Target Centermass

Author: Gunner

  • Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would Look

    Well, at least it’s safe to say that putting the latest musings from Ralph Peters into practice would certainly make the recent Texas congressional redistricting brouhaha look like a fun-filled day at the state fair, complete with funnel cakes and corndogs for all.

    International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

    The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa’s borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally [my note: great freakin’ line].

    While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region’s comprehensive failure isn’t Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.

    As I’ve repeatedly stated, I have long found the efforts of Mr. Peters to be worth highlighting, either for their thoughtful nature, actual value or intriguing look at possible futures. With the above intro, Mr. Peters launches into a bold area — a one-man redrawing of the national borders currently found in the cauldron that is the Middle East. Indeed, he even creates some new countries, though not with the arbitrary capriciousness that led to many of the current borders. Here are his before and after maps, though I do highly recommend reading the article for a wealth of reasoning and history.

    Is the plan realistically feasible? Quite possibly yes, with the hopes of a very positive global effect. Is the actual implementation of the plan realistically feasible? Probably not without a vast degree of bloodshed — and maybe even radiation — in the region, which would probably require an entirely new drawing of the map based on surviving populations.

    Hat tip to CDR Salamander, who rightly calls out Mr. Peters for cheesing out on the following tidbit:

    But the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained with thousands of years of blood, may prove intractable beyond our lifetimes. Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate tycoon, literal turf battles have a tenacity unrivaled by mere greed for oil wealth or ethnic squabbles. So let us set aside this single overstudied issue and turn to those that are studiously ignored.

    I’m going to have to side with Salamander here, as it is quite the cop-out when included in such a broad vision. After all, the West Bank and the Palestinians have historically been a wee bit of an issue, somewhat of a speedbump on the roadmap to peace. Tom Clancy had an idea: let the supposedly-neutral Swiss Guards handle the multi-religion holy ground juncture that is Jerusalem. I have another idea: let’s go really neutral. The Swiss Guards can monitor the transit points into and out of Jerusalem, a truly neutral party — like say a committee of Bhuddist monks — can administer the city, and the Brothers Earp and Doc Holliday can keep the Jerusalem clean of weapons.

    Hey, I’m just brainstorming.

  • Katrinalash

    These last few days have brought us an onslaught of Hurricane Katrina coverage to mark the one-year anniversary of the storm. I’ve taken shelter on ESPN.

    Still, there’s that old saying, something about a picture’s value and whole mess of words. Hat tip to Lex for pointing me toward this WSJ editorial, but all that’s really needed is the graphic.

    That, folks, is a federal response to a disaster that has been overwhelmingly exploited for political purposes.

  • Because Everybody Needs Their Own Motivation

    Here’s a fun little tool to help you create your own motivational poster. My effort is below (click to embiggen):

    Motivating your ass off since 2004

    Special note: yes, those are Apaches flying over the Texas A&M University campus.

  • Nothing Tonight

    I’ve been fairly tied up with chores around the house and I’m really not in the mood for this hobby. Perhaps this would be another good time to plug the many fine sites on my blogroll.

    See y’all tomorrow.

  • Hamas Figure Slams Gaza ‘Anarchy’

    Is there finally a voice of reason rising among the decades-old din of Palestinian victimization?

    The Gaza Strip is in the grip of anarchy and Palestinians must stop blaming Israel for all their problems, a senior Hamas figure has said.

    Ghazi Hamad, chief spokesman for the Hamas government, said the hope that followed Israel’s pull-out last year had been replaced with “a nightmare”.

    Gaza is at the mercy of thugs, he said, and pleaded for an end to deadly clan rivalries. “Let Gaza breathe,” he said.

    Such frank self-criticism is rare among Palestinian leaders, analysts say.

    Mr Hamad’s comments came in an article, which was published in Palestinian newspapers on Monday.

    He said they were his own views and did not represent the position of his government.

    “I am not interested in discussing the ugliness and brutality of the occupation because it is not a secret. Instead, I prefer self-criticism and self evaluation,” Mr Hamad wrote.

    He said life in Gaza City now involved “unimaginable chaos, careless policemen, young men carrying guns and strutting with pride, and families receiving condolences for their dead in the middle of the street.”

    And he was also critical of militants who fire crudely-made rockets into Israel, saying ordinary Palestinians paid a high price when Israel responded militarily to such attacks.

    Mr Hamad said Gazans should stop laying the blame for their mistakes at the door of the Israeli occupation.

    “Our extreme joy at their departure made us forget the most important question: What is our next step?” he went on.

    Will the publications of such statements by Mr. Hamad signal the end of his career, the end of his life or the end of a pathetic culture that has placed all problems at the feet of the Jews while achieving nothing but blood? Well, I’ll wait for a casket or several more voices joining the chorus before I believe other than Mr. Hamad, short a retraction, is simply politically through in the terrorist Hamas movement. He’s right, of course — the Hamas organization long undermined local stability among the Palestinians and Israelis while claiming it was ready to govern. Once elected, Hamas now expresses both support for and dismay at that same instability that it fostered, while seemingly surprised that the global community still remembers their historical nature and goals regarding Israel.

  • Could This War Produce a Sunni-Israeli Alliance?

    My quick one-word answer to that headline’s question: no. Now, please allow me to elaborate on that answer: hell no.

    It’s not often — if ever — that I post an article that has so many points with which I disagree unless I’m dissecting it. Still, this interview with Martin Indyk raised enough interesting thoughts that I’d still recommend reading it. Please note that a political slant is made obvious early, as displayed in the following (emphasis added):

    Indyk currently heads the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. He is waiting, though he will not admit this publicly, for another opportunity to try to make peace – an option that could be realized if a Democrat wins the U.S. presidential elections in 2008.

    Despite this wonderfully biased intro that a Democrat U.S. president is the course to possible peace, there are still some tasty tidbits in the interview, and I would like to highlight a couple of them.

    First, when asked who won the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in southern Lebanon, Indyk gave the following response:

    “I think the verdict is still out. Militarily Hezbollah put on an impressive performance and was able to stand up to Israeli forces. Even if in the end it turns out that they lost every encounter, in the Middle East perception is reality, and the perception is that they gave as good as they got, and the perception is that they achieved more than Israel achieved. When the Israeli Chief of Staff says that ‘Israel won on points,’ that’s not a very reassuring verdict.

    “On the other hand, to paraphrase von Clausewitz, the question is who manages to turn the results on the battlefield into political gains, and there I’m a bit more optimistic. The campaign in Lebanon highlighted the dangers facing the Sunni Arab world from the Iranian-led Shia axis, from Iran to Iraq – which has a Shi’ite-dominated government – to the minority Alawite regime in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. That actually provides a common interest to the Sunni Arab world and Israel.

    “And you can see that in interesting ways, including the fact that Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have now had a spat with Syria over their intent to relaunch Saudi King Abdullah’s peace initiative, which provided conditions for ending the conflict, recognition of Israel and normalization of relations.

    “And there is the fact that the Sunni Lebanese prime minister, while taking the world press on a tour of the rubble of southern Beirut and accusing Israel of war crimes – is nonetheless holding out an olive branch to Israel.[“]

    Secondly, when discussing his earlier contentions that Israel should focus on making peace with Syria, Indyk reversed his long-held stance as follows:

    “Look, I was personally involved in trying to achieve a peace treaty between Israel and Syria during eight years of the Clinton Administration. I personally argued throughout that period that the U.S. needed to give priority to a Syrian-Israeli deal, because it had obvious strategic benefits: breaking off Syria from Iran as well as the ability to disarm Hezbollah with the 15,000 troops that Syria had in Lebanon at the time, and to increase the pressure on the Palestinians to move forward and to break the logjam. There were lots of advantages then to doing a deal with ‘Syria first.’

    “But I don’t feel the same way now. There’s nothing wrong with talking about talking with Syria. Israel should always be interested in negotiating peace – but as a matter of strategy I think it’s a mistake.

    […]

    “Syria is allied with Iran, for good reasons of strategy, from their point of view. And the notion that you can somehow split them is, I think, fanciful. And to talk to Assad now would have the effect of inviting him back into Lebanon, because surely the purpose of talking to him is to get him to control Hezbollah, and I think that’s a mistake.

    “Israel should at least try to work with the Lebanese government, which is an anti-Syrian government. Because that government is signaling that it wants to deal with Israel, that it wants to return to the provisions of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between the two countries, and the Lebanese prime minister had made it even more explicit in recent days.[“]

    While I find much to disagree with in the interview, including especially the fundamental point that this war sets up a grand opportunity with the Sunnis for Israel, there is also much that is intriguing and still a good bit more to chew on and digest.

  • Quote of the Week, 28 AUG 06

    The principle of neutrality … has increasingly become an obsolete conception, and, except under very special circumstances, it is an immoral and shortsighted conception.

    —John Foster Dulles

  • Tonight’s Good Reads

    Sorry, but I’m in a bit of a funk right now, but I’ll save the personal news behind that mood ’til another day. Given that, I think tonight I’ll just settle for a link-dump quickie.

    Will The West Defend Itself?

    Does the United States have the power to eliminate terrorists and the states that support them? In terms of capacity, as opposed to will, the answer is a clear yes.

    Think about it. Currently, the U.S. has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the U.S. alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism — without risking the life of a single soldier.

    Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we’ll never use it. Today’s Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.

    Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    […]

    Of course, had there been a peace agreement with Japan and Germany, all it would have achieved would have been to give them time to recoup their losses and resume their aggression at a later time, possibly equipped with nuclear weapons.

    [Hat tip to Rightwingsparkle]

    Russian Footprints: What does Moscow have to do with the recent war in Lebanon?

    The Kremlin may be the main winner in the Lebanon war. Israel has been attacked with Soviet Kalashnikovs and Katyushas, Russian Fajr-1 and Fajr-3 rockets, Russian AT-5 Spandrel antitank missiles and Kornet antitank rockets. Russia’s outmoded weapons are now all the rage with terrorists everywhere in the world, and the bad guys know exactly where to get them. The weapons cases abandoned by Hezbollah were marked: “Customer: Ministry of Defense of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia.”

    Today’s international terrorism was conceived at the Lubyanka, the headquarters of the KGB, in the aftermath of the1967 Six-Day War in the Middle East. I witnessed its birth in my other life, as a Communist general.

    [hat tip to Smash]

    The last thre stories kind of blend together into a bigger picture.

    Hezbollah Didn’t Win

    By controlling the flow of information from Lebanon throughout the conflict, and help from all those who disagree with U.S. policies for different reasons, Hezbollah may have won the information war in the West. In Lebanon, the Middle East and the broader Muslim space, however, the picture is rather different.

    Hoodwinked by Hezbollah

    Well, since it’s all settled that Hezbollah has won, let’s just open a six-pack of non-alcoholic beer and drink to the health of the party’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, the Arab world’s latest Che Guevara.

    But what kind of victory is this that, even by Hezbollah’s unexacting standards, must qualify as a major setback? In its public appraisals of the conflict, Hezbollah has ignored what Israel did to those parts of Lebanon the party cannot claim as its own. Its cries of triumph have been focused on the stubborn resistance put up by Hezbollah combatants in south Lebanon. Nothing has been heard from party leaders about the billions of dollars of losses in infrastructure; about the immediate losses to businesses that will be translated into higher unemployment; about the long-term opportunity costs of the fighting; about the impact that political instability will have (indeed has already had) on public confidence and on youth emigration; and about the general collapse in morale that Lebanon faces.

    Let’s forget such trifles for a moment and use Hezbollah’s own benchmark. Even there, the evidence points to a net loss for the Shiite militia.

    If this was a defeat, the Israelis must be praying for a lot more of them

    IF ONLY Israel were as effective at public relations as at military operations, the results of the conflict on and around its border with Lebanon would be so much starker. As it is, however, the real meaning of the UN resolution that will start to come into force today is being widely misrepresented. Hezbollah is hailing a “victory” of sorts, albeit one of a presentational character. In a bizarre situation, Israeli politicians on both the hard Left and the hard Right appear to agree with the terrorists. All are profoundly mistaken.

    What, after all, does this Hezbollah claim consist of? The organisation considers it a triumph that it has not been completely “destroyed” after just four weeks of fighting. It contrasts this with the dismal record of several Arab armies combined in 1967. It has not yet been disarmed and may not be formally neutralised in the near future. Nor has it been discredited on the Arab street, where it has enhanced its popularity. The Hezbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah, thus proclaims himself a “new Nasser”.

    As victories rank, not being destroyed, disarmed or discredited is not that impressive. It is hardly Henry V at Agincourt. The idea that the Six-Day War represents the military standard for the Arab world is a somewhat humiliating notion.

    Hat tips for those last three stories goes out to Neptunus Lex and Ron Coleman of Dean’s World, who offer interesting pieces of their own on the matter here and here, respectively.

  • Beauty Quote of the Day

    … and a darned good editorial to boot. Okay, so actually it’s two days old, but I just found it.

    Investor’s Business Daily has an editorial that begins by looking at the Democrats’ rearranging of the 2008 state primaries and caucases in hopes of “adding diversity and geographical balance” and countering the electoral failures of 2000 and 2004. The story goes on to state that the Dems actual problem is not scheduling; nor is it diversity or balance. Quite simply, it is their message on security, and it may have an effect in the pending 2006 balloting long before much of the nation turns a weary eye toward ’08.

    In 2000, Lieberman was the Democrats’ choice to balance the ticket, both geographically and ideologically. A mere six years ago he was the man the Democrats wanted to be the proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency.

    That was then. This is now. And now Lieberman is politician non grata for actually believing that politics should stop at the water’s edge, that our enemies are the Osama bin Ladens and Hassan Nasrallahs of the world, not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove.

    2004 nominee John Kerry ripped Lieberman over the weekend,branding him on ABC’s “This Week” as “out of step with the people of Connecticut.” Which presumably is why polls have him leading the man who won the Connecticut primary, Ned Lamont.

    […]

    But Lieberman realizes that winning the war in Iraq means more than winning the next election.

    […]

    The American people may not be happy with events in Iraq. But they do know, especially after events in Lebanon and the foiled British bomb plot, that we’re in a war in which failure is not an option and for which repeating “Bush lied” is not a strategy.

    Americans will not put in power a party that accepts the proposition that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism, that thinks Wal-Mart is a plague on the poor and that wants to repeal the job-creating, economy-boosting and deficit-cutting Bush tax cuts.

    They will not put in power a party that thinks death is a taxable event and that success should be punished. They will not pass the reins to a party that denies us access to energy reserves offshore and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and which thinks energy independence means building windmills and hugging caribou

    The editorial expresses more confidence than I feel about a public that is inundated by our media with bad news at the expense of almost all progress — hey, the building that does not burn is not news, nor is the school that is built or the NCO academy that is now entrusted over to Iraqis.

    Yes, there’s some great quotes above, but the key one is as follows:

    This is a party that thinks Dunkirk was a British redeployment and that doesn’t understand why Bush doesn’t just sit down and make nice with nuclear madmen like Korea’s Kim Jong-il and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

    Make no mistake — that is a money shot and it landed right on the back of Congressman John Murtha (D-IsForDefeat), friend of Code Pink and advocate of a retreat … err… redeployment from Iraq to Okinawa. Here’s a couple of good links related to that quote: Dunkirk and Diana Irey.

    Yes, the editorial is more optimistic than I feel. Still, it is hopeful that America may see the limp-wristed strategy that the Dems offer, cloaked in bold hindsight but little forward-looking detail, for what it is: defeatism and withdrawal. It is less hopeful that the American public will recognize that Iraq is a hand that we cannot fold on yet — no, we’re not all in, but we have to realize how our enemies will recognize our tossing in the cards. We have redeployed in the past after being bloodied, as Murtha now advoacates, from Viet Nam in ’73 and ’75, from Lebanon in ’84 and from Mogadishu in ’94. It must be noted that each of those retreats have been cited by our current enemies as signs of our weakness and used effectively as rallying cries to the expansionist cause of radical Islam.

    Hat tip to McQ at Q&O, who adds some good thoughts of his own.

  • Recruiting, Back-door Drafts and “Our” Media

    During a period in which all active-duty components of the U.S. military have reached their recruiting goals for fourteen consecutive months, two of my favorite MilBloggers, Matt at Blackfive and John at Op-For, take issue with a some news stories that try to imply severe manpower issues.

    Media Still Doesn’t Understand Recruiting…or Do They?

    Yellow Journalism Makes a Comeback

    Go read them both. I would like to chip in that I feel Matt’s second linked story about a gang member and murder suspect that tried to enlist to be beyond piss-poor journalism and, instead, leaves no doubt about negative intentions against the military by the journalist involved.