Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

Deeming the fight between the Western world and ISIS terrorists a "clash of civilizations" distorts what is just a power struggle in the Middle East. Still, as this fight is waged, the West must cling stronger than ever before to its loftier values.



The predictable but nonetheless distressing reaction of many in the aftermath of the heartbreaking weekend Paris terrorist attacks has been to twist the event to fit biased viewpoints. A recurring, deeply erroneous refrain is that the incident represents a clash of civilizations (the West vs. Islam) or a battle of ideologies (freedom vs. terror). This view, undoubtedly appealing to some for drawing ostensibly tidy battle lines, is misleading and dangerous.

The truth of the matter is that the Islamic State (aka ISIS or Daesh), like any geopolitical entity, is motivated by something far simpler: the desire to gain and maintain power. Anything more is a convenient ex post facto justification of actions for a group that bombed Beirut one day before Paris, has killed thousands of Muslims, and is involved in a convoluted civil war against a repressive dictator (Syria's Bashar Assad). Russia's support for Assad is allegedly why Daesh blew up a Russian passenger plane earlier this month.

Next, Normalize Iran Relations

As has been the case with America's failed Cuba policy, decades of fighting Iran economically and via proxy wars have had a high moral, economic, and human cost for both sides and not led to any productive changes.

Last month, President Obama announced his decision to begin the normalization of U.S. relations with Cuba, an acknowledgement that this bizarre policy of the past half-century had failed to produce regime change and had only hurt the Cuban people. The president's reversal of long-standing U.S. policy in this matter was wise, overdue, and will continue to be extremely contentious -- but another decision would be bolder still: normalizing relations with Iran.

A brief bit of history: In 1953, the CIA collaborated in the removal of Iran's prime minster, Mohammad Mosaddegh, concerned about his power struggle with the country's Western-backed monarch Shah Pahlavi and over fears Mosaddegh would align his country with the Soviet Union. An entrenched Pahlavi and his notorious secret police, the SAVAK, became so hated, Iran exploded in a violent, radical (Shia) Islamic revolution in 1979. The depressing chain of events linking the U.S. and Iran since then includes the Embassy Hostage Crisis, the Contra affair, Iran-sponsored Hezbollah bombings of American targets in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. shooting down Iran Air 655, arming (Sunni) Saddam Hussein for a staggeringly bloody fight against Iran (the 20th century's longest war), eventually having to fight two wars against Hussein, and ending up with Iraq today a virtual proxy state of Iran.

No Easy Way

Faced with limited options in dealing with the latest spike in unrest in the Middle East, and the inability to effectively control the situation, the Obama administration is right to have a measured response.

AFP

I've seen the infamous anti-Muslim video Innocence of Muslims, and it's almost impossible to believe that this is the symbolic center of the biggest geopolitical crisis of the year.  It's a nonsensical jumble of scenes that don't form a cogent movie or trailer, and has the production value of an elementary school play.  Actors in cheap Halloween costumes and brownface, their spoken lines badly dubbed over with incongruous voices to spout inscrutable references to Mohammed, and crude allusions to homosexuality and rape -- one would think such a video would be left to languish in total obscurity on a corner of the Internet... and yet, here we are.

But this video isn't really what's fueling the latest round of unrest in the Arab world.  Hardly anyone has actually watched the film, but the masses are appalled at the very idea of their religion being disrespected.  Meanwhile, certain groups have seized upon this video as a pretext to achieve their own goals of whipping up anti-Americanism and fomenting violence.  Protests (albeit of limited size) are currently raging throughout North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia; tragically, last Tuesday the Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed along with three other Americans at the consulate in Benghazi.  The attack may have been a calculated terrorist strike that took advantage of the chaos.  Meanwhile, Israel has sounded fresh alarm bells over Iran's progress with its nuclear program, with President Benjamin Netanyahu urging the U.S. to deal with Iran while threatening to attack first himself.  Amidst this maelstrom, the Obama administration has acted with restraint, commendably withstanding the high political pressure and bias toward doing something.

Support Democracy

American interests are best served by promoting the pursuit of freedom and self-determination rather than supporting regimes reviled by their own people.

In the traditionally stagnant Arab world, events have moved at lightning speed in recent days.  The unexpected revolt against the dictator Ben Ali in Tunisia, ignited by the self-immolation of one disaffected young man, has led to region-wide protests by citizens fed up with their own repressive leaders.  Now, the area's most populous nation and most significant power, Egypt, is ablaze in revolution, and the 30-year-plus reign of aging autocrat Hosni Mubarak is on the brink.

Official U.S. reaction to the plight of key American ally Mubarak appears to be slowly adapting.  Only a few days ago, Vice President Joe Biden rejected the notion that the Egyptian leader was a dictator, and his comments about the aims of the protests were lukewarm at best.  This morning, in a sign that the Obama administration's position was evolving as Mubarak's position has weakened, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton spoke of "an orderly transition to meet the democratic and economic needs of the people", though no calls were made for Mubarak to step down.

Engagement, Not Isolationism

There are a number of reasons one could be excited about the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. The remaining applicants competing for the job are a politically battle-tested former first lady; a charismatic fresh face who has inspired many across generational and racial lines; and a former war hero with a history of political independence.

Each of these candidates has many positive attributes. Yet I remain dismayed that they represent political parties with many adherents who have profoundly incorrect worldviews. In both the Democratic and Republican parties, there is a general lack of confidence in our country’s abilities and a mistrust of those outside our borders.

Among Democrats, this view is manifest chiefly in its opposition to free trade. Hillary Clinton, whose husband’s advocacy of the passage of NAFTA was among his administration’s top achievements, has transformed herself into a champion of protectionism. Barack Obama, no less eager to appeal to heartland voters, sings a similar tune.

A New York Times editorial chastised both earlier this month, reminding them that “trade is good for the economy, providing cheap imports and markets for exports, spurring productivity and raising living standards.” The Times urged the candidates to “offer policies that will help American workers embrace rather than fear a globalized world”, such as increased investments in education and physical capital.

While in Hong Kong last week, I read an excellent column in the Wall Street Journal Asia by Rupert Murdoch in which he spoke out against the protectionist sentiment. Never mind the blathering idiots on his Fox News Channel, Murdoch rightly points out that refusing a trade deal with countries like Colombia sends the message that America does not see them as partners. Murdoch argues that we must help developing countries which share our values of democracy and capitalism achieve prosperity, which will enable us to benefit from their valuable alliance in the future.

Turning to foreign policy, I generally agree with John McCain about the U.S.’s two most important engagements abroad. I am an advocate of a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and a sustained effort in Afghanistan. Yet I have come to detest the segment of the Republican Party that tosses around nonsensical phrases like “Islamofascism” and obsesses over a “war on terror” while ignoring the important economic and political challenges this country faces.

September 11, 2001, will forever be a day impossible for any American to forget. The fear and uncertainty we felt then were very real. It seemed as if that attack had ushered in a new world order. But it didn’t really—terrorism is just a tactic, not an ideology like communism which directly threatened our values of freedom and democracy. Thankfully we have avoided catastrophe since 9/11, and though it’s probably inevitable that we will be hit again, Americans go about their lives today feeling relatively secure.

Accordingly, I wish that certain Republican politicians and pundits would abandon their xenophobic impulses and look toward forging stronger alliances around the world. One thought Murdoch emphasized in his column was the importance of common values in a globalized era in which geography’s importance is diminished. So, for example, acknowledge the value of good relations with major European powers, and don’t dismiss the Muslim world as a breeding ground of anti-Americanism (it’s simply not true).

I think the U.S. can remain the leader of a global community, but to do so, we must embrace an optimistic mindset. We should be confident in our own abilities and we should believe that we can lead through engagement. That attitude, though tested at times, has served us best since 1776.

Stay in Iraq

In today's Diamondback, I take on the former VP of the College Democrats in a debate over whether the the war in Iraq is still worth fighting.

I say, yes we should stay! Sample grab below:

A premature U.S. departure from Iraq risks the possibility of a failed state developing in the Middle East. It would be a dire threat to regional stability and a major security risk for the U.S. and its allies. Recall, for example, that when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War, the ensuing vacuum was filled by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

...Although our endeavor is expensive and requires the sacrifice of a great many courageous Americans (and Iraqis), the potential for a modernized, democratic, pro-Western Muslim state in the Middle East means that this is a necessary fight.

Click here to read the entire column.

I'm no apologist for how the Bush administration's initial approach in Iraq. You may recall that back in August 2005 I said we needed to "change the course" and "put more of our guys on the ground". In December 2006, I said that "significantly more troops should be sent to Iraq temporarily to help with security". Now, with "the surge" underway, I am cautiously optimistic and want to see it produce a successful result for the long term.

Also check out what my opponent in today's print edition had to say. Honestly, I thought his column was pretty weak. The Iraq war is a complex and divisive issue, and there are several compelling arguments as to why we should withdraw. Mr. Hiller offers none of these in his column, instead spouting some hokey pablum about the influence of "corporations".

Even though I believe we should stay in Iraq, I respect those who argue against the war on legitimate grounds, including the following:
a) the cost in human lives
b) we don't know when it will end
c) the strain it has put on the Army might make us less flexible to respond to a future threat
d) the money spent on the war could instead go to domestic programs or the war in Afghanistan.

These points are highly effective arguments against continuation of the war, and on which I think there should be vigorous debate.

Hate Us or Love Us

In Tuesday's Washington Post, columnist Anne Applebaum points out that while the recently-assassinated Benazir Bhutto was a pro-Western leader with a lot of support in our hemisphere, she was also mired in corruption and a promoter of the Taliban. Significant elements in her own society were not enamored of her, whether for her liberal agenda (which the West focused on) or for her domestic failings (more noticed in her home country).

Applebaum links Bhutto with a long line of Western-backed foreign leaders unpopular in their own countries. Often times these leaders are "associated with domestic issues that we [the West] either don't know about, don't care about or don't understand." Unfortunately, their domestic unpopularity leads to anti-Western (anti-American) sentiment amongst their people, and thus Applebaum suggests it would be "wrong to invest too much" in them.

I think her point is only valid in some cases. Before getting into that, it's worth reflecting for a minute on how America is perceived in those countries. This summer, Moshin Hamid wrote a superb Post column entitled "Why Do They Hate Us?", in which he said:

"Part of the reason people abroad resent the United States is something Americans can do very little about: envy. The richest, most powerful country in the world attracts the jealousy of others in much the same way that the richest, most powerful man in a small town attracts the jealousy of others. It will come his way no matter how kind, generous or humble he may be."

So of course we can't please everyone. But before we pat ourselves on the back, check out what Hamid also noted:

"But there is another major reason for anti-Americanism: the accreted residue of many years of U.S. foreign policies...They form only minor footnotes in U.S. history. But they are the chapter titles of the histories of other countries, where they have had enormous consequences."

I conclude that there are certain foreign leaders who, based on their positive agendas, we have a moral imperative to back. In clear-cut circumstances, it is not a question about being concerned about our likability. If we believe in the universality of such values as human rights and representative government, then of course we support leaders who fight apartheid or authoritarianism. If we are promoting a good cause, then we shouldn't be concerned with stoking anti-Americanism.

Of course, many of America's most important alliances are with foreign leaders who are not easily seen as "good guys", so the U.S. has to avoid giving off the impression that it is benefiting at the expense of the local populaces. Realpolitik (practical considerations) dictates that we have to deal with corrupt dictators. So our goal is to show that first and foremost, we are not wedded to the leader, and we are not against the interests of the people of that country.

To do that we have to be always vocal in support of things like free speech and press, due process, and a government accountable to its citizens. We also need to show off our wealth and power through economic and humanitarian aid. Good example: after the devastating Asian tsunami a few years ago, American ships, helicopters, and personnel descended on the region--to help. We provided invaluable and inspiring assistance, and I don't doubt that we won many friends in the region who won't forget our contribution.

Other countries around the world don't have to like us, and it's OK if they don't. While acknowledging that, we should make sure that where we are disliked, it's for a good reason.

I Read the Iraq Study Group Report

For the past nine months the ten person, bipartisan Iraq Study Group (a.k.a. the Baker-Hamilton Commission) of elderly public figures has met, and in the process their much-anticipated report was expected by many to be the last, best hope for fixing what's gone wrong with the war.

Well, the report dropped yesterday, and as can be expected, reactions were all over the place. Some hailed it as a bold acknowledgement of mistakes and a call for change, some were offended by perceived threats, and some yawned and suggested that the report was exactly the kind of thing that would be produced by a large group of people with opposite ideologies who are forces to come to a consensus. That is to say, a painting brushed with broad strokes, a lot of stating the obvious. That is what I was expecting, but I had to read it for myself, and I would encourage you to do so as well.

Instead of running out to Borders or clicking over to Amazon to buy the ISG Report for $10.95, you can do what I did and read it online for free. At about 60 pages excluding appendices and surprisingly easy to read, the ISG report is helpful even for those who are not too familiar with the details of the situation in Iraq. The report provides background on the security situation, sectarian conflict, political and religious leaders, legislative and judicial issues, economic implications, and more.

All the news reports have focues on the two main recommendations from the executive summary, which are described below:

1. The U.S. needs to ask its bitter enemies Iran and Syria for help in stemming the flow of insurgents and encouraging Iraqi national unity. This recommendation is already causing indigestion amongst many hawkish conservatives--a guest on the conservative blog PowerLine ridiculed the notion of getting "terrorists [sic] supporting countries involved in fighting terrorism." The ISG also generically recommends diplomatic initiatives to resolve tensions in Lebanon and provide a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel dispute.
   
   
2. "Significantly" more troops should be sent to Iraq temporarily to help with security, but most American forces in Iraq could be withdrawn by early 2008. I agree with this position, but I know it's bound to draw fire from both critics and supporters of the war. The former will not want to send more men and women to die in Iraq, and the latter will refuse to give up on the mission or abandon the Iraqi people.
   

While the above two recommendations have generated much of the headlines, I found several interesting insights in the background assesment part of the report. What follows is the rather lengthy list I wound up jotting down (all emphases added by me unless otherwise indicated):

• Props for not mincing words and stating the obvious from the get-go: the intro paragraph in the first section says "The level of violence is high and growing. There is great suffering, and the daily lives of many Iraqis show little or no improvement. Pessimism is pervasive." To its credit, the ISG denounced "staying the course," an acknowledgement that the war is going badly, and was equally disparaging to the idea of withdrawing immediately.
  
  
• How bad is the security situation? "Total attacks [against U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi security forces] in October 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day in January 2006...Attacks against civilians in October were four times higher than in January. Some 3,000 Iraqi civilians are killed every month."
  
  
• On the sources of violence in Iraq: "Most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency...It has significant support from within the Sunni Arab community." The Bush administration, by playing up al Qaeda's role, does not acknowledge the fact that the main troublemakers are themselves Iraqis. To be fair, although al Qaeda plays a small role, "that includes some of the more spectacular acts: suicide attacks, truck bombs, and attacks on significant religious or political targets." Its goal is to incite all-out war between Shi'a and Sunni.
  
  The main problem, though, remains sectarian violence, which "causes the largest number of Iraqi civilian casualties." Shiite militias/death squads include two prominent groups: the Mahdi Army (which has "as many as 60,000 fighters"), led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr Brigade, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, which is closely tied to Iran.
  
  
• How are Iraqis being affected by the war? "The United Nations estimates that 1.6 million are displaced within Iraq, and up to 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country."
  
  
• We have trained and equipped 326,000 Iraqi security forces (police and Army). The Army is making "fitful progress"--it is described as "one of the more professional Iraqi institutions." That said, sectarian divisions run rife even here, and large parts of the Army apparently refuse to carry out their assigned missions. Then there's the whole lack of leadership, equipment, personnel, logistics, and support.
  
  That's at least better than the police, who "cannot control crime" and who "routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians." The police forces are heavily infiltrated by militia members, assasins, and other thugs.
  
  
• The report on the political and religious leaders in Iraq is bleak: Prime Minister Maliki is beholden to Sadr, who has built a political party within government and maintains an outside armed militia in a manner reminiscent of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The leading Shiite cleric in Iraq, the moderate Ayatollah Sistani, wants a unified Iraq, but his influence is declining. Iraq's third major ethnic group, the Kurds, want their own state--their leaders certainly don't care much for the idea of the Iraqi nation.
  
  
• The Kurds already have their own autonomous regious, and the Shiites may press for one in the future. The Sunnis want a unified Iraq, but only with themselves as the rulers. There is no economically feasible independent Sunni state, because Iraq's oil reserves are all located in Kurdish or Shi'a areas.
  
  
• Do these guys make Ken Lay look tame? "Corruption is rampant. One senior Iraqi official estimated that official corruption costs Iraq $5-7 billion per year."
  
  
• Regarding the economy: "Growth in Iraq is at roughly 4 percent this year. Inflation is above 50 percent. Unemployment estimates range widely from 20 to 60 percent."
  
  
• The cost of war for the U.S.: $400 billion so far. We are currently spending $8 billion each month! The ISG says the final bill could be as high as $2 trillion.

After the report concludes the Assessment portion, it moves on to recommendations. And you know how old people always love to give advice? This panel certainly did--79 recommendations in all, with perhaps the two most important described above.

Of the rest, they range from consequential to mundane, with some maddeningly generic. For example, they call for "significantly greater analytic resources to the task of understanding the threats and sources of violence in Iraq." In any case, I'm sure over the next week or two, we'll see more discussion and debate of the specific recommendations. At that time I might have more to say about them.

Defensible Action by Israel

How quickly things change. It was only a year ago that Ariel Sharon was making a historic pullout from the Gaza Strip and it appeared to me that a future peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict was at least not an impossibility. Now, the Middle East is engaged in its worst crisis since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon a quarter-century ago. Just last month I was reading From Beirut to Jerusalem, a history of that conflict--now its deja vu on the front pages.

Surprisingly, many people are blaming Israel for this latest flareup, an accusation I believe is unfounded. I think the U.S. position that Israel has the right to stop terrorist attacks (while not using disproportionate force) is a correct one. The current situation is different from those in the past, when I would generally take a more moderate tone with regards to the players. This time the instigator of troubles is very clear--Iran is fully culpable for fomenting instability in the region. This comes after Israel has shown good faith with its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. This comes after Syria ended a decades-long occupation of Lebanon, giving that country its first chance for democracy and freedom to succeed.

But those signs of progress were too much to stomach for Iran and Syria, of course. Hence their war by proxy against Israel through the extremist groups Hezbollah (in Lebanon) and Hamas (in Palestine). Hezbollah, operating as an autonomous entity in Lebanon, makes a mockery of the institution of self-government in that country, and its actions bring suffering upon the Lebanese people. Likewise with Hamas, who lets it militant wing run unchecked while it neglects the basic operations of running a government.

Robin Wright writes in today's Washington Post that, according to U.S. estimates, Hezbollah receives "$100 million annually from Iran in goods, cash, and arms, including an estimated 13,000 rockets and missiles." That malevolent sponsor also happens to be closing in on attaining a nuclear bomb. Faced with enemies with capabilities like that, I echo David Brooks' incredulity that people think Israel is "overreacting." Israel should sit still and do nothing all this while? Of course not. And let's not act like the U.S. can't pick a horse to back here. The Islamist groups and their state sponsors hate the West and are impediments to the spread of freedom and democracy. Israel's actions against its enemies are in line with U.S. interests.

Yet it is important to remember the many, many innocent Lebanese and Palestinian civilians who are victims of this war. What is sad is that they are paying the price for the terrorists that operate from their land. These terrorists know full well the consequences their actions will have on their innocent countrymen, but that doesn't matter to them--only jihad does. Their destructive behavior dooms the people on whose behalf they claim to be fighting.

In this conflict, there is much suffering on both sides. When I see pictures of bombed out buildings and bridges in Beirut, I feel terrible, as I do when I see rockets landing in Haifa. That doesn't change the fact, however, that there is a clear right and wrong. Israel has the right and responsibility to protect its citizens by targeting its enemies. Those enemies aren't just Israel's enemies, they are the enemies of progress and a peaceful future in the Middle East, and everyone would be better off without them.

Is it possible that we can achieve that? Yes, but not with missiles and artillery shells. David Ignatius wrote in Friday's Post about the basic steps needed for a proper resolution to this mess. First of all, this conflict must not be the U.S. and Israel versus the Muslim world, because we are trying to bring the silent majority of moderate Muslims to confront the extremists in charge. The weak central governments that are being eclipsed by the non-state actors must be strengthened: a strong and responsive Palestinian Authority must exist so that it is not hostage to the Hamas militia, and an already pro-Western Lebanese government led by Fouad Siniora must be helped so that it can rein in Hezbollah.

The U.S. should provide assistance in this endeavor, because we--the U.S., Israel, and the Lebanese and Palestinian people--share a common enemy: the extremists. Once they are defeated, then we can look forward to a more hopeful future in the Middle East

Review: The One Percent Doctrine

This past week I read Ron Suskind's best-selling new book The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11. Going in, I wasn't sure what to expect from the author of the first major book criticizing President Bush (2002's The Price of Loyalty, about then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, which I have not read). Yet the subject matter was compelling enough for me to pick up the book. Now that I have finished reading it, I can say that this book is important enough to be required reading for all Americans who want to understand the nature of the post-9/11 threat this country faces and how we are responding.

The titular "one percent doctrine" is a reference to a quote by Vice President Cheney, in which he opines that catastrophic threats to the U.S. pose such a great danger that our country's response must be to react those threats with a 1% chance of occuring as being a certainty. Hence, it follows, preemption, unilateralism, renditions, etc.

Probably the first question many people have regarding this book: is it a partisan hatchet-job? The answer is no, and I admit being a little surprised myself here. Suskind's reporting of America's struggle to combat al-Qaeda in the pre-Iraq War years should earn him a medal. He provides an unsurpassed amount of detail into all the successes and setbacks of various U.S. counterterrorism operations.

Some parts of the book seem like Hollywood thriller material. My favorite story involved a CIA operation targeting "al-Qaeda's banker", Pacha Wazir. Afer quietly arresting Wazir and his associates, the CIA sent a few of its specially trained agents of Pakistani descent for an amazing undercover mission. Passing themselves off as distant cousins of Wazir, and explaining the latter's absence due to a family illness, the undercover agents took over Wazir's bank and continued to receive customers. This fantastic operation resulted in the capture of dozens of key terrorists.

Yet tempering triumphs like those are maddening passages like the one detailing how the U.S. bungled the apprehension of the eventual architect of the British 7/7/05 bombings due to bureaucratic tanglings. Another troubling story concerns the capture of Abu Zubaydah, originally thought to be a major al-Qaeda leader and whose apprehension was hailed by President Bush. Problem was, Zubaydah was soon found to be just a menial agent, and worse, a certifiable schizophrenic. Suskind writes that despite this, "the United States would torture a mentally disurbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered." Zubaydah would conjure up several plot details about attacks on shopping malls, supermarkets, and banks, leading law enforcement to squander valuable resources. Even so, it must be pointed out that in what is perhaps a victory for advocates of "rough" treatment of detainees, Zubaydah finally told his interregators about Jose Padilla.

If there is any story arc to The One Percent Doctrine, it is that Suskind finds former CIA director George Tenet to be a tragic hero--he describes Tenet as being "the man most responsible, if anyone is, that America has not, again, been attacked" and laments how Tenet became the "fall guy" for the Bush administration over the lack of WMDs in Iraq. Suskind is a huge critic of the Iraq war, and toward the end of the book he takes leave of just-the-facts reporting to slam the White House (and then-National Security adviser Condi Rice especially) for the way they handled the runup to the war.

Considering that this book contains terrific reporting about so many things the American public doesn't know about the war on terrorism, I was a bit disappointed to see Suskind's personal viewpoint start to weigh heavier later in the book. Nonetheless, I stand by what I said before, that the book does not come across as overtly biased. There is definitely enough here for any open-minded reader to see both sides and come to their own conclusions.

My only other complaint about this book, one I made frequently though it is minor, is Suskind's penchant for "florid" writing. I think his terse and gripping account of terrorist plots or key Cabinet meetings would have been better off, from the reader's point of view, without being constantly interrupted by sentences like these "The connected planet creates all manner of loops, where knowledge spurs action, which is captured in image and word and then cycled back--the mythical perpetual motion machine comes to life."

Considering the insignificance of the criticisms I have mentioned, I would strongly recommend this book. Besides getting a front-row seat in the bleachers down at Gitmo Bay, I can't think of a way to feel more "in the know" about the war on terrorism than to read The One Percent Doctrine.

Sensible Proposals from a Democrat

Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) has a good piece in today's Washington Post entitled "Keeping the Progress Going". While he doesn't have anything particularly groundbreaking to say, I was impressed with the moderate, constructive position he stakes out on a number of issues. Considering he lost out to Nancy Pelosi for the Democrats' House leadership position, I can only imagine the different position the part would be in had his agenda been in place. After all, on one hand you have the Bush administration, detached from some of the harsh realities of war and diplomacy as well as the need to respect constitutional authority at home. On the other hand, you have the Democratic party leadership of Reid and Pelosi who operate reflexively against Bush and the Republicans without offering any constructive solutions of their own.

Ford is a realist. He acknowledges progress in Afghanistan and Iraq and rejects the idea of some of his Democratic colleagues that American troops should return home immediately. Says Ford, "I want the troops home as much as anyone, but having to send another generation to that region to fight 10 or more years from now because we left too early would be a worse outcome than the situation we now face. We need to do this right the first time." Amen, brother.

His platform includes a call for Bush to end his controversial domestic spying program ("We are a nation of laws. We cannot be in the business of exporting democracy and liberty if we cannot protect it at home.") Yet Ford does not deny the president the authority needed to protect national security; he just suggests that legislation in Congress create the necessary adjustments to the current system.

Ford's also puts in a call for an increased commitment to improved foreign relations. That in itself is a generic sentiment, but I was pleasantly surprised that his affirmation of the U.N. contained a push for reform of that organization--an idea that is a staple of the right-wing.

Why aren't more Democrats putting forth definitive positions and constructive ideas instead of engaging in endless partisan sniping or self-aggrandization? Ford is running for the Senate in 2006; I hope he succeeds. The Democratic Party, if it wants the public to realize that it stands for something, should be promoting more intelligent voices like Harold Ford's. He shows us there is a viable middle ground between caving to the Bush administration and the hysteria of the extreme left-wing.

Bush on Iraq: Work in Progress

It's been over two months since I last posted here, my busy schedule having convinced me to take a break from the site for a while. In the next couple weeks, however, I hope to get back into the swing of things. I'm considering a new format with more emphasis on sports and pop culture, and adding frequent short posts with links to interesting articles interspersed between my usual essays. That's the plan at least, but first...

President Bush addressed the nation in a live televised speech Sunday night to talk about the situation in Iraq (see full text). To his detractors, it was yet another easy opportunity to dismiss the usual "same old cheerleading." This time, however, I was inclined to disagree. It seems to me that in recent weeks, the administration has been taking a different tack toward handling criticism of the war. Instead of completely ignoring the very idea that opposition to the war even exists, Bush & Co. are now making more of an effort to engage skeptics and convince them of the wisdom of staying the course. And the slogan "Mission Accomplished" seems to have finally been replaced with the more accurate "Work in Progress".

This speech, then, is quite a big deal. Bush was elected as a man whose popularity was derived from a leadership style seen as removed from the fickleness of ratings and poll numbers. While the idea sounded admirable, it didn't work too well when practiced to the extreme, and now it seems the president has realized he has a responsibility to serve the interests of the public that elected him. At a time when the public is increasingly questioning the war, it only seems right that he take the opportunity to address their concerns.

In Sunday night's speech, Bush acknowledged the lack of WMD's in Iraq. saying "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," but with refreshing candor added "as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." Furthermore, he continued by admitting to the ongoing "danger and suffering and loss" and explicitly stated that the situation has "led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving." He went on to give a compelling answer to that question, citing critical progress while answering key criticisms at each turn.

To the question of whether the Iraq war was hurting the war on terrorism, Bush memorably responded "the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone...We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them." Bush went on to admit that the reconstruction of Iraq was going slower than expected, but importantly pointed out that progress was being made despite "the grim results [of the insurgency] on the evening news." Judging by events like last week's successful elections in Iraq, I believed the President when he said:

"For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq -- we are winning the war in Iraq."

The last part of Bush's speech was more reminiscent of the triumphant tone and well-worn cliches of the administration's past, but on the whole, I believe the content of the speech definitely merited attention--enough so, at least, to justify the delayed airing of the new Family Guy.

My major concern now is that even with the administration's new, more diplomatic approach, it may be too late. While I share the president's belief in the need to stay in Iraq until the job is finished, Congress and the American public are already deeply entrenched in their own views of the Iraq war, and there is little reason to anticipate that anyone will change their minds now. If only this speech had come a year ago, it might have been so much more meaningful. I'm glad President Bush is doing more to acknowledge the tough reality of the war; I just wish he had done so earlier, at a time when more people were willing to believe the sacrifices are worth it.

What They Don't Understand

Today, on the fourth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I came back to a column written by Thomas Friedman a few weeks after the Twin Towers fell. The following excerpt contains the simplest and best statement of what makes America great, our flaws notwithstanding, and why the ideology of terrorism does not offer a viable future for the frustrated Muslim masses:

[The Islamic terrorists'] constant refrain is that America is a country with wealth and power but "no values." The Islamic terrorists think our wealth and power is unrelated to anything in the soul of this country -- that we are basically a godless nation, indeed the enemies of God. And if you are an enemy of God you deserve to die. These terrorists believe that wealth and power can be achieved only by giving up your values, because they look at places such as Saudi Arabia and see that many of the wealthy and powerful there lead lives disconnected from their faith.

Of course, what this view of America completely misses is that American power and wealth flow directly from a deep spiritual source -- a spirit of respect for the individual, a spirit of tolerance for differences of faith or politics, a respect for freedom of thought as the necessary foundation for all creativity and a spirit of unity that encompasses all kinds of differences. Only a society with a deep spiritual energy, that welcomes immigrants and worships freedom, could constantly renew itself and its sources of power and wealth.

Which is why the terrorists can hijack Boeing planes, but in the spiritless, monolithic societies they want to build, they could never produce them. The terrorists can exploit the U.S.- made Internet, but in their suffocated world of one God, one truth, one way, one leader, they could never invent it.

Lord knows, ours is hardly a perfect country. Many times we have deviated from the American spirit or applied it selfishly. But it is because we come back to this spirit more times than not, in more communities than not, that our country remains both strong and renewable.

America has made many missteps in the Middle East, and even today, our policies need to be revamped for both our benefit and for the benefit of their masses. Nonetheless, the Muslim public needs to vocally reject terrorism and not sympathize with Osama bin Laden & Co. Terrorism does not offer any constructive message or vision for the future. Terrorism, and continued blind hatred of America and Israel, is not an answer for the Arab countries. Terrorism is not going to solve chronic unemployment or enable political opposition or modernize economies. Terrorism delegitimizes the valid grievances that Muslims have.

Today, on the anniversary of one of the most horrific days in America's history, the fight against terrorism goes on. That fight is interminably connected with the struggle by the Islamic world to offer a better future for its people.

Change the Course

Now that the situation in Iraq has reached a critical point, it's time for President Bush to talk straight to the American public if he wants continued support for the war. The public acknowledges a few simple facts: 1) Saddam Hussein was an awful, evil dictator; 2) the U.S.'s original rationale for the war was false; 3) the war has not made this country demonstrably safer. Bush can't just keep invoking the memory of September 11, 2001 and instructing us to "stay the course". The course has gone from a run-of-the-mill invasion to a really bad episode of Punk'd.

The long line of failures that got us into this mess in the first place have already been recognized by everybody outside of the White House. In Iraq, that pesky insurgency is wreaking havoc. Jeffersonian democracy hasn't flourished, but civil war and the creation of an Iran-allied theocracy could be forthcoming. A Republican senator (Chuck Hagel) has used the dreaded V-word (Vietnam). Members of the president's own party are speaking out about the need to alter our strategy, or at the very least, define our goals. What do we still hope to accomplish?

The focus at home remains on bringing our troops back, and understandably so considering the strain on our overextended military. However, I don't think it's time to throw in the towel just yet. Yes, Iraq has become and likely will remain a hotbed of terrorism for years to come, regardless of how long we stay. But I am considering the larger picture of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. If we cut and run and then Iraq dissolves into chaos, we will set the chances of progress in that entire region back.

Unfortunately, thanks to the blunders by this administration, Iraq is an unpopular war that we just might be stuck with while blindly hoping that everything turns out ok. In that case, we should at least give ourselves a better chance of winning. The president thinks current troop levels are ok, but the strength of the insurgency tells you need we need to put more of our guys on the ground. We need to pour money and manpower into developing Iraq's infrastructure so that they can hold their own once we're gone. We also need to revive a practically non-existent diplomatic campaign to engage the various factions in Iraq as well as Iraq's neighbors who have a stake in the outcome. Gen. Wesley Clark recently offered the clearest, most straightforward vision yet for what the U.S. must do to succeed in Iraq--his column "Before It's Too Late" in last Friday's Washington Post is a must-read.

I do hope that the United States continues to promote liberalization and economic reform in the Muslim world, where both are sorely needed. In going about it in the future though, I hope we'll remember a valuable lesson learned the hard way from our mistakes in Iraq. The best of intentions and the best of armies aren't always enough to get the job done--and a little understanding of the people we're dealing with can go a long way.

India Loves America

The results of a study released in June by the Pew Global Attitudes Project show that India is the most pro-American country in the world. While the attitudes of several major European powers as well as former staunchly pro-U.S. nations like Canada and Poland have soured, it appears that an astonishing 71% of Indians give a thumbs-up to Uncle Sam. Even taking into account that the Pew survey may have overrepresented urban (and presumably more pro-American) areas, the 27% increase in favor since 2002 is tremendous--and at odds with the rising tide of anti-Americanism around the world.

So why is India so solidly pro-American? Part of it comes from the fact that so many Indian immigrants have found success in America, especially in respectable fields like medicine, engineering, and computers. But whereas in past decades it was virtually a necessity that Indians come to the U.S. to succeed, that is no longer the case. Thanks to India's blossoming economy and the tech boom that Thomas Friedman and others have chronicled, bright Indians (at least in urban areas) are able to thrive in their own country. With increased affluence, they are better able to identify with the West, and America in particular. Hence a former Soviet-aligned country now sees the United States as a vastly preferable model.

It is interesting to note that in Pakistan, our dubious "ally", only 23% of the public feel kindly toward us. "With friends like that..." comes to mind; add "impediment to GWOT (Global War on Terrorism)" to the list of reasons why a shift is needed in our outdated Pakistan-over-India policy in South Asia. To his credit, President Bush has been quick to realize the value of cultivating strong ties with India. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is visiting the U.S. next week, and will be the guest of honor at the first state dinner of Bush's second term. While the pairing between two secular democracies and victims of terrorism may seem natural, it is long overdue. I'm glad to see them finally hooking up!

Selling Out on F-16s (Part II)

This post is a followup to Saturday's "Selling Out on F-16s"

Well folks, it may not have the allure of 50 Cent versus The Game, but there's beef afoot in the blogosphere!

This past weekend I was debating Mr. Adnan Gill of Owl's Tree, a journalist who "frequently writes articles in national and international news media." The latter raised a couple of points worth mentioning, but before I get to that I want to point to my readers to a post Mr. Gill subsequently made in which he resorted to ad hominem attacks implying that I was somehow disingenuous or less-than-forthcoming on this site about my identity.

I find the claim that I am hiding behind an Internet alias to be not only inaccurate, but humorous when considering that Mr. Gill got my email address from my profile on this site, where my full name and status as a student in Maryland is given. (An undergraduate at the University of Maryland, College Park for those who care to know.) While I am of Indian ethnicity, I was born and raised here to parents that are American citizens and have lived here for over twenty years. My pride in my heritage does not translate into a blind nationalism for a country that I do not really have any ties to. And I will be first in line to criticize India when their actions merit it, such as when religious strife is permitted or the rights of minorities are not protected. Had Mr. Gill chosen to question me on India's close ties to Iran as an energy source, I would admit that I find these actions in conflict with the U.S.'s attempt to isolate the "rogue state".

Mr. Gill, as he mentions on the home page of his site, is a political commentator whose work has been seen in many publications. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I think it is worth mentioning that he also happens to be a writer for the Pak Tribune, an Islamabad-based online news service. I believe it's only fair that this bit of information serve as a disclaimer to a site which posts entries with titles like "Come India, the myth is busted", "Indians behind masks" and "Indians, eat your hearts out!"

He said of me, "If I didn't know any better, I would say you are Indian." Whereupon I might speculate that he is from Pakistan or some other Muslim country. This point is actually irrelevant. Mr. Gill's affiliation does not detract from the value of his argument; it is, however, a reminder not to throw around claims of disingenuity or bias when they are unwarranted.

As to the actual matter at hand, I'll say this. India, situated in a dangerous "neighborhood", must have the means to protect itself. As a peaceful democracy, I would argue that it has earned that right. In my opinion, it is in the U.S.'s interest to promote India's economic expansion and military strength because they are a free country in South Asia whose growth as a world power is needed to balance the region. (An unstable dictatorship in Pakistan, India's other struggling small country neighbors, and the burgeoning power of communist China.) Nick commented on my previous post that Musharraf in charge of Pakistan is better than the fundamentalists, and with that I obviously agree. Still, we must not forget that democracy has intermittently existed in Pakistan in years past. With elements of democracy now coming to such unlikely places as Palestine, Ukraine, and Saudi Arabia, perhaps it's not too much to hope for a healthy democracy in Pakistan's future. That, I think, is the key to a lasting positive future for Indo-Pakistani relations.

I opposed the release of the F-16s to Pakistan because I do not want anything to escalate tensions between India and Pakistan right now. Recently, constructive measures have been taken to reduce hostilities, such as the creation of a bus line linking divided Kashmir. Why then, when such progress is being made, introduce a new point of contention into the equation?

All can agree, I think, that the one element of rivalry worth preserving between the two nations is in cricket. I understand that Pakistan apparently won a thrilling victory today--Mr. Gill, I surmise, should be pleased. As for me, I suppose it's a betrayal of my Indian roots that I've never seen a cricket match in my entire life--and the big sports event I'm eagerly awaiting is baseball's Opening Day! The only "mask" this Indian has ever put on is a catcher's mask.

The purpose of Citizens Band is not to provide political "spin" or to be a source of one-sided commentary. I try my best to adhere to the oft-quoted Daniel Patrick Moynihan maxim "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." On that note, I thank Mr. Gill for providing an opposing perspective to my stated thoughts, and for prodding me to illustrate in greater detail my rationale for my position. These kinds of exchanges, I hope, are beneficial to both parties and to the readers of our blogs. The more said, the better, as long as what's being said is about the issue itself and not who is saying it.

Selling Out on F-16s

The troubling news on Friday that the U.S. is finally agreeing to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan caught everyone by surprise, and with good reason. Apparently, the reversal of a fifteen-year ban is a reward to Pakistan for being an ally in the war on terrorism. This is President Bush's way of "scratching the back" of Pakistan's autocratic ruler, Gen. Perves Musharraf, after being on the receiving end of favors in the past few years.

I strongly question Bush's decision for numerous reasons. The first would be to counter the principle rationale for this deal--that Pakistan has been very helpful in anti-terrorism operations after September 11, 2001. While this may be true, Bush is too easily discounting Pakistan's contributions to the other side. A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network aided some of the worst enemies of our country--Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. Yet his actions, and their potentially serious consequences, have not factored it into Bush's assesment of Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan continues to do nothing to rein in terrorists in its portion of the disputed region of Kashmir, leaving those groups unmolested and free to attack India.

Which raises my second argument against Bush's staunch support of Pakistan. Obviously, Pakistan's neighbor and rival, India, is displeased with the decision. The largest secular democracy in the world appears to be the Rodney Dangerfield of Asia in that it "don't get no respect." As my dad pointed out, it appeared earlier this week that this was finally about to change. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former ambassador Robert Blackwill argued for "A New Deal for New Delhi", to recognize the "congruent vital national interests" of the U.S. and India. Blackwill readily proposed that Pakistan be sidelined.

On the same day, the New York Times featured an argument by former senator Larry Pressler entitled "Dissing Democracy in Asia". Pressler proved the need for a "fundamental policy shift" to a "robust pro-India stance" by constrasting, as Blackwill did, India's free, open, peaceful nature with Pakistan's opposite characteristics. Part of Bush's "expansion of freedom and liberty" should include choosing "free" India over "dictatorship" Pakistan, said Pressler. He even went so far as to suggest that the U.S. strengthen its alliance with India so as to offset a rising China, a move I heartily endorse.

The Bush administration announced that it is willing to sell lots of fighter planes to India as well, if India desires. Small comfort. Has he forgotten that India and Pakistan--nuclear powers, both--came to the brink of war in 2002? Having already sold out to Pakistan, the quick fix for the U.S. is to up the ante in India's favor. Yet the only real winner from all of this is Lockheed Martin. For the future, Bush would do well to choose his friends wisely, and always err on the side of freedom.

Serious About Syria

"You get your troops and your secret services out of Lebanon so that good democracy has a chance to flourish."
-- President Bush (on Wednesday)

The Prez means business! OK, so he sounded more like a frazzled soccer mom scolding her kids for misbehaving in the minivan, but the point still stands. It turns out that the latest fad to hit the Middle East is--no, not John Mayer, though I wish we could get rid of him somehow--scaling back on repression. Elections in Saudi Arabia (however meaningless), the promise of elections in Egypt (Hosni, you know how to tease us), and now the resignation of the pro-Syrian puppet goverment in Lebanon. Wow, the only way this scene could be more riveting is the sudden discovery that the late Prime Minister Hariri was assasinated not in a bombing but by dioxin poisoning! Then we'd have ourselves a bona fide feel good story.

Folks, in a few months time we'll see jubilant Lebanese dancing in the streets, holding up purple-stained fingers in celebration of their vote. This momentous triumph of freedom will--ok, ok, slow down. I guess the feel-good moment is getting to me. Still, I'm interested in seeing what happens next. I always get this excited when I see freedom on the march bravely limping forward.

Who's going to come out on top in this one--Assad, Hezbollah, or Good Democracy? There's almost enough possible outcomes to start a "March Madness" bracket! Root for your favorite from the comfort of your own home. If you're a true fan of freedom, you'll hang this on your bedroom wall:

(Click to enlarge.)

Dubya 2.0

On Thursday at noon, President Bush delivered the inaugural address to his second term. He appeared markedly confident and in charge, signaling a leader who has grown into the role over four years. His speech was decent, but unfortunately afflicted by singlemindedness. No issue on the domestic agenda was addressed, nor any specific foreign policy issue. Instead we saw a celebration and exposition of American ideals by a wartime president. In spirit it may have been FDR's or Kennedy's, if only it had been more substantative and better delivered.

Bush's major problem was that he focused exclusively on grandiose rhetoric. As soon as the transcript became available online, I rushed to count the number of times the words "freedom" and "liberty" appeared. Jon Stewart did the same on The Daily Show with a running scoreboard, ultimately finding Freedom to prevail over Liberty by a score of 27-15 (to which Stewart dryly noted that "Liberty...has been playing hurt since the Patriot Act".)

The President's speech, promising at first, became a slapstick collection of cliché statements. The longer I watched, the less plausible his words seemed. All his lofty talk of America standing up for human rights and liberty and defending the oppressed--those ideals haven't always been the hallmark of Bush's first term. If those are indeed the core beliefs he is so committed to, then where was the U.S. when the genocide in Sudan broke out? Why isn't Bush encouraging friends like Musharraf or Putin to show a little more love for freedom and liberty?

The inaugural address proved to be quite enlightening to anyone who didn't already know that the President espoused freedom. Which is not to suggest that Bush's words be dismissed entirely. On the contrary, the principles he laid out in his speech are admirable. But I can only hope that Bush, after having "talked the talk", will in his second term "walk the walk." I'm still waiting for him to explain to us what he plans to actually do with his additional four years, especially with regards to Social Security (one House Republican has already termed the Bush plan a "dead horse") and the growing threat from Iran (especially in light of Sy Hersh's report and Vice President Cheney's speculation that Israel might strike first.)

Many questions remain to be answered. What that means is that the important speech to pay attention to is still to come--on February 2, when the President clues us in to the "State of the Union". It promises to be interesting, to say the least. For now, all I have left to say is, good luck to you Mr. Bush, and to all of us, in the next four years. We just might need it!

The World in 2020

On Friday, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) presented "Mapping the Global Future" (full text), its latest report offering predictions for the state of the world in 2020. Among the highlights:

- Asian Ascension

In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the “American Century,” the 21'st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and India, comes into its own. A combination of sustained high economic growth, expanding military capabilities, and large populations will be at the root of the expected rapid rise in economic and political power for both countries.

• China and India become major economic powers
• Japan challenged to reevaluate its role
• North Korean crisis has come to a head
• Russian influence important but limited

- The Global Economy

Asia looks set to displace Western countries as the focus for international economic dynamism—provided Asia’s rapid economic growth continues.

• World economy 80% larger than in 2000
• Average per capita income 50% higher
• The U.S., though still the single most important power, will lose ground to China and India
• China's GDP will exceed every Western country except the U.S.; India's GDP will equal or exceed all European countries

- New World Order

Informal networks of charitable foundations, madrassas, hawalas, and other mechanisms will continue to proliferate and be exploited by radical elements; alienation among unemployed youths will swell the ranks of those vulnerable to terrorist recruitment.

• Political Islam has significant global impact
• Democracy in former Soviet Union and Southeast Asian republics could be undone
• China/Taiwan or India/Pakistan issues could lead to one side taking preemptive military action and resulting in all-out war
• Al-Qaeda has been replaced by a numer of equally dangerous splinter groups
• Bioterrorism is the biggest security concern

The NIC considered four possible "futures", each having the potential to be realized:

• "Davos World" - globalization and the growth of China and India lead to a world not dominated by the West
• "Pax Americana" - the U.S. weathers global changes and maintains its hegemony
• "A New Caliphate" - a political organization of Islam challenges the West
• "Cycle of Fear" - concerns over security cause "large-scale intrusive security measures...possibly introducing an Orwellian world."

* * *

What does this all mean? Well, despite it being easy to get lost in gloomy speculation, the good news is that the rise to prominence of Bollywood will inundate the globe with sappy, melodramatic love stories full of song and dance. ("An expanded Asian-centric cultural identity may be the most profound effect of a rising Asia.")

Seriously though, the growing importance of Asia is hardly a surprise to anyone. I don't doubt that U.S. unipolarity will diminish as nations on the rise like China and India tap into the well of world power. Still, the U.S. will be at the forefront of all the major movements to come, helping to shape world affairs. Says Jessica Matthews (in the von Drehle article I link to below), "We're still best in the world at adapting to rapidly changing circumstances. No other nation takes disruption in stride the way we do." Phew!

Of the four scenarios presented by the NIC, I see the first and second as most viable--the most likely outcome may be a mix of the two. I have enough faith--for now at least--in common sense and an American's dedication to liberty that I don't see 1984 becoming a reality for us. The U.S., in my opinion, can and will win the war against Islamist extremism. We will do so not just through military force, but by demonstrating with the help of moderate Muslims that democracy offers people a better future.

The biggest threat to all this, of course, is what the NIC described in its third scenario--the formation of an Islamic caliphate that, through its religious and political authority, could mobilize Muslims across the globe into religious extremism. Bad news for us: the report warns that "[a] Caliphate would not have to be entirely successful for it to present a serious challenge to the international order." Furthermore, "[t]he proclamation of a Caliphate would not lessen the likelihood of terrorism and, in fomenting more conflict, could fuel a new generation of terrorists intent on attacking those opposed to the Caliphate, whether inside or outside the Muslim world."

We have our work cut out for us so that we can head off such a political organization, however unlikely its formation now seems. The entire mindset and cultural views of a generation of Muslims must be confronted. Radical elements of Islam are the 21st century equivalent of the Communist threat to the West. The task we are facing is difficult, but doable if we make the right policy decisions. Leading by example, we must show the people of the Middle East and elsewhere the benefits of rejecting extremism. It can be done, and I have every confidence that it will be done. I'm looking forward to the next fifteen years--it'll be one helluva ride!

Further Reading:
"The Yikes Years" - David von Drehle, (Washington Post Magazine, November 2004)
"World War IV" - Norman Podhoretz (Commentary, September 2004)