::

 
Anti-Cojonialism Watch

This time it is Germany that demonstrates to Al Qaeda that it has no CKojones
Adam Sullivan, 13:56 | 0 comments

::

 
Must Play

I don't like to say "must read," but I am happy to say "must play!"

Game of the month - For all aspiring IDF chopper pilots, we have shoot the sheik.
Adam Sullivan, 13:07 | 0 comments

::

 
Now Yassin him, now ya don't

I've been observing the punditry as they work out the good/bad of Israel taking out Yassin. The media seem to have an epidemic level of mass illiteracy in the field of warfare, if not ethics and political pragmatism as well.

Lets get the ethical / political pragmatism part out of the way.

First, there is the hang up about calling Yassin the "spiritual leader of Hamas." I have no problem with this, just as I have no problem calling Satan the "spiritual leader of Hell." Have I made my point? Good.

Second, was it ethically wrong? To anyone who applies moral or cultural relativism to their view of ethics, then I have to ask "Who are you to judge this being right or wrong?" The standards of ethics that Post-Modernity has introduced to the world decry any sense of universality to ethical standards. Therefore, Israel is exempt from the standards that Europe wishes to impose on her, and for Europe to maintain otherwise is to oppress Israel.

For one who sees that there are universal ethical standards that apply to all cultures in all times, then one is obliged to look at the choices presented and made. We have a situation where a belligerent had decided that his best means of harming his counter-belligerent was to target civilians, intending to kill as many in the most gruesome way possible with no other intent than to induce suffering. The counter-belligerent then decides to kill the belligerent after the belligerent announces that he will not reign in his terror and he will never negotiate with the counter belligerent. Is this somehow unethical insofar as universal standards of ethical conduct of war is concerned?

Third, we have a political wonk-fest telling Israel that killing terrorists is stupid because that motivates terrorists to conduct more terror attacks. Israel has tried various different approaches, in part to please American and European policy makers. It negotiated a land-for-peace deal which ended up with an escalation of terror attacks by Hamas, who was intent on scuttling any peace deal with Israel. It withdrew forces from southern Lebanon, which earned more attacks from Hezbollah. Israel has a checkered past of different governments trying different approaches regarding Palestine, none resulting in anything but more terror. Israel did not know that these different approaches would end in more terror - only the most hardened of cynics would have made such a prediction. Just the same, such a prediction would have turned out to be true.

In counseling Israel on political pragmatism, one ought to attempt to point to some action in Israel's past that has produced less terror. An open minded person then might discover that just about every option has been tried - none have produced a settlement. In all cases involving pragmatic "good will" gestures, the long term result has been more terror. In the sphere of pragmatism, Israel has few choices left, and none that rely on cooperation from Palestinians.

Am I saying that Palestinians are incapable of making peace with Israel? Incapable of agreeing and keeping to honorable terms? Not at all. What I am saying is that there is no stable political entity that can be called "Palestine." Hamas demonstrates this by its very existence.

Palestinians have no government - just competing entities with guns, each intent on having its solution be the one adopted vis a vis Israel. On the other side of the coin, Israel is not without its factions - militant settlers make for a tough faction to deal with - a faction that does not always recognize the laws of Israel and actively oppose their enforcement. Just the same, these Israeli extremist groups are far better controlled by the state of Israel then a group like Hamas is by the Palestinian Authority. Arafat recognizes this fact by his actions - he is so distrustful of his fellow Palestinians that he will not surrender his direct control over the various PA security apparati to his Prime Minister - which is why his last Prime Minister resigned. If Arafat had faith in the state that he supposedly heads, he would not need to maintain exclusive control over the levers of violence that the state possesses - a clear admission that the PA does not have such a monopoly on political violence.

From the pragmatic point of view, one cannot assert that there is a Palestinian state - the one that wonks pretend exist lacks the requisite monopoly on political violence. Such a pseudo-state, therefore, lacks the capacity to make a peace deal because it is wholly incapable of enforcing its terms. Attempts to bypass these facts in the hopes that progress elsewhere might get such a state to congeal have proven fruitless - as any detached, pragmatic observer might have expected.

Rather than use our fingers to point out sources of blame, we should use them to point at the last remaining option which produces the least long term violence for both Palestinians and Israelis. Not the one that serves "justice." Not the one that unties the complex knots of religious entitlement to "land conferred by God." Simply the solution that produces the greatest stability and least bloodshed long term.

To the horror of the genteel, that solution is the wall, coupled with withdrawal behind said wall. It is the only solution where all of the variables are in the hands of the belligerent which actually constitutes a state. I say this with the firm belief that Palestinians have as much a right to state as Israelis do. Where those borders lie, however, will never be established with surgical precision. Instead, they will be established via violence - as borders always have. When one looks at political maps throughout history, one sees borders move as the tides of violence ebb and flow. Why is it that we should be arrogant enough to think that we, in this age, are somehow past that? Yet we do, and that arrogance is what keeps the violence going.

Carl Von Clausewitz pointed out that incrementalism in war, intended to morally ration violence only to the degree needed to win, was a foolish, deadly and ultimately amoral enterprise. It creates a sustained war that never ends - where neither side sees the "ever worsening situation" that leads either to capitulation or a treaty. That sustained war produces far more cumulative suffering than a bloody, decisive, short war. A sustained, restrained war is precisely what we have in Israel vs. Palestine - a situation where, for over half a century, foreign governments have tried to limit the violence of both sides to a "low roar" and then coax the belligerents into conferences of one sort of another. These foreign states have had their own agendas and, in my view, many have had the desire to keep the conflict going rather than settled so as to maintain a regional dynamic of oppression. Without explaining that last assertion (which I have gone into before), it is enough to say that we have seen what Clausewitz warned against play out before our eyes - ever restrained warfare leads to ever sustained warfare. We only have the history of the conflict to point to as ample support for the assertion.

Those who see that dynamic understand that incremental use of violence is far less ethical and far less humanitarian than using overwhelming violence. When one commits to war, one must commit to it wholly, or have one's entire future consumed by it. From our perspective today, it seems Israel and Palestine have only a future of never ending killing to look forward to - all made possible by restrained warfare at the insistence of hollow humanitarianism.

Such is a mistake of the past. In the present, it is unlikely that Israel could ever pacify an occupied Palestine. It is also clear that Palestine has no power to eject Israel, or dictate where her forces move, or deny her any land objective. For both parties, we now have the "ever worsening situation." This moment of darkness we see is the one where peace is established, because it becomes the only viable choice. The problem, however, is that no state exists to represent the Palestinians. To invent one or import one from the UN is pure folly - the PA is such an invented state, and it has turned out to not be a state for the very reasons it was invented. It has proven incapable of negotiating and honoring a deal - not out of deceit, but out of powerlessness.

Who will decide the political composition of the Palestinian state? The Palestinians, of course. Sadly, it can now only happen via a bloody, savage civil war. There is no way to avoid it now - though it could have been avoided had foreign countries not rushed the PA into existence and crowned Arafat its rightful leader through a hasty "one man, one vote, one time" election. Arafat has kept his control over the levers of violence because he recognized the PA lacked a monopoly on political violence. To a strong degree, Arafat was given a great gift in the killing of Yassin - Arafat now has a clear advantage in winning the pending civil war. I also figure that Israelis factored that into the decision to take out Yassin - an Islamo-fascist running Palestine is an outcome Israel would like to avoid.

Israel will have a challenge in dealing with its settlers as it withdraws behind the walls. Just the same, it needs to bring that faction to heel. One can expect Sharon to make the process violent but brief.

Who will win the Palestinian civil war? I have no idea. I doubt Arafat will survive such a war. I can assert that, morally and politically, western states should steer clear of trying to intervene too early in such a conflict - or it will last for another half century. Let the dynamics of war decide who wins, and try to aid the civilians in every way possible. Just don't delay the outcome - we should have learned that lesson by now.

Adam Sullivan, 15:08 | 0 comments

::

 
Malaysia - bucking a trend

While calls for Sharia dominate politics in fragile democracies with large Muslim populations, we have Malaysia today saying "been there, done that, no thanks". Via the NYT:

The major Islamic party in Malaysia lost significant ground in parliamentary and state elections here on Sunday as the governing coalition of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi coasted to victory.

The Islamic party, Parti Islam se-Malaysia, lost the state legislatures in the northern state of Terengganu and in the neighboring state of Kalantan. In a humiliating loss, the leader of the party, Ulama Hadi Awang, lost his federal parliamentary seat.

The fortunes of the Islamic party, which won control of the Terengganu state legislature four years ago, were being closely watched as a barometer of militant Islam in Southeast Asia. Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, holds parliamentary elections early next month.

Since taking control in Terengganu, the Islamic party, or Pas, has imposed religious laws, including bans on alcohol and gambling.

"If this election says one thing it says that Malaysia is rejecting the Islamization policies of Pas," said Bridget Welsh, assistant professor of Southeast Asia studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, who is visiting here. "Pas has been decimated."

Let's not forget that Malaysia is one of the "tigers" of Asia - a developing economy with diverse sources of job growth ranging from textile to high tech industries. A country like Nigeria, on the other hand, has far less job growth and a much more static economy with few (legal) opportunities for the ambitious. Malaysia also has ethnic minorities participating in her democracy, though racial frictions have boiled over into violence in the past (the last time was around the time of the Asian Currency Crisis).

The crux of the problem for developing Middle Eastern democracy comes down (in my mind, at least) to creating economic opportunity. The region's tyrants deprive all of such opportunity unless it is in service to the tyranny. That the region's wealth comes from a concentrated source - pumped out of holes into pipelines to oil tankers off shore - shows how kleptocracy thrives and how the discouraged and angry turn to the mosque for answers.

Iraq poses an opportunity given its economic diversity and history of educational leadership in the region. There, in the place where agriculture was first developed, exists the best opportunity for a contrast of choice, liberty and opportunity to be created. Then you will see young men saying "no" to Jihad.


Adam Sullivan, 23:46 | 0 comments