IMMIGRATION BUILT AMERICA

As we live through another of America's periodic political fights over the issue of immigration, it is important to remember that immigration is the reason America looks the way it does today. First came the Europeans and their African slaves (the Native American experience cannot correctly be placed in the context of immigration, as they were the indigenous people who were displaced or exterminated by the conquering Europeans and, later, Americans). At first the majority were English, Scots, French and Dutch, then wave after wave of other nationalities...Irish, Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, Poles, Czechs, Jews of many countries, Italians and many others. Each great wave of immigrants was met with hostility and fear. (The case of African-Americans, because of slavery and white supremacy, is a very different one, and cannot rightly be put into the context of an immigration discussion. This is not to say that African-Americans are not an important part of the building of America, they are, it is just to say that the circumstances of their arrival and their exclusion from the mainstream of economic and political life makes their narrative quite different from that of all other immigrant groups). Each wave created political upheaval. Some of that upheaval was ephemeral, like the formation of the Know-Nothing Party in the mid-19th Century. They quickly faded away. Other changes were more substantial, like the development of our system of taxpayer-funded schools, created in the 19th Century primarily to educate the teeming masses of Irish, German and other immigrants to become good, patriotic, English-speaking Americans.

All sorts of economic, social and political changes were directly the result of the masses of immigrants who came to America. Everything from the growth of government at all levels to the growth of industry to the creation of a new narrative that defines the American experience, the narrative of the children and grandchildren of immigrants who made their fortunes in the New World. My favorite line from that great American movie, "The Godfather", is the opening line, when the undertaker, in explaining his predicament to the Godfather, says, "I love America. America has made my fortune". Mario Puzo, who wrote the script, and Francis Ford Coppola, who directed, understood that the central narrative of American life is now that of the immigrant who comes to these shores and prospers, and that it cuts across all lines. "The Godfather" is not just about gangsters, or Italians, but about the struggle of all immigrants as they try to reconcile (or assimilate, which is the word du jour) their customs, language and traditions with that of their new country.

Today, the new bogey man is the Mexican immigrant. Like the Irish, Jews, Italians and others before him, the Mexican is being portrayed as dirty, lazy, ignorant, and criminal. When he speaks the language of his birth country, or waves its flag, he is considered "un-American". I invite you to read the comments made about the Irish in the 1850s, the Germans in the 1860s, the Italians and Jews in the 1900s. The similarities are striking.

Does this mean I believe we should keep our borders open and unsecured? Absolutely not. Because the Irish, Jews, Italians, Poles and others had to come across the ocean to reach our shores, we always had the power to limit their numbers. In fact, we did just that when we virtually shut the door in 1920. We should be able to exercise the same power over Mexican immigrants, and others from Central and South America. The control of borders is a basic right of a sovereign nation.

So build the fence. As was done in the past, it is the people of the United States through their elected representatives who should decide how many immigrants we want to join us here in the greatest country in the world. But remember, the Mexicans who want to come here and work are just like the Irish and Italians and Jews and Poles and Scots and French and all the rest who created this country as we know it today. They will add their muscle, their brains, their cuisine, even words from their language into the melting pot of America. That is a very good thing, indeed.

The Security Council has taken the first step in what wil probably be a long process in dealing with the Iranian nuclear situation. The have issued a statement calling on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and to cooperate with the IAEA. The Iranians have been given 30 days to comply, and the IAEA will be the body that will determine if they are in compliance. I suspect that the Iranians will not cooperate, although they may persuade the Russians and Chinese that they are cooperating, which is all they need to prevent Security Council action. A British diplomat who helped create the sanctions regime against Iraq during the 1990s says sanctions might not work against Iran, even if the Security Council can get the votes to impose sanctions.

George Will states his position on the immigration issue in his column appropriately headlined, "Guard the Borders - And Face Facts, Too". I have long maintained that we must re-establish the rule of law on the borders, whether through the creation of a barrier, or some other means, but that we must also face the fact that we are not going to hunt down and deport 11 million people, many of whom have been here for years and have children who are American citizens. Will says essentially the same thing, and praises the President for standing up for the view that these 11 million people need to be assimilated into our country in a legal manner. While I understand the argument about rewarding illegal behavior, I still cannot get my mind wrapped around the consequences of chasing down those 11 million and deporting them. Let us close the border to prevent more from joining the 11 million, then deal with those folks in a humane manner.

David Warren in his new column continues on his theme about the conflict between Islam and the West. He has come to the conclusion that as long as Islam embraces Shariah, it is incompatible with our values.

Many weeks ago I called on the Democrats, if they want to win in November, to drop the "Bush lied, people died" narrative and adopt the "incompetence" narrative. I argued that while it might not be appealing to the rabid Left, it would be more likely to get swing voters to their side. The Democratic leadership in Congress has obviously come to the same conclusion and they are now rolling out their plans, portraying the GOP leadership as "dangerously incompetent". I think this is a winning strategy, since they will certainly retain the rabid left in the '06 elections (while they might still bolt to follow a true believer in '08), and now they have a good chance at swing voters who have traditionally been wary of the Democrats, especially on national security issues. This new Gallup poll seems to verify that the Democrats are gaining ground with this strategy.

The headline in the NYT says it all "Republican Split on Immigration Reflects Nation's Struggle". As a nation of immigrants (my ancestors came from Scotland, via Canada, as well as England and Germany) we are all naturally sympathetic to the efforts of people who wish to come to America and participate in the American dream. Yet, we also are a people who hold the rule of law in high regard. We want people to come here in a legal, orderly manner. We also don't want native-born Americans to lose jobs or find their earnings diminished because of competition from illegal immigrants. The GOP struggle on this issue is driven, in part, by these contradictions. But the political disconnect, which also impacts the Democrats, is driven more by the power of interest group politics than anything else. As Tony Blankley points out in his column in today's Washington Times, the public overwhelmingly supports tighter restrictions on immigration.

National polling data could not be more emphatic — and has been so for decades. Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80 percent of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72 percent in that poll don't even want illegals to be permitted to have driver's licenses). Time Magazine's recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75 percent favor "major penalties" on employers of illegals, 70 percent believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57 percent would use military force at the Mexican-American border. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59 percent opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71 percent would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls. An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92 percent saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress. Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73 percent of Republican and 77 percent of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation.

The prime reason why Democrat and Republican leaders are so out of touch with the mainstream public on this issue is that those leaders are supported by powerful interest groups that have an interest in maintaining the flow of legal and illegal immigrants. Business interests want a cheap labor pool. Hispanic interests want to serve their members and their families by building a larger power base to shape policy at the local and national levels. Republicans are beholden to business interests. Democrats are beholden to ethnically-based interest groups of all stripes.

The irony of this political conundrum is that there are powerful groups in both parties that should be fighting against any kind of amnesty or guest worker program. The Conservative base of the GOP is steadfastly against legalizing the illegals, and steadfastly for building a fence on the border. Ironically, a CNN anchor, Lou Dobbs, probably best expresses the outrage of that segment of the party, which may be driving his improving ratings. In the Democratic Party, the labor unions should be leading the charge against a guest worker program. As Paul Krugman points out in a recent column, illegal immigrants hold down wages at the low end of the scale.

...while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration - especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst- paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

Robert Samuelson made the point even more clearly in a column from last week.

Guest workers would mainly legalize today's vast inflows of illegal immigrants, with the same consequence: We'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking; many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate; many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished. Since 1980 the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line (about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has risen 162 percent. Over the same period, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3 percent and the number of blacks, 9.5 percent. What we have now -- and would with guest workers -- is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico.

And these are just the economic arguments in opposition to a guest worker program. There is also the question of terrorism. Our virtually open borders are an open invitation to terrorists to cross into the country for the next big attack. Unfortunately, I fear that because the labor unions appear unwilling to challenge the Democratic leadership and Conservatives are overpowered by the business interests in the GOP on this issue, the Congress will probably pass something unpalatable and unecessary. Will someone step forward and ride the tiger of anti-illegal immigration feeling to electoral success? He (or she) will be called a racist, and worse. But the political payoff could be enormous in 2008.

The talks to form a unity government in Iraq are on hold again after a raid by Iraqi/U.S. forces against a Shiite militia that was holding a hostage and allegedly had participated in revenge killings. The Sadr people are saying the raid was against a mosque. The U.S. military is denying the charge, saying that the bodies were moved into a mosque after the raid. Jack Kelly thinks the raid is significant in two ways...

If the Shia militias have become the number one security problem in Iraq, it is less because the threat they pose has grown than because that posed by Sunni "insurgents" has receded.
If Sunday's moves marked a concerted campaign against radical militias, "this indicates the U.S. and Iraqi army are calculating there is enough space to open a second front," said military blogger Bill Roggio.

Back on March 18th, StrategyPage reported that: "the U.S. has told Iran that the Iraqi Shia militias being supported by Iran (the Badr and Sadr organizations) are going to get taken apart soon, and Iran is well advised to back off when this happens."

"Al Qaida is beaten, and running for cover," StrategyPage said Sunday. "The Sunni Arab groups that financed thousands of attacks against the government and coalition groups are now battling al Qaida, each other, and Shia death squads."...

The Iraqi officials who criticized Sunday's raids are allies of al Jaafari. The incidents may break the deadlock over the formation of a new Iraqi government, by causing the single largest group in the UIA, the SCIRI, to break away and join Kurds, Sunnis, and secular Shia parties in making SCIRI leader Abdel Mahdi prime minister.

"One has to wonder if that wasn't by design," Bill Roggio said. "The Coalition has been telegraphing this move for some time."

Read the whole thing.

Michael Ledeen says that President Hindenburg...er...Ayatollah Khamenei is dying of cancer. Will President Ahmadinejad step up after his death?

Abdul Rahman has been released. His case has at least one Liberal columnist considering the implications of world-wide public reaction, and the silence of the Muslim world.

Robert Samuelson sees a case of denial in the latest French demonstrations against economic reform.

Immigration is the hot topic in Washington this week. Senator Specter has a bill he is trying to hammer out that would legalize the 11 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living and working in this country today. McCain and Kennedy have a similar bill, while the House has passed a much tougher bill. Let the sausage making continue.

There are reports that Abdul Rahman will be (or has already been) released. Apparently, authorities in Afghanistan are trying to determine if Rahman is mentally ill.

Strategypage has this analysis of the recent violence in Iraq...

Deaths from revenge killings now exceed those from terrorist or anti-government activity. Al Qaeda is beaten, and running for cover. The Sunni Arab groups that financed thousands of attacks against the government and coalition groups, are now battling each other, al Qaeda, and Shia death squads. It's not civil war, for there are no battles or grand strategies at play. It's not ethnic cleansing, yet, although many Sunni Arabs are, and have, fled the country. What's happening here is payback. Outsiders tend to forget that, for over three decades, a brutal Sunni Arab dictatorship killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia Arabs. The surviving victims, and the families of those who did not survive, want revenge. They want payback. And even those Kurds Shia Arabs who don't personally want revenge, are inclined to tolerate some payback. Since the Sunni Arabs comprise only about 20 percent of the population, and no longer control the police or military, they are in a vulnerable position.

This new pattern may explain the recent U.S./Iraqi action against the Sadr's militia.

Bill Crawford has another installment of his link-filled compendium of good news from Iraq.

Here is an interesting interview, via Instapundit, of the author Claire Berlinski, about the intellectual, social, economic and political ferment in Europe.

Charles Krauthammer makes a compelling argument as to why allowing the Iranians, under their current leadership, to acquire nuclear weapons is far more dangerous than the North Koreans (or anybody else, for that matter).

We're now at the dawn of an era in which an extreme and fanatical religious ideology, undeterred by the usual calculations of prudence and self-preservation, is wielding state power and will soon be wielding nuclear power.

We have difficulty understanding the mentality of Iran's newest rulers. Then again, we don't understand the mentality of the men who flew into the World Trade Center or the mobs in Damascus and Tehran who chant "Death to America"--and Denmark(!)--and embrace the glory and romance of martyrdom.

This atavistic love of blood and death and, indeed, self-immolation in the name of God may not be new--medieval Europe had an abundance of millennial Christian sects--but until now it has never had the means to carry out its apocalyptic ends.

That is why Iran's arriving at the threshold of nuclear weaponry is such a signal historical moment. It is not just that its President says crazy things about the Holocaust. It is that he is a fervent believer in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi'ism's version of the Messiah. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away. He reportedly told an associate that on the podium of the General Assembly last September, he felt a halo around him and for "those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink ... as if a hand was holding them there and it opened their eyes to receive" his message. He believes that the Islamic revolution's raison d'etre is to prepare the way for the messianic redemption, which in his eschatology is preceded by worldwide upheaval and chaos. How better to light the fuse for eternal bliss than with a nuclear flame?

Read the whole thing.

Time has this article about the Democrats putting together their plan to take control of Congress in November, and the Republicans still trying to figure out how to prevent that from happening. If the election were held today, the GOP would lose the House and might lose the Senate. Fortunately for them, the election won't be held today. Unfortunately for them, I don't see how the political atmosphere will change between now and then.

For many years, I have argued that the poor performance of young, black men taken as a group in nearly all social indicators (high school graduation rates, college degrees earned, income, incarceration rates, murder rates, etc.) is more about the prevailing culture than anything else. In the New York Times today, I read with interest this op-ed piece by Orlando Patterson, who is a professor of Sociology at Harvard, which takes to task his colleagues in the social sciences for their unwillingness to tackle the social angle of this problem, preferring instead to rely on the old economic arguments.

So what are some of the cultural factors that explain the sorry state of young black men? They aren't always obvious. Sociological investigation has found, in fact, that one popular explanation — that black children who do well are derided by fellow blacks for "acting white" — turns out to be largely false, except for those attending a minority of mixed-race schools.

An anecdote helps explain why: Several years ago, one of my students went back to her high school to find out why it was that almost all the black girls graduated and went to college whereas nearly all the black boys either failed to graduate or did not go on to college. Distressingly, she found that all the black boys knew the consequences of not graduating and going on to college ("We're not stupid!" they told her indignantly).

SO why were they flunking out? Their candid answer was that what sociologists call the "cool-pose culture" of young black men was simply too gratifying to give up. For these young men, it was almost like a drug, hanging out on the street after school, shopping and dressing sharply, sexual conquests, party drugs, hip-hop music and culture, the fact that almost all the superstar athletes and a great many of the nation's best entertainers were black.

Not only was living this subculture immensely fulfilling, the boys said, it also brought them a great deal of respect from white youths. This also explains the otherwise puzzling finding by social psychologists that young black men and women tend to have the highest levels of self-esteem of all ethnic groups, and that their self-image is independent of how badly they were doing in school.

I call this the Dionysian trap for young black men. The important thing to note about the subculture that ensnares them is that it is not disconnected from the mainstream culture. To the contrary, it has powerful support from some of America's largest corporations. Hip-hop, professional basketball and homeboy fashions are as American as cherry pie. Young white Americans are very much into these things, but selectively; they know when it is time to turn off Fifty Cent and get out the SAT prep book.

For young black men, however, that culture is all there is — or so they think. Sadly, their complete engagement in this part of the American cultural mainstream, which they created and which feeds their pride and self-respect, is a major factor in their disconnection from the socioeconomic mainstream.

Read the whole thing.

Finally, Mark Steyn always manages to get to the heart of the matter. He has argued (and I have agreed, along with many others) that the Rahman case in Afghanistan exposes the fault line between our conception of civilization and that of the Islamists. It also exposes the suicidal effects of the almost religious adherence to multiculturalism. For most rational people, it is clearly not acceptable to grant moral equivalency to a culture that would execute someone because of his religious convictions. Steyn takes our leaders to task for their unwillingness to call a spade a spade and take the necessary measures to combat the enemies of civilization. He longs for a time of greater moral clarity.

In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" -- the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:

''You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows.You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

India today is better off without suttee. If we shrink from the logic of that, then in Afghanistan and many places far closer to home the implications are, as the Prince of Wales would say, "ghastly."

Amen, brother.

The head of the IAEA, and Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei makes some very pointed criticisms of the U.N. Security Council in a speech delivered in Karlsruhe, Germany the other day. He points to the inability of the council to deal with genocidal situations like Rwanda and Darfur, as well as their lack of effectiveness when dealing with rogue states like Saddam's Iraq or Iran. He wants reform of the council, but the article doesn't get into what exactly he would like to see done, so while I agree with his criticisms, I can't comment on his proposed solutions.

President Talabani says he see progress in talks to form a government in Iraq.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Peter Pace says we are "a long way" from a military solution to the Iran problem.

Abdul Rahman may be released soon which, depending on the circumstances of his release, could take the heat off President Karzai (and President Bush).

In France, according to this front-page article in the Washington Post, there is a growing malaise as the nation faces riots, demonstrations, unemployment, and an economy that is barely growing. What they need is the French version of Ronald Reagan (although I doubt the electorate in France will ever choose such a person to lead them).

Go to the Weekly Standard site today and read all four of their most recent articles. Stephen Hayes writes about the terrorist training camps that were run by Saddam's henchmen, before they were closed down by the U.S. Marine Corps in 2003, Kristol and Kagan hope the President will not allow a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq, Henrik Bering writes about the growing realization in Denmark that they are now in the fight against Islamofascism, whether they like it or not, and Gerard Baker laments the political passing of Tony Blair because, while he might be wrong about many things, he "got the one big thing right".

As the examination of the documents captured when the Hussein government fell continues, more interesting tidbits are turning up. This ABC report examines a few of them, including some documents that point to contacts between Iraqi agents and Osama bin Laden in 1995. Potentially troublesome for the Bush Administration is the document that says the Russian Ambassador gave the Iraqis the coalition war plan just before the invasion in March, 2003. While the President has said he looked into "Putin's soul", he may have missed his dark heart. There is also a document that details some cooperation between Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraqi agents in planning for terrorist operations. Certainly, the release of these documents was long overdue.

Nina Shea writes about the Rahman case in Afghanistan. She is yet another person who warned, prior to its adoption, that the Afghan constitution's adoption of Sharia law would be problematic. If Rahman is executed, not only will that be a blow to religious freedom in Afghanistan, I think it will mark a devastating blow to the President's support here in the States. If Evangelical Christians begin to withdraw their support for the President and his foreign policy, especially the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then he will not have many supporters left.

Jay Bryant thinks the Rahman case may help the cause of defeating the Medieval barbarity of radical Islam.

What the case allows the West, and the moderates, to do is to give a name to the enemy, and the name is shari'a. Many Muslim nations have civil societies that are not run on the basis of shari'a, and historically, many others have been absolute models of tolerance - the Ummayad dynasty in Spain, for example, and the Abassids who founded the city of Baghdad. Both, in their day, were centers of learning that drew, and welcomed, scholars from Christendom as well as Islamia. And both, by the way, were overthrown by more radical Islamic movements - not by Christians.

The question thus becomes, which way is the current trend trending? In many ways, it seems the moderate Islamic states are on the defensive against the radicals. The Rahman case, by publicizing the most odious side of shari'a, will ultimately help move the trend in the right direction. Either the man will be martyred, or the authorities will have to back down. And if they back down, it will be clear that they, and the forces of radicalism and repression, have suffered a defeat.

Bryant thinks that Sharia will inevitably pass away. I wish I could be so optimistic.

This op-ed piece in the New York Times today examines the results of a poll that asked Americans about their foreign policy views and attitudes. Apparently, we are not necessarily becoming more isolationist, or more xenophobic. That is good news for the President.

Charles Krauthammer thinks Iraq is suffering through a civil war, but that it has always been so since the start of the insurgency.

David Ignatius thinks the President needs to find another way to get his message about Iraq across to the American people, because they aren't listening to the current message anymore. I think he is right.

UNCIVILIZED

The story of Abdul Rahman is beginning to seep into the American consciousness. Rahman is a Christian, currently under arrest in Afghanistan. He is charged with converting from Islam to Christianity. Under the laws of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that is a crime punishable by death. This has elicited cries of outrage from the left (the New York Times) and calls for his release from the right (the Washington Times). What is it all about?

It is not simply the case of a man caught up in a Taliban-style, radical, Islamofascist regime, or a man captured by radical, Islamofascist terrorists. This is the case of a man who is being held by a regime that was put into place by OUR troops (almost all of whom are, at least nominally, Christians). American fighting men and women sacrificed their lives to eject the Medieval barbarians of the Taliban to put into place the new government of Afghanistan. So, what does this say about our efforts?

It could mean, as Andrew McCarthy points out, that Sharia Law is barbaric.

Islam is the state religion of Afghanistan. The sharia presumptively governs whenever there is not an explicit law directly on point. There is no other law regarding apostasy, and in sharia regimes, apostasy from Islam is a capital offense. End of story...

You reap what you sow. What is happening in Afghanistan (and in Iraq) is precisely what we bought on to when we actively participated in the drafting of constitutions which, in a manner antithetical to the development of true democracy, ignored the imperative to insulate the civil authority from the religious authority, installed Islam as the state religion, made sharia a dominant force in law, and expressly required that judges be trained in Islamic jurisprudence. To have done all those things makes outrage at today's natural consequences ring hollow.

We can pull our heads up from the sand now and say, "No, no, no! We're nice people. We didn't mean it that way. That's too uncivilized to contemplate." But the inescapable truth is: the United States made a calculated decision that it wasn't worth our while to fight over Islamic law (indeed, we encouraged it as part of the political solution). People who objected (like moi) were told that we just didn't grasp the cultural dynamic at work. I beg to differ, we understood it only too well.

Islamic law does not consider conviction, imprisonment, or death for apostasy to be an affront to civilization. That's the way it is.

Thus, we run headlong into the clash about civilization that Tony Blair talked about in his speech which I quoted from below. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, and for President Bush, who will be seen by historians as having valiantly tried to limit this war, the Rahman case provides compelling evidence for those who believe that it is not just "Radical Islam" that is the problem, but Islam itself.

Bush and Blair have worked very hard to convince their populations that there is a difference between "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims". They have stated repeatedly that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Yet, the evidence continues to pile up to contradict this assertion.

Suzanne Fields, in a piece pointing out that the civil war is global, makes this point...

The clash of, by or about civilizations will trouble everyone who reads a newspaper, watches a television newscast or imbibes the Internet. Who among us has not been tempted to think that we in what we loosely call "the West" are under attack by barbarians, that what we've considered one of the world's great religions has become instead a conspiracy of violence, hijacked by madmen determined to build a bridge to the 12th century. Those widely published photographs of the "faithful in Iraq," cutting gashes in the top of their heads with long sabers as a penance of blood, merely inspires many of us to throw up our hands and wish that more of those faithful would only cut deeper, and let the rest of us get a little peace.

These are the images that, along with cases like that of Abdul Rahman, will only continue to build the conviction (that I think is growing here in America, at least) that the true problem is with Islam, not just radicals. This is a prescription for the wider war that I think is coming. This is why I believe Muslims should look at Bush and Blair as their best friends. They are trying to limit this war, to make distinctions between radicals and the rest. To use my favorite historical analogy, it is as if the leaders of Britain and France had decided to invade Germany in 1933 to eject Hitler and the Nazis from power before they were able to consolidate their position. If they had done so, there would have been death, destruction and a possible insurgency in Germany. But there would have been far fewer deaths than those that resulted, in reality, when the people of the Western Democracies could no longer afford to make the distinction between the Nazis and ordinary Germans.

I fear the wider war scenario is coming. As our leaders try to limit the war, they seem unable, through errors of omission and commission, to keep traditionally Muslim countries from coming under the ever-greater influence of the radicals. Were the Nazis simply the radical embodiment of the essence of being a German in the early 20th Century? Are the Islamofascists simply the embodiment of the true essence of Islam? If so, the day will come when the West, faced with a question of survival, will use all of its power against the radicals, and will, like WWII, no longer worry about distinguishing between the "good" Muslims and the "bad" ones.

Like the Germans of the 1930s, only the Muslims of today can prevent that scenario. Only they can prove that the Islamofascist vision is, indeed, a perversion of Islam, and not its essence.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair have come out swinging in defense of the Iraq War. Bush defended the policy in an hour-long news conference yesterday. His performance won the praise of the Washington Post editorial board. Blair was even more eloquent (as he always is) in a speech the other day.

This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other. And in the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain. We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us. Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy. It is just that; it is a policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong.

Even as these two stubborn and courageous men continue to defend their policy, they are left to face the fact that, as a political matter, they are speaking from a position of weakness. Poll numbers for both men are dismal. Their opponents are salivating at the prospect of handing their parties a resounding defeat at the next opportunity. Both men are hobbled by their Iraq policies so that they are no longer capable of pushing forward with any other initiatives. Why is this so? A majority of folks in Great Britain and the rest of Europe, and many here in America, have adopted an attitude that Blair himself identified in his speech.

It is in confronting global terrorism today that the sharpest debate and disagreement is found. Nowhere is the supposed "folly" of the interventionist case so loudly trumpeted as in this case. Here, so it is said, as the third anniversary of the Iraq conflict takes place, is the wreckage of such a world view. Under Saddam Iraq was "stable". Now its stability is in the balance. Ergo, it should never have been done.

This is essentially the product of the conventional view of foreign policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This view holds that there is no longer a defining issue in foreign policy. Countries should therefore manage their affairs and relationships according to their narrow national interests. The basic posture represented by this view is: not to provoke, to keep all as settled as it can be and cause no tectonic plates to move. It has its soft face in dealing with issues like global warming or Africa; and reserves its hard face only if directly attacked by another state, which is unlikely. It is a view which sees the world as not without challenge but basically calm, with a few nasty things lurking in deep waters, which it is best to avoid; but no major currents that inevitably threaten its placid surface. It believes the storms have been largely self-created.

This is the majority view of a large part of western opinion, certainly in Europe. According to this opinion, the policy of America since 9/11 has been a gross overreaction; George Bush is as much if not more of a threat to world peace as Osama bin Laden; and what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East, is an entirely understandable consequence of US/UK imperialism or worse, of just plain stupidity. Leave it all alone or at least treat it with sensitivity and it would all resolve itself in time; "it" never quite being defined, but just generally felt as anything that causes disruption.

This world view - which I would characterise as a doctrine of benign inactivity - sits in the commentator's seat, almost as a matter of principle. It has imposed a paradigm on world events that is extraordinary in its attraction and its scope. As we speak, Iraq is facing a crucial moment in its history: to unify and progress, under a government elected by its people for the first time in half a century; or to descend into sectarian strife, bringing a return to certain misery for millions. In Afghanistan, the same life choice for a nation, is being played out. And in many Arab and Muslim states, similar, though less publicised, struggles for democracy dominate their politics.

The effect of this paradigm is to see each setback in Iraq or Afghanistan, each revolting terrorist barbarity, each reverse for the forces of democracy or advance for the forces of tyranny as merely an illustration of the foolishness of our ever being there; as a reason why Saddam should have been left in place or the Taliban free to continue their alliance with Al Qaida. Those who still justify the interventions are treated with scorn.

Then, when terrorists strike in the nations like Britain or Spain, who supported such action, there is a groundswell of opinion formers keen to say, in effect, that it's hardly surprising - after all, if we do this to "their" countries, is it any wonder they do it to "ours"?

So the statement that Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine or indeed Chechnya, Kashmir or half a dozen other troublespots is seen by extremists as fertile ground for their recruiting - a statement of the obvious - is elided with the notion that we have "caused" such recruitment or made terrorism worse, a notion that, on any sane analysis, has the most profound implications for democracy.

He is absolutely right. Read the whole thing, and then ponder whether or not we in the West have the moral ability to truly prevail in this "long war", if we reject leaders like Bush and Blair.

LINCOLN DAY SPEECH

Last night I had the pleasure of speaking before the Strafford County (New Hampshire) Republican's Lincoln Day Dinner. It was a pleasant evening at The Oaks in Somersworth, NH. Senator John Sununu was the Keynote Speaker. Some folks requested that I post the text of my speech to my blog, so here it is.

First, I’d like to thank Bob Kroepel for inviting me to speak before you this evening. I got to know Bob when he ran for governor a few years back. It’s people like Bob, ordinary Americans who love their country and their community, who are the backbone of this country, and the backbone of the Republican Party.

Tonight we are enjoying the Lincoln Day dinner, so Bob asked me if I couldn’t weave in a bit about our first Republican president in my remarks tonight. Having just recently read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, an excellent book on the subject of Lincoln and the men who formed his Civil War cabinet, I think it would be very helpful in these troubled times to look back upon the life and political career of Lincoln, to see if we might not learn a thing or two to help guide us in our own journey.

When Lincoln came of political age the country was dominated by two parties, the Democrats and the Whigs. The Whigs had formed as a result of the smashing of the old National Republican Party by Andrew Jackson in 1832. That same year Lincoln, at the age of 23, ran for the Illinois state legislature. He lost. Not for the first time, Lincoln would rebound from that defeat and continue to persevere toward his goal of serving his country.

Lincoln was first drawn to the Whig Party because of its platform concerning internal improvements, something near and dear to many folks in what was then the developing frontier of America. The political dynamic of the time, as it is during most periods of American life, was dominated by the mundane issues of politics. Most surrounded the right and proper scope of government intervention into the economic life of the nation, things like tariffs, taxes, public works spending and the like. We are all familiar with these arguments, as we have been engaged in them all of our lives, as well.

Reading about Lincoln, what struck me was how this ordinary American, in fact, this ordinary American politician, was transformed into the epic figure we honor today. How is it that this man, who ran and lost as many times as he won elections, who was without a formal education, who was physically ungainly, even ugly, how is it that he became a great man?

The simple answer is that he was a man of his times. And his times were among the most turbulent, violent and consequential of all of American history. For Abraham Lincoln was part of a transformation, at least temporarily, of American politics from the art of deal-making over taxes, tariffs, and government spending, to a politics about the morality of keeping one group of human beings, because of their race, in bondage.

This is the difference between the times of ordinary politics, and extraordinary politics. During times of ordinary politics, elections are held, one party wins seats, another loses them. The next time around things change and the other party gains the upper hand. In between bills are passed and scandals erupt. But, all-in-all, life goes on in the ordinary way.

During times of extraordinary politics, the people of the nation are forced to grapple with existential questions, or questions of profound moral significance. During these times new political parties can be born, and others can fade away. During these times, men are unwilling to simply compromise and hope their side regains the upper hand at the next election. During these times, extraordinary things happen.

Abraham Lincoln lived through such times, and was killed by them. He participated in the formation of a new party, the Republican Party, when he organized the first Republican convention in Illinois in 1856 and became that state’s acknowledged Republican leader, and one of the leading Republicans in the nation.

The reason he did so was simple. Slavery. Here was an issue of profound moral significance. It couldn’t be wished away, or compromised away, although that was tried again and again throughout the early to mid nineteenth century. In fact, the Republican Party was formed as part of the reaction to what was then known as the "Nebraska bill", which is known to history as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and allowed the expansion of slavery into northern territories if the white men of those territories allowed it through the popular vote. This led to an outbreak of guerrilla war in Kansas, so violent that it became known as ‘Bloody Kansas’. Rival groups fought to gain the upper hand, not through ordinary politics, but through murderous violence.

Men like Lincoln could not abide the spread of something they found so morally objectionable as slavery, and the men of the south who favored slavery could not abide its containment fearing the likelihood that the ‘peculiar institution’ would die if it could not expand, and their cherished way of life would die with it.

Here was the collision of one group of people who saw a profound moral wrong, versus those who saw an existential threat. The compromises of ordinary politics could not handle the passions that were aroused by this collision, though men like Lincoln’s some-time friend and long-time rival Stephen A. Douglas tried mightily to do so.

Thus, the Republican Party was formed on the basis of the identification of a basic immorality in American life, and the effort to contain that immorality until it could pass away, which was the belief of Lincoln and many who made up that first group of Republicans.

Of course, you know the rest. Lincoln won the GOP nomination in 1860. The Democrats were split asunder by the slavery issue, with the compromiser Douglas winning their nomination, leading to the walkout of the southern delegates and the creation of a third party. That led to Lincoln’s victory in November, then the secession of the southern states, and the Civil War.

What can we learn from this that might help us in understanding the times we live in now? First, we must ask ourselves this question...are we living during times of ordinary politics, or extraordinary politics?

Again, to answer that, let’s look at history. Three events prior to the Civil War should have given people a clue that, after the Kansas-Nebraska Act, no more compromises were possible.
First, was the murderous violence that beset Kansas in the wake of the act. When people are living in ordinary political times, they don’t resort to violence to achieve their political goals. They scream, they shout, they call their opponents vile names, but they don’t resort to violence (except, of course, for the always present small groups of extremists or criminals).

Second, was the quick disintegration of the Whig Party and the birth and tremendous growth of the Republican Party. People don’t rally to third parties in this country in big numbers during ordinary times. Usually during ordinary times, third party movements are based on compelling individual personalities, like Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party in 1912 or Ross Perot’s Reform Party in 1992, but quickly fade when that personality leaves the scene. This did not happen in 1856. The Republican Party sprang up all over the North, with leading men in all the northern states dropping their prior affiliations to join the GOP.

Third, was that day in 1856 when young South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks came onto the floor of the U.S. Senate, strode up to the desk where Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was sitting writing a speech, and bludgeoned him nearly to death with a heavy cane. Sumner would live, though, according to Goodwin’s book, he suffered brain and spinal cord injuries that would keep him out of the Senate for three years. Brooks had objected to some vituperative language in an anti-slavery speech of Sumner’s directed at some southern colleagues, including Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina, who happened to be Brooks’ cousin.

What is really revealing about this episode is the differing reactions to the incident, North and South. In the North there was mass condemnation, in the South celebration and approval. The Governor of South Carolina awarded Brooks with a silver goblet and a new walking stick as a reward for his efforts.

When people are so polarized by their differences that not only do they look the other way when violence is perpetrated on behalf of their side, but they even reward the violence, then you know we’re living in extraordinary political times.

So, where does that leave us today? Clearly, we are polarized in many respects by our differences. Especially in the last ten years or so, we’ve been treated to harsh language, vitriolic condemnations, and what we now call ‘the politics of personal destruction’. But have we seen guerrilla war in any of our states? Is there a non-personality driven third party rising up in any of our states? Can we expect anytime soon to seen an American congressman bludgeon a U.S. senator, and be lauded for it in his home state and elsewhere?

Clearly, the answer is no. Internally, at least, while we are genuinely divided on a host of important issues, none are of such a profoundly moral or existential nature to the majority of Americans that they are willing to fight and, especially, kill over it.

This, of course, is the perception held by the majority. There are minorities of Americans who believe we are dealing with profoundly moral issues, like abortion, or gay marriage, or animal rights, or global warming. There are plenty involved in each of those issues who believe no compromise is possible. But none carries the kind of national gravity that slavery did. Very few people see their way of life threatened, even if they feel strongly about one or more of those issues. Even fewer are willing to take up arms and kill their political opponents over these issues, if any.

But, it is wise to remember that this can change at any time. The attacks of 9/11 demonstrated that fact as clearly as anything can. In fact, the current struggle with the Islamists is still being fought within the boundaries of political normalcy. Americans go about their daily lives with very little disruption caused by the war. I haven’t had my taxes raised, as I would expect to in an existential struggle. I haven’t seen my friends drafted and gone off to the war, as I would expect in an existential struggle, I haven’t seen shortages, or really feared for the safety of my wife and children. I haven’t seen old political grudges and tactics submerged to help meet the threat, as I would expect to see in an existential struggle.

Mark my words, we are in an existential struggle. In the 1850s Americans watched as the evidence piled up that the politics of normalcy had ended, yet many, perhaps most, could not see it. Even after the rise of the GOP, the guerrilla war in Kansas, the beating of Charles Sumner on the floor of the senate, John Brown’s raid on the Federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry to provide arms for a slave revolt, and Brown’s subsequent hanging. Even after the walkout of the southern delegates from the Democratic convention over the nomination of Douglas, many Americans could not believe that the old rules no longer applied. It was only after the southern states seceded and the guns began bombarding Fort Sumter that Americans realized that they were in a war. Even then, many resisted the thought that it was a fight to the finish until confronted by the growing casualty lists from places like Shiloh, Antietam and Gettysburg.

I think we are living in similar times. While we play our old political games and pretend everything is normal the fight is growing larger and more deadly all across the world. Our enemies suffered setbacks when they lost their bases in Afghanistan. The jury is still out whether or not the battle for Iraq will go in our favor or our enemies. While some on the left talk incessantly about impeaching the president and some on the right talk about overturning Roe v. Wade, and the mainstream media obsesses about whether the Vice-President should have told them sooner he accidentally shot a hunting partner on a Texas ranch, our enemies are still planning and working to ensure our defeat.

Will we wake up? If we are really facing an existential threat, as I believe we are, then inevitably the evidence will make itself known. What form that evidence will take no one can know. It could be the revolutionary overthrow of a friendly Middle Eastern government by the Islamists. More likely, it could be the disruption of oil supplies from the Gulf, sparking an economic crisis. Of course, it could also take the form of a nuclear, chemical or biological attack here at home.

However it happens, whenever it happens, Americans will demand that our political leaders set aside ordinary politics and engage in the extraordinary politics required to meet the threat. Let us hope that when that happens, an ordinary American will rise up, like Abraham Lincoln did, and prove to his contemporaries and his posterity that he is an extraordinary politician, and an extraordinary man.

Thanks again to the folks in the Strafford County GOP for inviting me.

As I have written repeatedly in this space, the Russians and Chinese will not stand firm with the U.S., U.K., France and Germany regarding Iran's nuclear program. This morning's story about the talks going on by diplomats at the U.N. confirms my point.

This op-ed piece in the New York Times argues that the only way to get international cooperation in dealing with Iran is for the U.S. to forget about regime change in Iran and deal directly with the government in Teheran. I would find it difficult to deal with a government that loudly expresses the view that they wish to "wipe off the map" one of our allies.

Via the Weekly Standard website, here is an article about the possibility that Iran is harboring al Qaeda terrorists. If that is true, doesn't that mean we should demand that Iran turn them over or we declare war? Oh, I forgot. The Bush Doctrine is more about rhetoric than reality.

You may have heard about this story, which I encourage you to read. Apparently, the military is investigating an allegation about U.S. Marines killing old men, women and children after their convoy was hit by an IED in Iraq. I am very skeptical. Based on the accounts in the story, these people were shot to death, some while lying in their beds. I find it difficult to believe that U.S. Marines would deliberately shoot small children. Marines (and soldiers) in our professional, volunteer military are highly trained about the rules of engagement. While mistakes can happen, this seems more slow and deliberate, as opposed to those instances when soldiers mistakenly killed civilians who were approaching checkpoints in speeding vehicles, for instance. Let us hope there is a thorough investigation (although I'm sure you military-hating folks out there are already smugly satisfied that this validates you opinion of the criminal nature of our military establishment).

Christopher Hitchens writes about the continued necessity for defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, and the consequences of failure.

President Bush, speaking before an audience in Cleveland yesterday, cited the tactics used in pacifying the Iraqi border town of Tall Afar, which had been taken over by al Qaeda, as a great success. One day later, the MSM is reporting that Tall Afar is really a failure.

Jack Kelly points out how the distortion of reality in Iraq by the MSM is caused by the MSM's laziness, and unwillingness to make the effort to understand how our military works.

My friend Bill Roggio, an Army veteran and Web logger who was embedded with U.S. Marines in Iraq last fall, was a guest Saturday on a segment of the CNN show "On the Story." The topic was news coverage from Iraq.

Mr. Roggio gave the media a D+. Reporting often is inaccurate, usually lacks context, and often aids al Qaida, he said...

The latest example of what bugs Bill has been the coverage of a U.S.-Iraqi operation which began Thursday with an air assault...

"The reporting on Operation Swarmer is a microcosm of the sub-par reporting on the Iraq war," Mr. Roggio said. "Events are immediately placed into a political context. Commentary is often mixed in with reporting. There is little understanding of operational intent or how the military even works. Operations are viewed as individual events, and not placed in a greater context. Failure and faulty assumptions are the baselines for coverage and analysis. Success is arbitrarily determined by a reporter or editor's biases. The actions of the U.S. and Iraqi military are viewed with suspicion and even contempt."

CNN correspondent Abbi Tatton implied that because Bill is a former soldier, his view is biased. "Are you not too close to this to be objective yourself?" she asked.

Consider the implications of this attitude. Would a reporter who is a lawyer (such as Fox News' Megyn Kendall) be considered biased in covering the courts simply because she actually knows something about the law? Would a reporter who is a doctor (such as CNN's Sanjay Gupta) be considered biased simply because he actually knows something about medicine? Yet news organizations consider it proper to have our wars covered by people who are unclear about from which end of the rifle the round comes.

Read the whole thing.

Will democracy cure the ills of the Middle East? This article, about the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, is evidence that skepticism is warranted.

Bill Crawford continues to provide an invaluable service in countering the unrelenting drumbeat of negative news out of Iraq that is reported by the MSM. Crawford posts a link-filled article on the latest good news out of Iraq. He admits that he is providing a one-sided view, but argues that it is designed specifically to counter the one-sided view provided by the MSM (who won't admit that their view is one-sided). It is a shame that the majority of the American people aren't getting a two-sided view of Iraq. At least, unlike during the Vietnam War, that other side is available to anyone who wishes to spend the extra time needed to find it.

Strategypage has an informative post on the latest conditions in Iraq.

Here is an article about how the people inside the Pentagon are dealing with what they are now calling the "long war".

Some stories are now getting into the MSM that have been gleaned from the recently released documents captured after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government. Here is an article about a letter, signed by Hussein, authorizing the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds.

The Prime Minister of Iraq writes an op-ed piece for the Washington Post explaining his vision for Iraq.

The Marine Corps has now joined Special Operations Command.

Hamas has put together a cabinet for the Palestinian Authority government. It is expected that President Abbas will approve the list and it will be confirmed by the new PA parliament. Hamas will not recognize Israel, but they are attempting to use some vague language to get around the consequences of their position.

The leadership of the Democratic Party have a problem dealing with the Feingold censure proposal. Barry Casselman says that isn't their real problem.

If you read the MSM, you know that American soldiers engage in torture, when they are not flying reporters into the midst of ineffective operations that are more photo-ops than anything else. The constant drumbeat of articles like these has inevitably led to the depressed support for the Iraq War. In all wars one finds tremendous courage, and inexcusable cowardice. One sees brilliant efficiency, and hopeless ineptitude. One sees compassion, and cruelty. The reason we need censorship and propaganda in a long war is to insulate the people from the cowardice, ineptitude and cruelty that are inevitably a part of the combat narrative, so that they continue to support the troops in the field and the domestic sacrifices necessary to achieve victory. Read any history of World War II and you will see numerous examples of American ineptitude (the term SNAFU was invented by American GIs of that war, after all). There were also occasional episodes of cowardice (Kasserine Pass) and numerous episodes of cruelty (fire-bombing of Japanese cities, and the like). Almost all of these things were kept from the American people by the military censors. It was necessary for the public to maintain its belief that WE were the good guys and the Nazis and the Japs were the bad guys. While, granted, that was more easily done in the wake of Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war a few days later, it was still necessary to maintain high morale on the home front. Of course, this was not done in Vietnam, and its not being done for the Iraq War. The drop in support for the war over time is the result. This limits the President's options, and makes defeat more likely.

George Will has a bleak view of how things are going in Iraq. Fareed Zakaria still sees signs of success.

While a small Vermont town that voted, along with some others, to encourage their congressman to file a bill of impeachment against the President faces a backlash for their actions, the leaders of the Democratic Party are busy honing their strategy for the upcoming election. While the folks at the grass roots are fixated on "Bush lied, people died", the leaders are determined to make the '06 elections a referendum on the incompetence of the Bush Administration (a strategy I have recommended in the past as their best chance to take control of Congress). Fred Barnes thinks the GOP needs to head off this strategy by changing the subject. Rather than hold a referendum election on the deficiencies of the administration, the election should be about a choice between individuals. Which would you prefer, Speaker Hastert or Speaker Pelosi? Senate Majority Leader Frist or Reid? Do you want Conyers, Kennedy and Clinton running major congressional committees? I think this is the best strategy for the GOP to follow. Unfortunately, the MSM will be doing everything in their power to make the news follow the incompetence theme. Truly, this '06 election will determine whether or not the MSM is still the king-making power in the land, or if the power has diffused into the blogosphere, talk radio and the other alternative media.

Pat Buchanan has some thoughts about Republican prospects for '06.

Richard Reeves explains why he thinks Iran wants the bomb. He also, perhaps without realizing it, points out the major disconnect between the administration (and its supporters) and its opponents.

President Bush, judging from the 49-page National Security Strategy, seems to have learned no lesson, including the fact that America is not really at war. The government and its volunteer military and the new brand of privatized paramilitary corporations are at war. But the whole thing is just television to most of the citizenry -- at least, those who do not have servicemen and women in the family, or do not have a financial stake in keeping this thing going.

This is the key that explains the depth of the division in this country today. I believe we are at war, as does the President and millions of other Americans. But millions more, like Reeves, believe we are not. I have always believed that this division was avoidable, if only the President had asked Congress in the days after 9/11 to issue a declaration of war against Al Qaeda. If he had then asked Congress for a resumption of the draft, and economic measures to wean us off imported oil, he would have made Americans share in the sacrifices necessary to wage a global war. He did not. Therefore, as time has passed, millions of Americans have come to the perfectly logical conclusion that we are not at war, especially since the enemy hasn't hit us here at home since 9/11. Those who believe we should have treated 9/11 not as an act of war but, rather, as a criminal act, have seen their credibility rise with each administration mis-step and miscalculation. It is the greatest failure of the President, and one that may be seen by future historians as the reason to condemn him to the bottom rung of Presidential ratings.

William F. Buckley has some thoughts about our options concerning Iran.

Iranian and U.S. officials are set to begin talks on the situation in Iraq, and Iran's role in either making it better or worse. The talks will be led by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Khalilzad, who speaks Farsi (the language of Iran). Arnaud de Borchgrave says he hopes the two countries will enter into secret talks to formulate some kind of deal averting a nuclear Iran. Obviously, he favors this approach because, as Richard Halloran points out, the options for dealing with a potentially nuclear-armed Iran are all bad. Any deal would have to include the Israelis (by itself, that would require secrecy). If a deal is possible, one has to hope that President Ahmadinejad isn't a nutcase, which isn't at all clear at this time.

The left-wing of the Democratic party is always the most powerful force when choosing their nominee (at least since 1972), but this year they seem to be even more influential, especially because of the rise of left-wing bloggers and other grass roots activists. The leading contenders for the '08 nomination have noticed, and are actively seeking left-wing support. But, in the wake of the Democratic power structure's reaction to the Feingold censure proposal, E.J. Dionne wonders if they can really play this game. Dean Barnett has read a new book written by the two leading leftist bloggers, and while he thinks they have diagnosed correctly the problems of the party, he doesn't think they have the solution. I think the biggest problem facing the democrats is that this is a center-right country. If they highlight their leftist base too brightly, they risk alienating swing voters, even though those voters may be greatly dissatisfied with GOP leadership in Congress and the White House.

Saddam Hussein is urging Iraqis to unite. No, he hasn't joined the Bush administration. He wants Iraqis to unite against the foreign invaders (that would be us, not Al Qaeda). The judge eventually shut off his microphone. More and more I wish that American soldier had just thrown a grenade down that spider hole.

The Bush Administration still backs its pre-emptive war to remove Hussein, and argues that Iran is now the greatest danger facing America.

David Ignatius is expressing some optimism about how things are shaping up in talks to form a new government in Iraq. James Hoagland thinks Prime Minister Al Jafari is still in the fight to retain his office. None of this makes any difference when it comes to public opinion here in the U.S., as David Broder points out in this column about the President's latest effort to bolster support for the Iraq War.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban are conducting a terror campaign to prevent girls from going to school. I wonder if NATO, which is assuming responsibility for the southern part of the country where most of this activity is going on, will have the stones (and the capability) to put an end to it.

The ever controversial Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci has a new book which posits the theory that there has been a conspiracy of European leftists and Islamists to help bring about the reality of Eurabia. Brendan Bernhard writes about it in LA Weekly. I especially like this passage:

Fallaci is not the first person to ponder the rapidity of the ongoing Muslim transformation of Europe. As the English travel writer Jonathan Raban wrote in Arabia: A Journey Through the Labyrinth (1979), in the mid-1970s Arabs seemed to arrive in London almost overnight. “One day Arabs were a remote people … camping out in tents with camels … the next, they were neighbors.” On the streets of West London appeared black-clad women adorned with beaked masks that made them look “like hooded falcons.” Dressed for the desert (and walking precisely four steps ahead of the women), Arab men bestrode the sidewalks “like a crew of escaped film extras, their headdresses aswirl on the wind of exhaust fumes.”

Writers far better acquainted with the Muslim world than Raban have been equally perplexed. In 1995, the late American novelist Paul Bowles, a longtime resident of Tangier, told me that he could not understand why the French had allowed millions of North African Muslims into their country. Bowles had chosen to live among Muslims for most of his life, yet he obviously considered it highly unlikely that so many of them could be successfully integrated into a modern, secular European state.

Perhaps Bowles would have been interested in this passage from Fallaci’s book: “In 1974 [Algerian President] Boumedienne, the man who ousted Ben Bella three years after Algerian independence, spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations. And without circumlocutions he said: ‘One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.’ ”

Such a bald statement of purpose by a nation’s president before an international forum seems incredible. Yet even in British journalist Adam LeBor’s A Heart Turned East (1997), a work of profound, almost supine sympathy for the plight of Muslim immigrants in the West, a London-based mullah is quoted as saying, “We cannot conquer these people with tanks and troops, so we have got to overcome them by force of numbers.” In fact, such remarks are commonplace. Just this week, Mullah Krekar, a Muslim supremacist living in Oslo, informed the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten that Muslims would change Norway, not the other way around. “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes,” he said. “By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim.”

At what point, I wonder, will the Muslim population reach the critical mass that will allow them to take control of the organs of government in these countries? Will the native populations reach a point where they recognize their own extinction is on the horizon? If so, how will they react? Fallaci, by the way, now lives in New York.

As soon as I heard the story this morning that the Iraqi government had foiled a plot by Al Qaeda terrorists to infiltrate the Green Zone in Baghdad and storm the U.S. embassy, I thought of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. James S. Robbins thought the exact same thing, and writes about it on the NRO website.

Then, 19 VC sappers blew a hole in the wall surrounding the embassy grounds and shot down the guards inside the gate. A sharp firefight ensued, and enemy forces failed to occupy the embassy proper; but early erroneous reports, relayed by Asoociated Press reporter Peter Arnett, credited the VC with taking the first floor of the building. Moreover, while the attackers had been either killed or captured within hours of the assault, film of the attack ran and reran on network news programs, giving the impression of a much more significant action. Furthermore, the press quickly credited the enemy with a “psychological victory,” even though they had failed even to come close to meeting their military objectives. In this respect, the Embassy attack was a microcosm of the entire Tet Offensive.

The current crop of terrorists well understand the Tet dynamic. Al Qaeda has frequently made mention of Vietnam as a model for the type of victory they are seeking, a blow to the American will that results in demoralization at home and withdrawal of the troops. In the same vein, they also make mention of Mogadishu 1993 and Beirut 1983. Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz famously posited a “trinity” essential for the successful prosecution of war — synchronization between three necessary elements; the fighting forces, the political leadership, and the national will. The terrorists realize they cannot defeat our military, nor sway our (current) leaders, so they seek to strike at our only vulnerability, our national commitment to continue to prosecute the struggle.

Read the whole thing. He is absolutely right to believe that the terrorists well understand that the only way to defeat us is to break our national will. The only way to break our national will is to use our own MSM to bombard us with disheartening, defeatist images day after day, as in Vietnam, to create the political atmosphere that will ensure the election of those who would order our retreat.

Here are a couple of opinions about Iraqi unity, a theme President Bush has added to his speeches recently. This one predicts an Iraq that looks a lot like Lebanon, and this one gives some of the history of Iraq and analyzes some of the calls for partition of the country into three pieces.

The Israelis took another step toward a confrontation with the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority by raiding a Palestinian-run prison to seize some prisoners implicated in the assasination of an Israeli cabinet minister some years back. Could this just be a harbinger of a more widespread confrontation to come?

The Wall Street Journal hopes that the recent effort by Senator Feingold to censure the President will lead to a real debate about the Democrats' impeachment agenda. Don't hold your breath waiting for that debate to break out. The MSM will not report on it, and Democratic leaders like Kerry, Clinton, Reid et. al. will avoid it like the plague. Of course, if the Democrats win control of Congress, impeachment proceedings will begin in earnest.

The government may have blown the Moussaoui death penalty case. More government incompetence that makes us look like we can't get our act together in fighting this war. On the bright side, even if they can't get the death penalty, Moussaoui will still do life in prison without parole. Still, for me (and, my guess is, the average American), if we can't execute the only living suspect tied to 9/11 after he has been justly convicted by a jury, then how can we expect to win this war?

Some inside Iran are unhappy with President Ahmadinejad, according to this story in the Washington Times. I hope it is true. Even if it is, I know that in 1933 there were quite a few people in Germany who were unhappy with their Chancellor but, as everyone knows, they weren't able to translate that unhappiness into regime change. Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator yet but, then again, neither was Chancellor Hitler in 1933.

H.D.S. Greenway says Iranian meddling is having an impact in Iraq.

If there is any question why the Israelis fear a nuclear Iran, this column, based on the personal experience of a Jewish reporter who traveled through the country and talked to some top officials, should settle the matter.

Here is a ringing defense of the decision to invade Iraq, and a vitriolic condemnation. It appears, even after three years has passed, both sides still cling to their pre-conceived notions. Unfortunately for the President, here in America the people who were initially in favor of the invasion if it was quick and decisive, long ago grew tired of this war. Those who wanted to stay the course have slowly, one by one, dropped into the "let's get out" column. It is the same pattern seen in public opinion about the wars in Korea and Vietnam. Initial solid support, followed by a slow erosion when more and more Americans could no longer envision a traditional victory. This process, of course, is exacerbated by the media's biased and inaccurate reporting from Iraq. Ralph Peters lists the myths being peddled by the MSM about Iraq, having recently spent time in the country. I have long believed that the only way America can win a long war in the modern age is by using censorship and propaganda. Without it, we have seen how public support for a long war (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) is slowly eroded by the images common to all wars, and by the incessant appetite of the MSM for highlighting the mistakes and failures of the military and the administration. Only the stubbornness of George W. Bush, having successfully won re-election in '04, will keep the course steady through the rest of his term (although it will be made more difficult if the Democrats win control of Congress in November).

David Keene speculates about that very possibility in this column. He is trying to be optimistic that the GOP can hold back the tide, but suspects that he is thinking like the Democrats did in the Spring of '94.

In Boston, there is a big controversy about the decision of Catholic Charities to stop doing adoptions because of a state law that prohibits discrimination against gay couples wishing to adopt children. Here is one argument for allowing the Catholic Church to be exempt from the law (which won't happen, by the way), and another argument against their position (which won't change, by the way).

The New York Times supports an effort to circumvent the Electoral College in Presidential elections. I've never liked the Electoral College, as much as I hate to agree with the NYT.

Robert Samuelson thinks the rejection of the Dubai Ports World deal was all about political demagoguery, and has damaged the nation's reputation among friendly Arabs, who we need to
help combat the unfriendly ones.

Finally, my interest in the concept of 'demography as destiny' was piqued by this headline; "The Liberal Baby Bust". Check it out.

The Jihadists are making more threats against America on their websites. They say they are planning two "big" operations, one bigger than the other, and are just awaiting the 'go' order from Osama. I think they have made these threats on their websites before, so I don't know if these threats should be taken seriously. Presumably, they have never given up their desire to strike us again here at home, which is why the Department of Homeland Security was created, the Patriot Act was passed (and renewed), the screening of airport passengers and baggage was federalized, and so on. I have long maintained that there were only two plausible explanations for why they didn't hit us again here at home after 9/11. One, they have tried and failed, perhaps multiple times. Two, they have deliberately paused their efforts. If they were smart, they would refrain from attacking us here at home. Right now the American people are divided by the war in Iraq. A major attack here at home would only serve to rally Americans behind the President, who might even take some of the more radical steps I advocated right after 9/11 (a large increase in the size of the military, asking Congress for a declaration of war against Al Qaeda, etc.). I don't think they are very smart, though, so I suspect that they haven't hit us because they have been foiled in their efforts.

Here is an interesting piece from the Boston Globe about how Al Qaeda has reorganized in Iraq. Apparently, Zarqawi is no longer the head man in their operations in Iraq. According to this piece, they are setting up the preliminary political structure for the eventual takeover of the country.

The National Guard is seeing an upsurge in recruiting, according to this story from the Washington Post. It seems a financial incentive program, which gives cash to guard members who bring in new recruits, is the main reason. Still, it is amazing that in the midst of an unpopular war any branch of the military could see an increase in the number of people willing to serve.

Jack Kelly slams the MSM for the way they are reporting war-related news, almost always in a negative way.

An Iranian official is now threatening to use oil as a weapon against the West if the UN Security Council imposes sanctions. The Russians are trying to set up a meeting in Vienna to get the US, UK, France, Germany and China along with the head of the IAEA at the same table to come up with something to head of council action. I won't hold my breath waiting for any tough action anytime soon.

Here is a piece in the NY Times Magazine about the prospects for a Democratic repeat of the GOP landslide of 1994 in the upcoming November elections. A good analysis that roots out the fundamental problem for the Democrats, which is that the US is, fundamentally, a center-right country.

Members of the UN Security Council are talking about what kind of statement they want to make to Iran regarding their nuclear program. As I expected, the Russians are resisting anything really firm, or any measures that would have any bite. The Chinese appear willing to go along with the Russians. Meanwhile, on a separate matter, the European Union is talking tough with regards to Hamas. What I find interesting about both stories is how different things are now than they were in 2003. It seems as if the diplomatic rift between the US/UK on the one hand and France/Germany on the other is gone. Britain, France and Germany, with only minor semantic differences in their speech-making, are standing together with the United States in resisting the Iranian regime's drive to obtain nuclear weapons, and in their insistence that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist. While this is certainly due in part to the fact that the Bush Administration has moved much closer to the European view on diplomacy regarding Iran, it also may be due to the fact that the Europeans are staring into the abyss of Islamist fanaticism on their own continent. They have seen social disorder in France, terrorist bombings in Spain and Great Britain, the murder of a filmmaker in the Netherlands, European embassies and consulates attacked and burned over some cartoons, and the existence of terrorist cells throughout the continent. They are on the front lines in this 'long war', and they know it. While they no doubt still believe the Iraq invasion was a mistake, they also know that they cannot afford to stand idly by while the Islamists grow in boldness and power. Can they overcome 50 years of military dependency on the United States and begin to build, intellectually as well as physically, a force that can be a major partner in the defeat of the Islamofascists? Time will tell.

Inside the Muslim world, a Syrian-American psychiatrist has sparked some much needed debate about the role of Islam in the violence that has roiled the region and the world. Dr. Wafa Sultan's story made it to the front-page of the New York Times this morning, after she spoke out against the barbarism practiced by so many in the name of Islam in a pair of TV interviews on Al Jazeera. This, of course, has led to her condemnation as a heretic by some, and death threats. I previously wrote about her on Saturday, March 4th after reading David Warren's column about those interviews. We can only win this 'long war' with the help of Muslims who take their religion back from those who have used it as justification for barbarity and violence.

A Harris poll shows that Americans have more confidence in the military than any other institution in American life. Which institutions do they have the least confidence in? Congress and law firms.

Read this Max Boot (reporting from Iraq) piece in the Weekly Standard and you'll get an idea about why Americans hold the men and women in our military in such high regard.

Bowing to political reality the folks at Dubai Ports World pulled the plug on their takeover of commercial operations at some American ports. I'm not surprised. After that 60-2 vote in a House committee the other day the handwriting was on the wall. Congress was going to block the deal, probably with a veto-proof majority. It is a big defeat for the President, not because he was a big advocate of the deal (he was informed of the deal only when the media began reporting it), but because he strongly came out in defense of the deal, even threatening a veto, and his own party ran away from him like scalded dogs. I think we can officially say that the President is politically weak and may be only a few months away from being a complete lame-duck (if the Democrats regain control of Congress in the November elections). This is very bad news for a country at war.

David Ignatius says the deal was pulled off the table when Karl Rove decided it couldn't be supported. He says the UAE is a good ally and getting better, and that this whole controversy is very bad for our reputation in the Middle East.

The spiritual leader of Iran is weighing in on the nuclear controversy, essentially backing up the earlier statements made by members of his government. Of course, the Ayatollah is really the political power in the land as well as the spiritual power, so this is not surprising.

The Pentagon has a plan to deal with a civil war in Iraq, should it come to that. Charles Krauthammer thinks the Kurds may be the faction that can break the political logjam and get an Iraqi government in place, which would go a long way toward keeping the nation from descending into a civil war.

Finally, on a lighter note, all true Sopranos fans (like me) can rejoice. After more than a year and a half of waiting, the mob drama will resume on Sunday night at 9 PM on HBO. The new season is getting good reviews. Here is the view from the left (the New York Times) and the right (the Weekly Standard). All parts of the political spectrum can agree, the Sopranos kicks ass.