Senate Republicans are looking for a way out. I'm not sure anything short of complete withdrawal will make a difference prior to the '06 elections. As long as American soldiers are being killed on a regular basis, and Iraqis are being blown up by suicide bombers, voters that November will be reminded that George W. Bush sent them into Iraq and the war still isn't over, with no end in sight. Americans prefer to either fight to win, or not fight at all. They strongly disapprove of long-running, dirty wars. The only thing that will reverse the political tide, other than withdrawal (which won't happen), is a new terrorist attack here in the States.

Mark Steyn says bi-cultural Europe is doomed. I believe he is right. Charles Krauthammer also has some thoughts on the future of France.

Cathy Young makes the case for science. Intelligent Design is NOT science.

Evolution is, in fact, the foundation of the entire science of modern biology and much of modern medicine. No, there is no absolute ''proof" of evolution, but that's not how science works. The evolutionary theory of origin of species is supported by abundant evidence from the fossil record and genetics research -- indicating, for instance, that both humans and modern apes are related to primates who lived millions of years ago or that modern birds are related to dinosaurs. And how much scientific evidence is there disproving evolutionary theory? Zero. Yes, there are many unanswered questions about evolution. But the answer to these questions is more scientific research, not filling the gaps with ''God did it."...The words of intelligent-design champions themselves leave no doubt that their motivation is religious, not scientific. A good overview of the topic is given by University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne in the Aug. 22 New Republic. Coyne quotes mathematician William Dembski, one of the much-vaunted ''real scientists" who champion intelligent design: ''At a fundamental level . . . what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world."

Read the whole thing.

The Washington Post puts a story about property taxes in New Hampshire on the front page. Now the rest of the country knows that we pay extra property taxes based on the view. (Personally, I don't, because I don't have much of a view. We're still getting slammed, anyway.)

THE PRESIDENT STRIKES BACK

In his Veteran's Day speech yesterday at Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, President George W. Bush finally struck back at the critics who have been banging the "Bush lied, people died" drum.

...our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.) The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

I hope the President and his people will follow this up with a barrage of counterpunches. Release intelligence information from the Pentagon and the CIA that painted the picture of Saddam's regime before the war. Use press releases, speeches and TV spots to highlight statements from all the prominent Democrats who voted in favor of the war that indicated their belief in Saddam's WMD stockpiles and programs. If you can get it, release information about assessments from other intelligence services that also believed in Saddam's WMD capabilities. Finally, challenge the Democrats to "**** or get off the pot". If the President lied, or deliberately misled the Congress and the American people to support going to war in Iraq, then he should be impeached. Let the President and his people demand the Democrats follow the logic of their position. Let them put an impeachment resolution on the floor of the House. The GOP leadership should allow it to go before the appropriate committees for public hearings, then, if the Democrats can prove the President deliberately lied to the American people, it will come to the floor, be debated on, and passed. Once indicted, we can have a trial in the Senate.

Obviously, it won't happen. But I think the President would force the Democrats into a political corner. If they refused to go along with impeachment, they would alienate their base (which is absolutely frothing at the mouth to impeach the guy). The very public re-examination of the case for war would, I think, re-affirm the view that ALMOST EVERYONE in position to know believed Saddam was maintaining some kind of WMD program. Therefore, the President didn't lie, and only the most extreme radicals can maintain that position.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid the President's advisors don't have the balls for it. But it would be quite a spectacle.

SLAMMING THE HIP-HOP CULTURE

Derrick Z. Jackson, writing in the Boston Globe, takes a meat-axe to hip-hop culture this morning, and the big corporations that profit from their vile message.

It is tragic enough that black rappers and hip-hop moguls prostitute themselves to the Fortune 500 with the very stereotypes about violence, stupidity, and sexual drive that white society used to justify slavery, colonization, segregation, and lynching. After slave rebellions, the Underground Railroad, patriotism in world wars, marches on Washington, and murders of civil rights workers, Jay-Z makes millions saying, ''I take and rape villages." African-Americans can no longer afford to coddle these people. The black czars of gutter hip-hop are the new house slaves. And Reebok's promotion of this material, along with Comcast and other media giants, is just as reprehensible....At Reebok's annual investor conference, division officials echoed (Reebok's Director of Marketing Marc) Fireman, saying, ''These kids hang on every word" of Jay-Z because ''his influence on youth culture is tremendous and what he represented 2.5 years ago he still represents today, but even more so, because he's evolved." They said of 50 Cent, ''This guy is truly a marketing machine and will have a lot of momentum. We're going to really capture and provide that momentum and be with 50." They said, ''50 Cent is very large and his influence is incredible and he's really captured a major movement and people are following him and going with him." If 50 Cent represents a major movement, we ought to spare ourselves the illusion of racial progress and bring back the Klan.

Read the whole thing.

FALLUJA OR WATTS?

The riots in France are generating a great deal of navel-gazing, here and in Europe.

Max Boot sees the problem in terms of the sclerotic French economy.

It is precisely because of France's high level of "social protection" that it is now experiencing its own version of urban hell. The welfare state that is the pride and joy of postwar France has become a ball-and-chain hobbling its ability to keep up economically with the despised Anglo-Saxons. In the United States, the government spends 35.9% of gross domestic product; in France, it's 54.5%. Generous unemployment benefits, free housing and healthcare and other goodies make life cushy even for those without a job. Yet this generosity has not bought social peace. The prisons in France are filled with young men of African and Arab descent who decided to supplement their subsidies with the proceeds from muggings, break-ins and drug deals. The crime rate in France is soaring even as it is declining to a 40-year low across the Atlantic. No welfare check, no matter how large, will satisfy young men who desperately need the sense of self-worth that comes from holding a steady job and providing for their family. But in France there simply isn't any work to get, especially not if you're young and foreign. In addition to heavy tax burdens, employers are hobbled by countless regulations that discourage job creation. The overall French unemployment rate is 10%; among young first- and second-generation immigrants it's three or four times as high. By contrast, in the cold, capitalist United States, the unemployment rate is a mere 5%. And while the U.S. economy is roaring ahead at 3.8% this year, the French economy limps along at 1.4% growth.

The New York Times explores the insular nature of the Arab and North African ghettos in the suburbs of major French cities.

Amin Kouidri, 20, has been hunting for a job for more than two years now and spends his days drifting around a government housing project here under the watchful gaze of France's national police. He and his neighbors in one of France's now-notorious housing projects say that they feel cut off from French society, a result of a process of segregation lasting for decades, and that alienation and pressure from the police have now exploded in rage across the country. "There's nothing to do, and frustrations have added up until in the end it has become like a bomb that they carry inside," said Azzouz Camen, 44, at a small snack bar he owns between the neighborhood's apartment blocks and a gleaming new mosque. For these men, the violence that has swept the country is easy to understand, even, they say, long overdue, not only because of the unemployment but because of the increasing confrontation with the police.

Antoine Audouard, who is writing a book about French identity, sees a nation that can no longer enforce its own rules.

A friend called me a night ago from Paris. Paris? Not quite. My friend is of Indian origin and comes from a rundown "cite" in a suburb called Choisy-le-Roi, a housing project plopped down in an 18th-century royal park. The park retains a Louis XV elegance and grace. But as you walk by the project's windows, my friend says, on a good day only a trash bag will land on your head; on a bad day, it could be a washing machine. On Friday, as his mother was having a bite in a restaurant at the local mall, a gang of 20 or so angry youths from the neighborhood stormed into the restaurant, terrorizing customers, poaching food and drinks and ransacking the place. His mother, who is severely disabled and survives on a modest state pension, was frightened. And my friend was frightened for her, but angry as well. In Paris last week, I was struck more than ever by the frustration and anger in the air. There is a joke about France being a nation divided in two: those who complain and those who complain about those who complain. But the joke is no longer funny: as Frenchmen, we grow up with the idea that our national unity is built upon diversity, and that our chronic division against ourselves is, on rare occasions, redeemed by brief periods of national unity.

His friend says the Army should be called upon to enter the fray. I've heard that in a number of television reports when average people are interviewed.

David Ignatius says France hasn't had its day of reckoning, as we had here in the U.S. in the 60s, regarding race.

I lived for several years in France, returning to America a year ago, and I was always astonished by the French inability to reckon with racial divisions. You just didn't see black or brown faces in prominent positions -- not in the National Assembly, not on French television, not among business leaders, not in the media. French analysts have been warning for decades about the dangers of warehousing African and Arab immigrants in the suburbs, but the French have refused to adopt aggressive affirmative-action programs that might change the situation. The country was so worried about Muslim extremists that it ignored the more immediate problem of the soulless, sullen suburbs.

Jim Hoagland says there are numerous factors at work.

The social explosions that have hit France are being watched nervously by the rest of Europe for signs that this could become something that so far it is not: a religiously motivated uprising by Muslim youths against their Christian and Jewish neighbors. But jihad -- or the assumed lack of it -- is not the whole story either. The French -- and the angry, nihilistic Arab and African youths in their midst -- are also "victims" of that country's immigration and assimilation policies and, indirectly, its paternalistic social welfare system. Mark them as casualties of a particular brand of politically correct arrogance that French politicians have practiced for 30 years, and you begin to get something like a whole story. France's upheaval is too important to be explained away by any single factor. And it is too important to be treated as a matter of satisfaction by Americans irritated by the French, on foreign policy or other grounds. France and its beautiful, troubled capital are proxies for all affluent nations that have elevated into an art form the habit of ignoring the world's poor, desperate and criminally inclined.

Ann Applebaum is taking some satisfaction from the French getting their comeuppance.

"Katrina's devastation points the finger at Bush's system . . . Issues forgotten for years are back to the fore: poverty, the state's absence, latent racism."
-- Le Monde, Sept. 8,

The quotation above appeared in a front-page article in France's newspaper of record. Just below was a cartoon showing the American president watching TV footage of black corpses floating in the water. "But, what country is this?" the caption had him saying to his generals: "Is it far away? We absolutely have to do something!" Unfortunately, this column does not come with its own cartoon attached, so I'm forced to describe the one I think Le Monde should print this week: A drawing of the French president, Jacques Chirac, watching black neighborhoods go up in smoke. The president is asking his generals, "But, what country is this? Is it far away? We absolutely have to do something!"

But the real question remains, are the riots simply a replay of the Watts riots in the 60s here in the U.S.? Is it really a matter of a community cut off from the economic and political mainstream lashing out with violence as a way of expressing decades of frustration? Or is it Falluja sur Seine?

Various media reports have described the coordination of activities and evasive tactics via cell phones, web pages, and instant messaging. French police have discovered at least one bomb-making facility in the riot zone near Paris and suspect that more exist elsewhere. Despite this rather sophisticated infrastructure of support for the riots and the warnings just prior to the outbreak of the riots they themselves published, the Washington Post's editorial page--and most of the rest of the media--seems stuck on the notion that poverty and a lack of opportunity alone must account for this sudden and growing uprising. France--like much of the media--stood foursquare against Bush's interventionist policy in Iraq. So if Islamists have targeted France as their next front in an attempt to establish "no-go" territories in the center of Europe, it might call into question much of the anti-Bush narrative. Instead of Muslim anger being caused by America's policies of intervention, Islamofascism might really be a worldwide movement against Western interests. Amir Taheri noted in the New York Post that the French have already heard from people who claim that they can negotiate an end to the violence. Local "emirs" representing the sink estates want the French police to withdraw from the territories and allow sheikhs from the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization with ties to al Qaeda, to arbitrate an end to the riots. "All we demand is to be left alone," says Mouloud Dahmani, an "emir" who promises a return to quiet in exchange for autonomy. It is, in effect, a land-for-peace proposal aimed at the heart of France and Christendom. Will the French surrender to the Islamist demands for sharia in the shadow of the City of Lights? Will they abandon their own territory and allow the establishment of enclaves in which French police dare not tread? Or will they, the media, and the world finally wake to the threat of Islamist expansionism after years of denial?

Tony Blankley points a finger at the Islamists. He even wrote a book predicting some of what is happening now.

As the Muslim populations and their level of cultural and religious assertiveness expand, European geography will be "reclaimed" for Islam. Europe will become pockmarked with increasing numbers of little Fallujahs that will be effectively impenetrable by anything much short of a U.S. Marine division. "Thus, as the fundamentalism expands into European (and perhaps to a lesser extent American) Muslim communities, not only will Islamic cultural aggression against a seemingly passive and apologetic indigenous population increase, but the zone of safety and support for the actual terrorists will expand as well." (The West's Last Chance, pp. 55-56). Now, two weeks into the appalling explosion of violence in Europe (and the equally appalling French governmental passivity in the face of such violence) most of the world's media treats this huge event as the third or fourth story on the evening news. From the BBC and CNN to the major newspapers of the world, the story is underreported and misreported. On Monday The Washington Post was still not reporting the story on the front page. The big networks have consistently given only headline coverage to the story. I was in Russia last week (lecturing and doing media on my book) and actually timed the BBC coverage of the French Muslim violence story at about a minute and a half, while in the same broadcast the post-Pakistani earthquake-relief story was given over fifteen minutes. CNN International proportioned its coverage similarly. Soon, the violence of the last two weeks will be seen as the opening of an event of world-historic significance.

Souhelia Al-Jadda completely disagrees.

For politicians who point to the riots as a sign of increasing Islamic radicalism and the start of a so-called clash of civilizations between the Muslim East and the Christian West, all evidence points to the opposite. In a rare show of unity, the Islamic community is working in tandem with the French authorities, which requested that local Muslim imams help restore peace. The imams appealed for calm but to no avail. This week, the Union of French Islamic Organizations stepped up efforts by issuing a fatwa, or religious decree, condemning the riots. The fact is that most youth do not identify with Islam or religious leaders in this situation because their discontent is not about religion. It's about justice.

So, there you have it. Falluja or Watts? Is it about economic and social justice, or the blossoming of a religious/cultural war? The answer to this question couldn't be more important. If this is really a replay of the Watts riots, then the answer is clear. A nationwide campaign to batter down racial prejudice among ordinary French men and women. A systematic effort to integrate Arab/North African French people into the mainstream, probably through affirmative action programs. The end tosegregatedd slums, the creation of job opportunities. In essence, a great series of social and economic reforms (many of which, unfortunately, would be completely unpalatable to the majority of White Frenchmen).

If, however, this is Falluja, then we're talking about a problem that cannot be solved with social or economic reforms in any one country. While those reforms are still, in my view, necessary on their own merits, they will not address the Islamist agenda. For that there can only be two answers, victory or submission.

TO THE BARRICADES III

As the riots in France continue to spread, I want to take a moment to reflect on the title of my last two posts, which I have used again for this one.

"To the barricades!" is a phrase that is taken straight from the history of France. It refers to the riots and disorder in Paris after the French were defeated by the Prussians in 1870. That was the Paris of the Commune, a pre-communist radical government formed amid the ferment and deprivation of a Prussian siege. I have used it in the last two posts to refer to the natural human tendency to retreat to one's own pre-conceived notions and the comfort of one's ideological or spiritual comrades in the face of danger, real or perceived.

What is happening in France is just another manifestation of that human phenomenon. The young people of North African or Arab descent who live in France have for many years found themselves stuck, physically, intellectually, and spiritually as well as economically. They live in a nation that has warehoused them in suburban ghettos and then pretended that they were "French", in the most absurdly secular meaning of the word. But these young people know that the concept of "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" is a hollow one for them. The government pays them lip service by providing a social welfare net, but it surely appears to them not as a safety net, but rather a fishing net, and they are the fish. Trapped in a country that will not allow them economic or social access, and unable to return to their ancestral homes (after all, these young people were born in France, which would make them as much the outsider in Algeria or Morocco or Cameroon as any of their lighter-skinned countrymen), they have reacted by going "to the barricades". In this sense, they are acting very "French". Their version of the barricades is the act of arson, whether it is cars, buses or buildings.

The thing to watch for as this moves forward is whether or not the violence, and the establishment's reaction to the violence, will change the character of the Muslim community in France. Until now, that community has remained within its ghettos, accepting its lot. This may now no longer be possible. Because "to the barricades" also means choosing sides. The character of the violence will reach a tipping point if the middle-aged Muslims choose to join, even if only spiritually, the rioters. Then France will be faced with a true crisis and, perhaps, a true revolution.

TO THE BARRICADES II

Eleanor Clift proves the point I made in Thursday's post (scroll down). If George W. Bush DELIBERATELY misled the American people about WMDs in Iraq to justify going to war, then it logically follows that he must be impeached.

Democrats feel emboldened, and they’re dropping the euphemisms. They’re saying straight out that the president and his administration lied and manufactured evidence to take the country to war. The logical extension of such an explosive charge would be impeachment, says Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council, though Wittmann doesn’t personally advocate this strategy. “It’s the highest crime and misdemeanor one can think of, the case that they maliciously did this, and it obliges Democrats [who backed the war] to say they cast the wrong vote.” Wittmann is sharply critical of the administration’s performance in Iraq, but he supported the invasion and thinks Democrats would be ill-advised to drag the country into impeachment proceedings.

Impeachment seems a bridge too far, but when the question was posed to a former senior member of the law-enforcement community, he didn’t dismiss it out of hand. “Not at this stage,” he told NEWSWEEK, “but there are three more years left to this administration, and I can see it unraveling.”

The more we learn about the secretive White House Iraq Group (WHIG) and the role of Vice President Dick Cheney in pressing his dark views on the country, the likelier it is that the administration will be found culpable for exaggerating the threat Saddam Hussein posed in its zeal to go to war. If the Democrats win back the House in the ’06 election, Michigan Democrat John Conyers will chair the House Judiciary committee. On the day the Scooter Libby indictments were handed down, Conyers invoked the language of Watergate: “What did the president and the vice president know, and when did they know it?” If the political tables turn, impeachment may not be so far-fetched after all.

This is just the sort of thinking that led to the GOP effort to impeach President Clinton, an effort that gained the Republicans absolutely nothing in terms of political momentum.

TO THE BARRICADES!

That great sage Yogi Berra once said, "It’s deja vu all over again". I’m having that feeling this morning as I ponder the latest shenanigans in Washington. Earlier this week, the Senate Democrats forced that August body into a rare secret session to demand their investigation into the pre-war intelligence lapses regarding WMDs be moved forward at a faster pace. The move was part of an over-all effort to convince the American people that "Bush lied, people died".

It is all so very familiar. "It’s not about sex, it’s about perjury". That was the battle cry in the mid-nineties as the right wing of the GOP pushed their representatives in Washington to make political war with the President, right up to the point where Bill Clinton was impeached by the House (and acquitted by the Senate). Cooler, calmer heads in Washington tried to convince the true believers that they had moved beyond the bulk of the populace in their efforts to prove that Bill Clinton was a liar (or worse). The majority of Americans, they insisted, just did not buy the assertion that the President was corrupt in any important way. Yes, they bought the idea that he was a womanizer (to use an old-fashioned term that seems to perfectly fit his behavior). Yes, they were disgusted by the fact that he cheated on his wife, and in the Oval Office, no less. But they simply did not think those things outweighed the man’s performance as President. He wasn’t stealing their money, or putting their sons into harm’s way. The nation was at peace, and prosperity was evident across the land. It was in that context that we saw the efforts of the right wing fail, and the political consequences were clear. The GOP lost ground in 1996, 1998 and 2000.

Today, it is the left wing of the Democratic Party that is working itself into a frenzy. First it was the "stolen" election of 2000 (Bush was see-lected, not ee-lected). Now, it is "Bush lied, people died". Just as in the 90s, the true believers really believe it. The right wing really believed Bill Clinton committed perjury, and worse. Many thought him a traitor (arms to China, demonstrating in Moscow during Vietnam), a draft dodger, a rapist, a drug user, a thief, even a murderer. I know. I talked to these folks almost every day during that period. I’ll never forget one caller who seriously asserted that Clinton would not allow a free election in 2000, but would declare an emergency and continue to hold power.

Now it is the "moonbat left" that is asserting itself. They, too, believe all sorts of things about George W. Bush. To them he, too, is a liar, a draft dodger, a drug user, a thief, even a murderer. (In fact, about the only difference I can see between the extreme rhetoric that was used to describe Clinton and that is now used to describe Bush is that no one, to my knowledge, on the left has asserted that Bush cheats on his wife). Could it be possible that we are seeing a re-run of the politics of the 90s?

Only time will tell, but this is what I think will happen. Most Americans are going to reject the over-heated rhetoric. Most Americans are not buying the "Bush lied, people died" mantra. Just as they knew Clinton had erred by having his affair with the intern, they know that Bush erred by asserting that Saddam had WMDs. But most people are also willing to believe that Bush did not make that mistake in a vacuum. He made the mistake because the CIA and our other intelligence agencies got it wrong. He made it because the British, French and Israelis got it wrong. The reason you don’t hear Bill Clinton criticizing Bush about Iraqi WMDs is because he also believed that Saddam had them, and was trying to acquire more.

In the 90s, the American people decided that Bill Clinton’s mistake was personal in nature and, therefore, did not rise to the level of removing him from office. Today, I believe they are also deciding that George W. Bush’s mistake about Iraqi WMDs were not the result of deliberate malfeasance and, therefore, does not rise to the level of removing him from office. In both cases, when the people had a chance to vote, they re-elected the President and helped the President’s party gain some political ground. If the Democrats continue to ratchet up the rhetoric about the President, they run the very real risk of continuing that process.

The irony this time is that, unlike the anti-Clinton effort in the 90s, the opposition party has some real issues to run on. Rising energy prices, the dislocations created by a global economy, rising health care costs, federal budget deficits, poor governmental responses to natural disasters and, most significantly, a grinding, costly war in Iraq. If the Democrats set aside the "Bush lied, people died" mantra and, instead, put together a plan to address those issues (as consultant James Carville is currently putting together, much like the 1994 GOP "Contract with America") they might just make some political headway. But that would be the reasonable course, which would not satisfy the loudest voices, who cannot help but cry "To the barricades". It feels so much better to paint your opponents as devils, and the fight as a matter of good vs. evil, rather than as a political disagreement over policy between people of generally good will and intentions.

Jeff Jacoby gives an example of how the MSM reports the bad news from Iraq much more prominently than the good news.

Michelle Malkin provides an example of how the New York Times distorted a dead Marine's words to push their anti-war views.

Last Wednesday, the Times published a 4,624-word opus on American casualties of war in Iraq. "2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark," read the headline. The macabre, Vietnam-evoking piece appeared prominently on page A2. Among those profiled were Marines from the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment, including Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr. Here's the relevant passage:

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.
But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.
Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

The paper's excerpt of Corporal Starr's letter leaves the reader with the distinct impression that this young Marine was darkly resigned to a senseless death. The truth is exactly the opposite. Late last week, I received a letter from Corporal Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness. He wanted you to know the rest of the story -- and the parts of Corporal Starr's letter that the Times failed to include:

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

Read the whole thing, please.

Robert J. Samuelson unmasks the fiscal phonies in Washington. Surprise! They are Republicans AND Democrats.

Speaking of phoniness, the Democrats force a secret session in the Senate to push forward an investigation of the run-up to war in Iraq. "Bush lied, people died", is their theme.

Max Boot tells us about the real liar in all of this.