Global War on Terror

This weekend saw the report that since 911, Islamic Terrorism has gotten worse globally. Aside from the poor reporting containing only hearsay which not much more need to be said of, if it was meant to be some sort of indictment of the GWoT I think they got it all wrong.

1. In a long war such as this war, if our actions do not anger those trying to destroy us, we are not doing enough.

2. If in being angered they reveal themselves as the Islamofascist that they are wanting to be, then even better and easier for us to kill them.


I do not understand why in waging a war so many still want us to play nice. Wars should be brutal enough to want to win rapidly lest any on either side think to drag it out longer than necessary, and enough so the peace afterward last a bit longer till the next war.


see also:
Roger L Simon's comment
In From the Cold additional snips from the same NIE analysis not reported by NYT or WaPo

Interrogation

Several activities are currently encircling what may or may not happen during interrogation of suspected terrorists.

The president is seeking clarification from the US congress on what is and what is not permissible. This is important to do to maintain legal support for our effort on the war on terror. Whatever is decided, it should not be less permissible than what we could do to arrested criminals.

Whatever policy we adopt will in no way increase or decrease the chances of our captured soldiers from being tortured. We cannot dictate the actions of our enemies. And we cannot hold them accountable. What Geneva Convention signatory nation have been fined or punished for torture? And what of non-signatories like terrorist organization? Will they care that we treat their prisoners nicely and thus not behead ours?

And what are the consequences of an overly strict policy regarding interrogation? Consider this perspective from the WSJ:

Opponents of interrogating al Qaeda detainees keep slandering the Bush Administration by equating all aggressive questioning techniques with "torture." What's more, they seem unable to draw the obvious lessons from our experience handling terror suspects thus far.

Take the case of Maher Arar, an apparently innocent Canadian citizen who was arrested at JFK airport in September 2002 and turned over to Syria -- a process known as "rendition" -- where he actually appears to have been tortured. According to some of our media colleagues, this shows that CIA officials can't be trusted with the authority they're seeking under the proposed new Detainee Act to use a number of "stress techniques" against high level al Qaeda detainees.

But Mr. Arar's case proves exactly the opposite. For starters, it was the Canadian government that supplied what appears to have been bad information about Mr. Arar's alleged al Qaeda ties. More to the point, the temptation to get vital information by "rendering" such suspects for interrogation by governments that have little respect for human rights will only increase if the CIA's own al Qaeda interrogation program is shut down. This may make some in Congress feel better about themselves, but it won't do much for the "rights" of those interrogated.

The White House has been negotiating over the issue with Senator John McCain so U.S. interrogators aren't left in legal limbo because Congress refuses to define our obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It's precisely such legal clarity that will limit potential abuses, rather than leaving Article 3 open to interpretation by individuals -- or by the likes of Syria, since as it stands every country in the world interprets Article 3 in its own way now.

Crucial to any compromise is that the new rules not only protect CIA interrogators under relevant U.S. law (the 1996 War Crimes Act), but also assert our understanding of our obligations under Geneva. This is not about "rewriting" Geneva, as Mr. McCain and others have previously suggested; it is about the necessity of fleshing out what vague Article 3 prohibitions against "humiliating" treatment and the like actually mean.

President Bush has been very strong on this issue so far. We trust he won't endorse anything now that falls short of the comprehensive legal clarity he's been right to demand.

911 Afterward

Our greatest mistake since 911 is that we as a nation have not unified for total war against our enemy.

In waging this war, we should show no mercy to those who have not have not shown mercy to the innocent.

And those who impede out effort should be treated as collaborators and facilitator of our enemies.

Vegetative thoughts

From the WSJ Science section:

In a startling new report in today's issue of the journal Science, however, scientists describe how the young accident victim in a vegetative state shows brain activity consistent with conscious awareness.

When the scientists spoke to her, advanced imaging showed, her brain registered activity in regions responsible for decoding language, just as the brains of normal volunteers do. When they used sentences with homonyms, which require more complicated semantic processing, the appropriate parts of her brain lit up, again just like healthy brains.

Either response might be dismissed as automatic and therefore unconscious. After all, some people in a vegetative state retain "islands" of preserved neural function, Nicholas Schiff of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center and colleagues found in a 2002 study, but not in areas involved in higher mental function. Similarly, studies have shown that some people who are asleep, under general anesthesia or in a vegetative state show brain activity consistent with perceiving speech and responding to emotion-laden words and their name.

That's why simply responding to speech, admits neuroscientist Adrian Owens of the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, who led the new study, is "not unequivocal evidence that [the woman] is consciously aware."

So they asked her to imagine playing tennis. Remarkably, this made neurons fire in the premotor cortex, a region that hums with activity when you mentally practice sophisticated movement, from a jump shot to a backhand. Then they asked her to imagine walking through each room of her house. This time her parahippocampal gyrus, which generates spatial maps, became active, again just as in healthy volunteers.

"We know from extensive research that brain responses of this type do not occur automatically," says Prof. Owens, but "require the willed, intentional action of the participant."

He cautions that the results apply only to this patient, and that others in a vegetative state aren't this responsive. Indeed, 60 previous patients in a vegetative state show no such brain activity, says Steven Laureys of the University of Liege, Belgium. "But she was different," he says. "Her brain activity shows a clear act of intention. The activity in her higher-order cognitive areas means, to me, that she was consciously aware of herself and her surroundings."

Lionel Naccache of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Orsay, France, calls the woman's response to the tennis and home tasks "quite spectacular" and evidence of "a rich mental life." But he notes that consciousness, according to neuroscience, requires engaging "in intentional actions or interactions" with the outside world. If she is conscious, why does she show no spontaneous intentional behavior, especially since there is no damage to parts of the brain that control moving or speaking?

Although the woman fits the diagnosis of being in a vegetative state, her brain activity raises the intriguing (or disturbing) possibility that there is a fully conscious being locked in that unresponsive body after all. The scientists doubt this, pointing out that there is nothing wrong with her motor function, so if there really were a conscious being in there she would purposefully move at least her eyes. Cornell's Dr. Schiff suspects that she may at least be moving into "a minimally conscious state."

Stifling Free Speech

It appears that elements of the US government is trying to pressure and influence a broadcast media company. It appears that leadership of the Democratic party is threatening ABC/Disney. Curious:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. [...]

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,


Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

Postwar Germany

Germany lost about 5 million soldiers in World War 2. Survivors were typically those that surrendered. These same survivors would return to rebuild the new Germany. I wonder if the same mindset that led soldiers to surrender has contributed to the current political mentality in Germany and perhaps all of continental Europe, the mindset of appeasement rather than risking one's life for a cause. Interesting.

Lebanon 5: France

Can France be any worse on the world's diplomatic stage? She fights the US for leadership to resolve the Lebanon crisis. She assumes authorship of the ceasefire resolution, UN SCR1701. She talks up leading the UN peacekeeping contingency. And once everything is agreed to upon, France backs out. Words such as fop and cowards spring to mind.

True no one was happy with the ceasefire resolution, but then why craft a resolution that you yourself are unhappy with enough not to want to participate in it? And despite its flaws, there were actual opportunity for France to shine.

I guess if you try to shine France to get a luster, all you get are crumbs.

Lebanon 4: the Players and the Ceasefire

After two days, the ceasefire in southern Lebanon appears to be holding. Here is my break down of how the various players fared.

Hezbollah has claimed a strategic victory over Israel in this latest conflict. This victory claim is partly true. Unlike all the previous Arab opponent of Israel, Hezbollah did not fold and this in itself is a feat, at least in Middle Eastern Arab context. But I suspect this strategic victory will be hollow. Firstly, they did not get widespread Arab state support that they had hoped for beyond their backers in Syria and Iran. As most Arab states are Sunni oriented, they and their Iranian handlers will now be seen as a greater threat to the region rather than an asset. How much of a threat will determine how much the Arab governments will take to counter them regionally. Secondly, their ability to manipulate western media has been degraded to some degree. An organization like Hezbollah requires sympathy from Western "progressive" to limit and minimize actions from Western "neocons." Losing both widespread Arab support and Western sympathy would be catastrophic. Thirdly, if the ceasefire does hold, Southern Lebanon remains devastated. If Hezbollah cannot deliver on its public service arena with humanitarian relief, they will be held accountable for the failure to rebuild as well as at fault for starting the war. Fourthly, surviving a military invasion that was limited in scale is not true military victory, and it could lead to hubris overconfidence. Already Hezbollah supporters and their family are streaming back into Southern Lebanon. I suspect this is partly to clog the roads south and delay deployment of the Lebanese army and UN "peace keepers" until they have replenished personnel losses in the south and partly to present a tougher resistance to any attempts at disarmament. However, if the ceasefire does not hold, this will only place more Hezbollah in vulnerable positions for elimination by Israel. Finally, there is no doubt Hezbollah as a military power has been significantly degraded. And unlike Israel, their military re-armament will be even tougher than before. Their claim to victory thus rest solely on survival, a survival that remain significantly threatened in peace ever more than before.

How Israel fared depends on what its true intention was in going into Lebanon and this remains unclear. I believe it is unlikely that Israel entered Lebanon in order to destroy Hezbollah, as this was simply not possible without an invasion of all of Lebanon and likely Syria as well. By the limited expressed goals and limited commitment of military resources, Israel was intentionally limiting its response to minimize the chances of a regional war. I believe Israel's true intent was to surprise Hezbollah with a disproportionate military response to degrade Hezbollah military capability, goad Hezbollah into revealing its missile capability and subsequently destroy them, and uncover international and Middle Eastern governments involvement and response. Certainly Hezbollah was caught off guard by the extent of Israel's response and though they survived it, they will certainly have to consider whether the capture of 2 IDF soldiers and claims of victory based on survival will be worth the price paid. Though thousands of missiles were launched into northern Israel, actual damage was minimal and thus their launch was essentially useless. The longer ranged missiles capable of greater damage were also exposed and likely more were destroyed than launch. Their destruction was likely, as they require a larger launch platform, and thus easier to spot for destruction. Unclear is how much Hezbollah was goaded into using their longer range missile rather than hiding them, but the surprise of Israel's disproportionate response would certainly lead Hezbollah to do as much as they can to strike back. In addition, two useful bits of information was also obtained by Israel, that Hezbollah did possess guided ordnances in the form of unmanned aerial vehicles but not possess weapons of mass destruction. On the international front, I believe Israel had to feel pleasantly surprised by the tepid support from regional Arab governments at the outset of the war. This support waned only when Israel failed to deliver a decisive blow quick enough. But Israel's limited military commitment was a calculated act as evidenced by gradual escalation and commitment of forces, especially the intentional call up of reservists as a ceasefire was being negotiated. Certainly Israel must feel some confidence that should Hezbollah violate the ceasefire, they have room to act decisively against Hezbollah. Over all, Israel did not lose with the current ceasefire. In essence, Israel's incursion into Lebanon was essentially a reconnaissance in force. Victory remains within Israel's reach should the Hezbollah violate the ceasefire.

The Lebanese government continues to be paralyzed. While the ceasefire affords them the opportunity to retake southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has not been sufficiently degraded to be disarmed by the Lebanese army. The paralysis comes from both the lack of capability and ability to confront and disarm Hezbollah, as well as continued lack of political will to do so. Hezbollah continues to hold too much political influence within the Lebanese government. Despite what claims of victory Hezbollah claim, now that the ceasefire has taken effect, the general Lebanese ill will toward Hezbollah for reckless adventurism will once again reasserts itself as the devastation will be compared to no gain whatsoever beyond boasting. In addition, any violation of the ceasefire by Hezbollah will be widely perceived even more so as HezbollahÂ’s problem with adventurism. It is also interesting to note that Hezbollah may realize this and thus have proclaimed victory for Lebanon instead of victory for Hezbollah alone. Objectively Lebanon lost, its southern infrastructures devastated, Hezbollah remains armed, and the ceasefire will end sooner or later.

The clear winner thus far is Syria. Firstly, it retains considerable influence in Lebanese politics and continues to perpetuatepoliticall division in Lebanon. This influence for division is the surest way to crush the Cedar revolution and keep Lebanon dependent on Syria. Secondly, as Hezbollah will need to be re-armed by Iran, Syria will continue to profit economically in the transfer ofmaterialss to Hezbollah, paid by Iran, as well as entrench its role as facilitator for Iran. Likely, we can expect greater muscle flexing by Syria in Iraq as well. Thirdly, even with the UN forces in Lebanon, Syria can be certain that in any direct conflict with Israel that a fair amount of Israel's military resources will be pinned toward Lebanon.

There is mixed result for Iran. In the short term, Iran has demonstrated that it can wield military power beyond its border in the form of Hezbollah. In addition, it can take some credit in Hezbollah's performance against Israel. However, substantial resources in arming Hezbollah has been squandered by Israel's disproportionate response. Years went into supplying Hezbollah and Iran certainly would have preferred to deploy them at a time of its own choosing. In addition, Iran's hand has been revealed to all and this will have consequences. At the United Nations, a tougher response can be expected to Iran's nuclear ambition. In addition, of the powers at work in the Middle East -- Arabs, Persian, Turks, Western, and Islamofascists -- to the Arabs, Iran has just declared itself as the biggest threat. The Turks have been dormant and will likely remain so in the next decade or two, the Western powers have been engaged as partners while kept at arms length, and the Islamofascists are already being hunted down andexterminatedd throughout Arab states. Iran has little to gain from being in such a position.

Another winner from this conflict is France. France has demonstrated its international power and influence by authoring the ceasefire resolution. Her stature has been elevated from her low of not being able to prevent the invasion of Iraq. France will also have direct influence in Lebanon when her troops are deployed as part of the UN force. The last time France was in Lebanon, her paratroopers were killed en masse by Hezbollah's suicide bombing along with the US marine barracks. While the risk of a repeat incidence exists, France's likely reaction wouldn't be withdrawal as before. Whether France can stomach military action in Lebanon against Hezbollah, or Israel, will depends on whether France thinks she can wrestle control of Lebanon from Syria.

I suspect the main reason why the United States supported the ceasefire was because of Iran, the perceived greatest threat to US interests in the region. By endorsing the ceasefire resolution in Lebanon, the US can maintain public and diplomatic scrutiny on Iran. Certainly the US can appease its ally Israel by resuppling Israel forces, assist with some reconstruction, and still be reassured that Israel will survive and be in a better state for the next (or re-newed) actions in Lebanon. For the US, the ceasefire was a regional delay action, as well as provide basis for more aggressive action, possibly including direct military action or via Israel, against Iran. Whether the US come out as the winner or the loser will depend on what happens with Iran. Only then can the ceasefire be deemed worthwhile for the US. However, I believe Iran is beyond negotiating with and the Western allies will lack the resolve to act.

Like France, the United Nations appears to have won. Diplomacy has worked again to keep the peace. But there can be no peace until one side is defeated. There were no defeats in the latest Lebanon war. Hezbollah's declaration of victory is not the same as Israel's declaration of defeat, and there was no such belief in Israel. In fact, Israel's grumbling is that more was not done in the war. This is a recipe for re-newed violence.

Also worth reading:
Counterterrorism blog's analysis of winners and losers.
Willisms' comment on victory and defeat.
Debka for current behind the scene machinations.

Fake but Real 2

Or how the MSM lap up staged propaganda pieces and present it as news. Here we see the "behind the scene" directing and display of object deaths:

From the Middle East to the World

HT to Crossoads Arabia.

Firstly, an arab background article on Hezbolla and Iran. No wonder then that most Sunni arab governments less than ardent support for Hezbolla against Israel. Once again, this only serve to remind us that the whole War on Terror is really a regional Middle East war between moderate and radical muslims, secular and islamist, as well as between Shia and Sunni, for domination in the Middle East. The west was caught in the crossfire for inadvertantly supporting the status quo of the region trying to evolve.

During the student uprising in July 1999 and the violent confrontations that followed between Arab residents of the Iranian city of Ahvaz and the security services, many student leaders and Arab officials in the city spoke about the presence of hundreds of Arab troops within the ranks of the Iranian security forces and the Revolutionary Guards units quelled the protests.

At the time, it was thought these Arab troops were members of the Badr Brigade, the military wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq . Yet, many who encountered these foreign soldiers commented on their Lebanese and Syrian accents.

The issue remained a mystery until this week, when Ali Akbar Mohatashemi, the former Iranian ambassador to Syria and the founding father of Hezbollah, revealed that members of the Party of God participated in the Iran-Iraq war side by side with the Revolutionary Guards. He described the relationship between Hezbollah and the Iranian regime as much more than the one linking a revolutionary regime with a foreign organization. Hezbollah, he indicated, is one of the institutions of the ruling regime in Tehran and a main element of its military.

Secondly is this piece on how the Muslims, like their secular "neocons" polars in the west, have come to see the uselessness of the UN.

Last week Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi spoke of growing Muslim contempt for the UN because of its failure to condemn Israel for the attack on Qana or the killing of UN observers at Khiam. At that time, little did he or anyone else realize how fast that contempt would spread. The way the UN draft resolution on Lebanon has been handled has all but finished the UN in the eyes of Arabs, Muslims and many other fair-minded individuals who belong to neither of those two groups. There should have been — could have been — a UN cease-fire resolution at least a week ago. There still isn’t one. Hundreds of Lebanese have died, victims as much of UN dithering as of Israeli bombs or Hezbollah missiles.

* * *

The UN’s political impotence has tainted it in Arab eyes. For 58 years it has been unable to protect the Palestinians; it failed the Iraqis and now it has failed the Lebanese. US vetoes to protect Israel along with the Jewish state’s unpunished refusals to comply with resolutions as well as Washington’s unpunished illegal invasion of Iraq have robbed the Arabs of any enthusiasm for, or faith in, the world body. This belated and crafty resolution — good only in that it may stop the killing — changes nothing.

Fake but real

This is an amazing expose by LittleGreenFootballs:

What was published by Reuters for July 26:

What was published by Reuters for August 5:

Note the Reuters modification of the lower left corner, and how miraculously new duplicate buildings have sprung up in the past 2 weeks, not to mention the fake photoshoped smoke.

I for one am glad that there are blogs like LGF that watch the MSM.
Funny and sad that one of the old role of the MSM was to watch the original watchmen, the government.


Background of the MSM gullibility if not culpability in broadcasting propaganda:

The Opposition

The essential problem of the left is moral and cultural relativism. Thus they seek equality for the sake of equality without consideration for morality or justice. Those that have only have because they took from those who do not have. The haves must be made to give back to those who don't have. This is the crux of the left domestic policy. Those that are strong must be oppressing those that are weak. The strong must be made weak. This is the crux of the left foreign policy.

Note that the ideology is to bring down the system rather than to actually help those who need help. Take from the rich rather than to make the poor richer. Weaken the strong rather than strengthen the weak. Currently the West (and the Israeli as pertains to the Middle East) are both prosperous and strong, thus they must be opposed with each breath.

Moral and cultural relativism is a rotten core belief yet it can perpetuate as long as there are those who have more and those who are stronger.

Lebanon 3

A few days old but still relevant as we all track the military actions in South Lebanon. Varifrank reminds us that:

I’ve been watching the war from afar. I haven’t been able to comment daily as I’ve been really busy with real revenue generating work instead of blogging. But I have come to one conclusion based on what I’ve seen and what we’ve heard.

It’s all crap.

It’s not the usual bias that I’m complaining about. It's not the usual “reporting news the way they want things to be” as news instead of commentary that is going on.

It’s that I don’t think what is happening – or what is being reported as happening is necessarily what is happening.

Relax for a just second loyal readers, I’m not the "black helicopter" type, that’s not what I’m saying.

Here’s what I’m talking about. When you see news coming from Israel, its censored. That’s a good thing. I support that, its saving lives. When you see news from Beirut, its also censored. It’s also mostly propaganda. It’s a fact. I think were all over the age of 5 here, so I don’t think anyone who reads this blog is going to slap themselves in the head and shout “ Oh say it isn’t so!”

The hardest thing when fighting insurgents/terrorists is actually getting them to fight on your terms. When you set the conditions for the confrontation, you choose conditions that are favorable to victory. This applies to all enemies in general but against conventional forces, they fight on similar terms and their effectiveness is similar, though hopefully inferior, to yours. When you are fighting insurgents, if they were smart, they would recognize their inferior capability in a stand-up fight and thus would retreat when facing a conventional force. But when dealing with Islamofascist insurgents, who think that God is with them and will bring them victory based on their faith alone, their ego can be used to draw them out to fight, and thus be killed.

If Hezbollah thinks they have a fighting chance against Israel, then so much the better. If they don't think they have a chance but can get away, they will run. If they do not think they can get away due to the overwhelming number of Israeli forces, they may just hole up, which makes getting them out harder. Unless Israel is willing to bypass these bunkers and just level them flat. Which is what I believe is happening at Hexbollah strongholds. The willingness of Israel to flatten these areas is also suggested by their pre-attack warnings for civilians to evacuate and their disinterest in taking and holding territory.

With what is going on in Southern Lebanon currently, the fat lady hasn't even come on stage yet.

Lebanon 2

Over at The Belmont Club Wretchard has an excellent post regarding what may be Israel's strategic plan against Hezbollah. Read it all!

Reduced to its essentials, the IDF strategy may be ridiculously simple: fix the Hezbollah force in Southern Lebanon while detaching its command structure from the field by simultaneously striking Beirut. One of the great mysteries, upon which newpaper accounts shed no light, is why the IDF should so furiously pulverize Hezbollah's enclaves in southern Beirut, blockade the port and disable the airport. The object isn't to shut down Lebanon. It is to momentarily disorient the Hezbollah headquarters in Beirut, so that in a moment of absentmindedness, the Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon will do what comes most naturally: commit themselves against the IDF.

I also believe that in order for Israel to destroy Hezbollah now and future, they will need to do more than just "disarm" Hezbollah. Part of Hezbollah power, both practically and public relation wise, are the social services Hezbollah provides in Southern Lebanon. Practically, they are the de facto government in Southern Lebanon because the central government of Lebanon cannot "keep the trains running on time" sort to speak. And this translates to political power that grants them legitimacy regionally. And this also has endeared them to Europe, granting them international legitimacy in the eyes of some as well.

Thus this war presents a second opportunity for the central Lebanese government to reassert itself in Southern Lebanon. With international assistance, primarily US but also EU, the central government should do all it can (without Hezbollah) to rebuild and provide for Southern Lebanon after the ceasefire and while Hezbollah seek to rebuild itself and its paramilitary infrastructure.

This is how Hezbollah can be destroyed. Degrade its military forces in war; marginalize its social services in peace. Have to win both.

Gaza

Meanwhile on the Gaza front

All groups in Gaza, including Hamas, would now accept a cease-fire deal with Israel which would include releasing Gilad Shalit, according to the Palestinian Agriculture Minister, who also heads the coordinating committee of Palestinian organizations there.

Ibrahim Al-Naja said the factions were ready to stop the Qassam rocket fire if Israel's ceased all military moves against the Palestinian factions in Gaza. They are also ready to release Shalit in exchange for guaranteeing the future release of Palestinian prisoners.

Very interesting if true, that the Palestinians and Hamas have more sense than the Lebanese/Hezbollah. I laud this as the first wise strategic move from the Palestinians to move away from suicidal use of violence for nationhood.

At the same time, it kind of undermine the cause celebre of Hezbollah a bit doesn't it. Just demonstrating that Hezbollah's action is for Hezbollah/Syria/Iran rather than for Palestine, or for Lebanon.

Lebanon

What the government of Lebanon needs to do is to reassert is sovereignty. If they do not view Hezbollah actions against Israel as a threat to its sovereignty, then they in effect are accepting Hezbollah actions as legitimate actions of Lebanon. Under these condition Israel is making war against all of Lebanon and the Lebanese army needs to repel Israel. The Lebanese government must be able to militarily evict Israel, and or muster international support, military and or diplomatic, to do so. However, other than Iran, no other Middle Eastern nation are likely to do so. Syria will not risk injury and damage for the sake of Hezbollah, not to mention Lebanon.

However, if the Lebanese government view Hezbollah as a threat to itself as much as Israel's incursion, then there is an opportunity to address both.
Firstly, allow Israel to militarily degrade Hezbollah while responding to the humanitarian crisis and mustering the Lebanese army.
Secondly, broker a deal with Israel with international powers for the Lebanese army to occupy southern Lebanon and assume control from both Israel and Hezbollah. Thus avoiding foreign military forces in southern Lebanon.
Thirdly, disarm a weakened Hezbollah.

Update: From Debka regarding the behind the scene maneuvering in Lebanon with Rice's visit.

Speaking privately to PM Fouad Siniora Monday, July 24, the secretary of state said, according to DEBKAfile’s exclusive Middle East sources: You don’t want to be like the Palestinian Authority which stands by and watches its people go to ruin.

Before taking off for Jerusalem, she also met Nabih Berri, the pro-Syrian Shiite parliamentary speaker. He said later their talks had failed but, according to DEBKAfile, they did arrive at some tactic understandings. Before moving against his Shiite rival Hassan Nasrallah and the Hizballah, Berri preferred to wait for the first cracks to appear in their standing.

The US secretary also interviewed anti-Syrian coalition leaders, known as the “March 14 Camp.” Druze leader Walid Jumblatt remarked that Nasrallah was behaving like Yasser Arafat in the 1982 siege of Beirut. “He is willing to let the Lebanese capital burn while he haggles over terms of surrender.”

The Christian leader Samir Geagea said: The situation is terrible but the calamity has created an opportunity which we must not miss.”

Rice stressed to all her Lebanese interlocutors that the United States had never planned to use Lebanon to fight Iran. Americans, she said, would never forget that Hizballah is a terrorist organization which has murdered Americans and other nationals. Hizballah has a problem not just with the US president but with both houses of congress.

She rejected pro-Syrian leaders’ demand for a ceasefire without first establishing its components. Washington is willing to consider a multinational force, or even a NATO presence, but would insist on the full implementation of Security Council resolution 1559, namely the disarming of Hizballah. This could take place in stages but, first of all, Hizballah must give up its rockets, missiles and heavy weapons.

Condoleezza Rice informed Siniora that she was representing the position President Bush had put before Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal at the White House Sunday, July 23, implying that there was no point in the Lebanese running to the Saudis for help. They would have to cope with the crisis themselves

Pentagon Flight 77

When I moved to Arlington Virginia in December of 2001, the ruins of the Pentagon structures were still very much evident as it was a part of my daily commute. This video is incredible in deconstructing the event of that September morning.

Geneva Convention and PoW

This is the natural consequence of events surrounding the detainees at Guantanamo as played out in the left driven media and recent court decision. I support this stance whole heartedly.

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.

The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.

Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.

Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.

The Geneva Convention had two intentions in mind. The first and foremost intention is the protection of innocent civilians in areas of conflict. This intention is achieved by differentiating combatants from civilians based on dress code and uniform. An enemy combatant masquerading as a civilian would put the lives of all nearby civilians at risks, thus is not protected by the Geneva Convention. The terrorists clearly fall outside of the Geneva Convention based on this criteria alone.

Secondly, the Geneva Convention seeks to protect legal combatants taken as prisoners of war. This is achieved primarily based on good faith, that "I will take care of your captured legal combatants and you will do similar with mine." The terrorists' regular execution of captured, both civilians and legal combatants, have demonstrated that there can be no good faith in this regard. If our captured are to be executed, we should consider the same.

Of note is that there is no room to put on trial enemy combatants captured. If they are illegal combatants, they could be executed without trials. If they are captured as prisoner of war and good faith is maintained, then there is no room for a "show trial" of any sort. If there is no good faith, then the Geneva Convention does not apply and a trial is not necessary.

HT Powerline
Also at WILLisms

Academic Independence

Happy Independence America!

On the topic of Independence, consider this item on the Academic Independence:

DENVER -- Three years ago, David Horowitz came to Colorado to promote his newly inked Academic Bill of Rights, a plan the radical-turned-conservative activist said was needed to liberate students from an oppressive atmosphere of liberal groupthink at the nation's universities.
Critics had scoffed at the assertion by Mr. Horowitz -- who in the 1960s had been a prominent left-wing student activist -- that freedom on 21st-century campuses was being crushed by a tyrannical regime of political correctness.
But as then-state Senate Majority Leader John Andrews listened to Mr. Horowitz over breakfast at the Brown Palace Hotel, he agreed the time was ripe for an intellectual revolution.
"We were finishing each other's sentences, because this has been a concern for conservatives for such a long time," Mr. Andrews recalled. "I started working on and researching legislation right away."
A few months later, the Colorado legislature became the first to broker a deal with state universities on policies to protect students from political discrimination.
Since then, the Academic Bill of Rights, which says students should be graded and faculty should be hired and promoted without regard to their political or religious beliefs, has inspired the introduction of legislation in 18 states. Ohio and Tennessee struck deals with their universities on protecting academic freedom in lieu of legislation.
Meanwhile, Students for Academic Freedom, the campus watchdog group founded by Mr. Horowitz, has established chapters on more than 150 campuses

What are the items in particular?

1. Faculty members shall be hired and fired based on their competence and expertise, not their political or religious beliefs.

2. No faculty member shall be excluded from hiring, firing or tenure committees based on political or religious beliefs.

3. Students will be graded solely on their knowledge of a subject matter, not political or religious beliefs.

4. Reading lists should reflect a broad range of knowledge within a discipline.

5. Faculty will expose students to a wide range of viewpoints, not use their courses "for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.

6. Campus speakers should reflect a broad range of viewpoints.

7. Efforts to censor viewpoints by obstructing invited speakers or destroying literature will not be tolerated.

8. Academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a position of organizational neutrality on scholarly disputes over resea

The Full Bill of Rights
HT Powerline

NYT