Andrew Hagen

ABC News reports that Saddam’s intelligence service has penetrated US operations in Iraq. The revelation was made after documents were found with Saddam that identified individuals working for him who were also working for the military and the Coalition Provisional Authority. (*)

Therefore, we know that Saddam Hussein had some level of oversight in running the insurgency.

Therefore, we know that Saddam Hussein was not a prisoner of some other group when he was found in the hole, as speculation had contemplated.

We must allow for the possibility that some US troops may have been killed thanks to the enemy’s successful penetration.

In the wake of the Robert Hanssen, Kristina Leung, and other counterintelligence disasters, this is another negative mark, albeit in military counterintelligence this time. This failure must be put in context. The successes of American counterintelligence all cannot be made public quickly. Therefore, we ordinary civilians cannot have the full picture. There must be some good to go with the bad. As an open society, furthermore, the United States will probably never have a flawless intelligence service.

Considering the number of failures, especially those in recent years, and their level of magnitude, however, it appears that reform is needed in how America conducts its intelligence operations. In most need of reform may be counterintelligence, both civilian and military. An MI5–type agency might be a good solution.

Classics scholar Rob Johansen explodes popular thinking on ancient Greece being a welcoming society for those practicing same-sex love and sex. In fact, it was an intolerant society on such matters, moreso than Western countries today. (*)

The term homosexual is frequently misapplied. It should only be applied to persons and events in the late 19th century and after. Prior to that time, the homosexual movement did not exist. (†)

The last time such a warning to American citizens (*) was issued, an attack took place a short time later.

France may potentially ban the use of some symbols, including the Muslim head scarves, in schools and other settings. France would also ban some other symbols, such as the Christian crucifix. This is because French leaders consider both the head scarf and the crucifix to be religious symbols. That is false.

The headscarf, or foulard, is not a religious symbol. It is a political symbol.

Amir Taheri writes in the New York Post.

To start with, the term “foulard islamique” is inaccurate because it assumes that the controversial headscarf is an article of Islamic faith, which it emphatically is not. It is a political symbol shared by several radical movements that, each in its own way, tries to transform Islam from a religion into a political ideology.

One could describe these movements as Islamist, but not Islamic. A new word has been coined in Arabic to describe them: Mutuasslim. Its equivalent in Persian is Islamgara.

The foulard should be seen as a political symbol in the same way as Nazi casquettes, Mao Zedong caps and Che Guevara berets were in their times. It has never been sanctioned by any Islamic religious authority and is worn by a tiny minority of Muslim women.

It was first created in Lebanon in 1975 by Imam Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had become leader of the Shi’ite community there. Sadr wanted the foulard to mark out Shi’ite girls so that they would not be molested by the Palestinians who controlled southern Lebanon at the time.

In 1982, the Lebanese-designed headgear was imposed by law on all Iranian girls and women, including non-Muslims, aged six years and above. Thus, Iranian Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian women are also forced to wear a headgear that is supposed to be an Islamic symbol. The Khomeinist claim is that women’s hair has to be covered because it emits rays that turn men “wild with sex.”

From the mid 1980s, the foulard appeared in North Africa and Egypt before moving east to the Persian Gulf, the Indo-Pakistani Subcontinent and Southeast Asia. It made its first appearance in France in 1984, brought in by Iranian Mujahedin asylum seekers. Today, thousands of women, especially new converts, wear it in Europe and North America.

That the foulard did not exist before 1975 is easy to verify. Muslim women could refer to their family albums to see that none of their female parents and ancestors ever wore it.

Megawati Sukarnoputri, President of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation, does not wear it. Nor does Khalidah Zia, prime minister of Bangladesh, the world’s second most populous country. Shirin Ebadi, the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, does not wear it, except inside Iran—where she would go to jail if she did not.

That the foulard is a political invention can be ascertained in two other ways. First, there is the Iranian law of 1982 that specifies the shape, size and even the “authorized” colors of the headscarf.

Second, the various Islamist movements have developed specific color schemes to assert their identity. The Khomeinists wear dark blue or brown. The Sunni Salafis, who sympathize with al Qaeda and the Taliban, prefer black. Supporters of Abu-Sayyaf and other Southeast Asian radical groups wear white or yellow. Supporters of Palestinian radical groups don checkered foulards.

Islamism is a totalitarian ideology like Communism and Fascism. And like them it loves uniforms. While it forces, or brainwashes, women into wearing the foulard, it also presses men to grow beards as an advertisement of piety.

Like people of other faiths and cultures, Muslim men and women often covered their heads. But the headgear used had no political significance and reflected local cultural, tribal and folkloric traditions. No one ever claimed that donning any particular headgear, whether for men or women, was a religious duty.…

What France is witnessing is not a clash of civilization between Islam and the West. It is a clash between a new form of fascism and democracy. Islamism must be exposed and opposed politically. To give it any religious credentials is not only unjust but also bad politics.

(*) The head scarf is a political symbol. In France that might mean it is accorded more or less legal protection. In any case, however, the head scarf should not be lumped in with actual religious symbols, like the crucifix.

Saddam is captured. We now face a crisis. What will happen next in Iraq?

Many commentators have stated that the insurgency against liberation will continue in Iraq. For some time, there is no doubt that it will. Eventually, however, it will end. With Saddam gone, and his successor, Izzat Ibrahim Al-Duri suffering from cancer, it shouldn’t take long. Jihadists are perhaps still entering Iraq, but with the hollowing out of the Baathist core, coalition forces will quickly terminate the insurgency.

The trial of Saddam will be a momentous event. Personally, I am weary of Saddam. I want any trial to be short. I’m sure others feel the same. The trial will be important, though.

The trial will be held in Iraq, and nowhere else.

If the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague gains custody of Saddam, they probably wouldn’t release him to any court that may sentence him with the death penalty. The ICC has no power of capital punishment. Iraqis absolutely demand death as the punishment for the crimes Saddam is accused of. Therefore, Iraqis will react very negatively to the ICC moving to gain custody of Saddam.

The trial will not be in the United States. That would invite distrust of the US.

The trial will not be in another Arab or Islamic state. Nearly all of those states turned their backs on the Iraqi people. The trial will not be in Kuwait. Iraqis will not want Saddam tried by Kuwait. A trial in Kuwait would invite suspicion by Arabs and Muslims that since Saddam attacked Kuwait, Kuwait will not provide Saddam with a fair trial.

The trial will not be run by the UN. The UN is not trusted by Iraqis. The UN might have a role, however.

Saddam could be tried in many different countries, including Israel and the US. Saddam’s crimes were committed in many places. Under universal jurisdiction, Saddam could be tried anywhere. For political reasons, however, the trial will be in Iraq.

The trial will be an important test of the new Iraqi government. To assure both Muslims and the West that the trial is fair, a judicial body made of both Islamic judges and Western-style judges could convene together. Other options exist, as well.

The trial may be televised. This would be of great benefit. Perhaps the US’s planned Arabic satellite news channel (*) will then be operating. The channel could broadcast the entire trial live. The shockwave of a fair trial would hit the radical Islamists like a brick.

If the trial goes as planned, is in Iraq, is televised and is widely considered fair by both Muslims and Westerners, the consequences will be monumental. Here is a man, Saddam Hussein, who is accused of some of the most horrific crimes in history. He gets a fair trial. Yet, your average Arab or Muslim is accused of relatively petty crimes and does not get a fair trial. Your average Arab or Muslim will see this as unjust. Most Arab and Muslim countries do not have fair systems of justice. They do not have civil liberties.

Imagine the social pressure that will be exerted against Arab and Muslim dictatorships from Africa to Asia as the realization sets in. “If Saddam gets a fair trial, why can’t we get fair trials?” Why shouldn’t ordinary people expect fair trials if the horrible criminal Saddam gets a fair trial? Imagine what will happen in Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and beyond. How can television images of a fair trial of Saddam Hussein not affect perceptions?

The legal defense of Saddam will attempt to tie Saddam to the United States. The US gave Saddam money and weapons at one time, they will say. That entire line of argument should be thrown out as irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether Saddam committed the crimes against humanity he is accused of.

The trial of Saddam, if it is carried out properly, may represent a significant step forward in the reform of Arab and Islamic-dominated countries. A fair trial will be a model of how justice in Muslim and Arab countries can and should be done.

David Warren attacks multiculturalism as elitist. (*)

Simon Blackburn says that lust not only has positive aspects, but also that lust is a virtue. This may sound metaphorical or intentionally ironic. Plainly, however, Blackburn means what he says quite literally. He is not speaking of lust as “lust for life,” or as mere eagerness. (*) Blackburn has a forthcoming book on the subject. (†)

Oddly enough, on Google I found a bizarre ritual used by the Church of Satan involving the following chant: “Lust is a virtue which drives men forward! {gong} … Lust is the engine of destruction! {gong} Lust destroys the weak! {gong} Lust exalts the strong! {gong}” (‡) Blackburn is not promoting Satanism. It is interesting, however, to see who agrees with him, and why they do.

Traditionally, lust has been termed a vice. The dictionary definition of lust is simple to understand. Roughly, lust is “an overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.” (§)

Blackburn’s argument is hardly innovative or uncommon. Lust was argued to be a virtue in an essay by Valentine de Saint-Point published as a leaflet on 11 January 1913. (**) (††)

Essentially, Blackburn’s argument runs like this: desire has many good consequences; as an extension of desire, lust has good consequences as well; therefore, lust is a virtue. The argument is fallacious on numerous grounds. There is no need here to engage this argument on religious grounds.

The first counterargument would be that while we esteem desire, it does not follow that we should esteem lust. The two are different in their levels of intensity. What is good in moderate levels may have negative effects at extreme levels. The advice of Aristotle is “everything in moderation.” The definition of lust is overwhelming desire, or unrestrained desire. Moderate levels of desire are not lust. A moderate level of desire is indicative of restraint. Immoderate, extreme levels of desire are lust. Therefore, the inherent goodness of desire is not a trait of lust. Nevertheless, lust surely has some positive aspects to it. It is based on desire. Having positive aspects does not mean that lust is intrinsically good. That is, it does not mean that lust is a virtue.

Blackburn attempts to evade this point. He admits, “If we associate lust with excess and surfeit, then its case is already lost.” He then asserts that lust need not be associated with excess. In this way he tries to redefine lust as a synonym of desire. What word, then, would Blackburn assign to mean “excessive desire?” I suppose a word could be found or invented, but let not that convenience obscure Blackburn’s trick of language. He has attempted to win the argument by redefining a word. How simple it would be to score debating points if one needed only to announce a change in the definitions at the outset. In Blackburn’s world, lust is good. This is a concept that would fit in well with Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984. It is not accidental, either, that Blackburn’s excerpt, appearing in the left-wing New Statesman is an argument for totalitarianism. For if we may redefine whatever word we liked, we should be left with nothing but Newspeak.

Consider another definition of lust that fits: lust as unrestrained desire. The lack of restraint on desire makes that desire into lust. The lack of restraint turns desire into that which breaches society’s boundaries. This then becomes a question of which of society’s boundaries should be breached and which should not be breached. This then becomes another question, addressed below. What Blackburn argues for, however, is that lust—unrestrained desire—should be praised. This is hedonism and nihilism. It is contrary to every one of our notions of justice and fair play. To attack as harmful every restraint on our appetites is to attack society itself. For society to exist, some of our desires must be kept in check.

On the other hand, if lust is neither excessive desire nor unrestrained desire, then lust is only desire. If lust were only desire, there would be no need to call it lust. We would just call it desire. It would be wholly unremarkable to defend desire in the contemporary West. It is worthy of note that Blackburn defends lust. Yet, Blackburn is defending lust as if it had all the traits of desire, and none of lust.

The second counterargument is that taken to extreme levels, desire may have negative consequences. Megalomania is the excessive desire, or lust, for power. A frequent consequence is tyranny. Lust is often associated with unrestrained sexual desire. A frequent consequence is adultery. The trouble with too much desire is the negative consequences it brings. These negative consequences do not necessarily result from desire, but necessarily must from lust. The negative consequences inherent to it make lust a vice.

There are other counterarguments, but there is no need to list them here.

Blackburn extends his argument into a critique of the repression of sexuality in general and of the United States as a whole. In brief response, I agree that in the past our Western societies have to a degree wrongly repressed sexuality. It is ridiculous to deny married couples access to contraceptives, to state an example that commands wide agreement. On the other hand, some aspects of sexuality should be repressed. In this group I would place bestiality, incest, adultery, fornication, the sexual abuse of children, and necrophilia. I am not considering whether they should be legal. Some should be and some should not. I am considering whether they should be immoral. Those I have listed should. Secondly, as Blackburn observes, the United States is indeed less sexualized than other countries. It is no mistake that the most powerful, freest, and the richest country in the world—the beacon of liberty—is not devoted to sexual lust. In fact, this is key to America’s success.

To the extent it embodies lust, the “sexualization” of society represents a threat to liberty, for lust attacks the architecture of just society. What is proper is to tolerate and praise desire, and to scorn and contemn lust.

In summary, lust has some positive aspects. Lust is desire unrestrained in intensity. Lust has negative consequences that overwhelm the positives. Therefore, lust is a vice. Lust is not worthy of our praise or promotion. It deserves our disparagement.

Paul Gottfried writes about how the West is indulging radical Muslims who have emigrated to the West. (*)

He does not draw the next two conclusions, both of supreme importance.

The first is that we are indulging radical Islamists who have come to our society because so many of us have come to hate our society, our culture, and our civilization. What corrupts us is falsely thought to help us.

The second is that radical Islamists find multiculturalism in the West to be not a new, strange, liberal innovation; but instead to be quite familiar environs. The master/servant relationship between radical Islamist and Western man whose culture is worth nothing is the perfect equivalence of the Muslim and dhimmi (Christian or Jew) of countries that have enacted full sharia—radical Islamic law. The radical Islamist who is demanding special rights in the West is not doing anything extraordinary from his point of view. He is claiming the superior level of rights he believes is his due as a Muslim.

The Rewards for Justice fund offers millions of dollars in reward money available to those who help capture various terrorists and war criminals. (*)

The Gilmore Commission has issued its fifth annual report. (*) Entitled Forging America’s New Normalcy, the report can be downloaded. († PDF) Previous reports have had significance in raising issues and informing policy debates on terrorism. Many of ithe Commission’s suggestions have been enacted into law.

“It is time to move beyond our traditional reactive behavior to a comprehensive process for constant forward thinking and strategic planning,” the report says. Among the recommendations is one to change the well-known color-coded Homeland Security alert system. The report also suggests that to better coordinate federal, state, and local agencies in the fighting of terrorism, the existing Homeland Security Council should take a greater role in setting national homeland security strategy. The Homeland Security Council operates out of the White House. It is distinct from the Department of Homeland Security.

The New York Times highlights the Commission’s call for a civil liberties board that would advise policymakers on detrimental effects to civil liberties that new legislation may have. (‡) Such a board might study the effects on civil liberties specifically from the USA Patriot Act.

As a proponent of the Patriot Act, I believe it would be a good idea to study whether it really does have the ill effects its detractors say. A federal study would greatly inform the policy debate over the contentious legislation.

The Guardian notes the recommendation for greater oversight on the targeting of spy satellites on US territory. (§)

The formal name of the Gilmore Commission is the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. (**) The chairman is former Governor of Virginia James S. Gilmore. The Commission is charged with reporting on domestic preparedness to terrorism, especially terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction. It was created pursuant to an Act of Congress. This is its last report.

Children who grow up without human contact are not socialized. The study of these feral children can provide a window into human nature. (*) Their sad tales underscore children’s need for the protection of their parents. (†) The BBC has looked into the phenomenon. (‡)

Roger Normand reflects on the state of human rights in the world, writing in the Nation. (*) He believes human rights are in a sorry state, and presents some arguments to that effect.

He just left out Iraq for some reason. I guess 270 mass graves and 400,000 dead Iraqis don’t count. The deposing of Saddam’s regime must have had some positive impact on world human rights. At least, that’s what I think.

Normand says Bush is trying to kill the idea of human rights. If Normand is right, Bush is trying to kill off the idea of human rights by upholding human rights.

What matters to Normand is not what actually happens in Iraq, but what it represents. This is a mystical formulation and is unsuitable for critical inquiry.

Update: 18 December 2003. Michael Totten says it better. (†)

Unfortunately, the Nobel Peace Prize winner of 2003, Shirin Ebadi, chose to use her acceptance speech (*) as a platform to harangue against the United States. She said, “[I]n the past two years, some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of 11 September and the war on international terrorism as a pretext.” To repeat, it was “a pretext.”

She then went on to chide the US’s detention of the Al Qaeda illegal combatants at Guantanamo for alleged human rights violations. She did not bother to condemn the terrorism they supported, or the Taliban regime they helped prop up.

The Peace Prize winner also attacked Israel for not implementing various UN resolutions while not saying one critical word about Palestinian Arab terrorism against innocent people.

Her comments on the tyrannical nature of the Iranian regime and other Middle East dictatorships were at best indirect.

Finally, Ebadi did not discuss the possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb program. This is the sort of matter that usually interests Peace Prize winners. As she is Iranian, it would surely interest her. Currently, however, there is no firm proof that Iran is trying to build the bomb. There is, however, well-founded suspicion.

On the positive side, she said good things about women’s rights, human rights, and democracy.

It appears, however, that the 2003 Peace Prize went to someone who does not deeply believe in peace. She is very concerned with human rights, not very much with violence.

Guard and reserve forces have been on active deployment for a long time. Some expect a “mass exodus” from the guard and reserves unless deployments can be shortened. There are also worries that the size of the active-duty military has not been increased, despite this being a time of war, and with threats such as North Korea potentially looming. Recently, Congressional legislation has been contemplated to increase the number of active divisions in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps. (*) I’m not sure why the Navy is not included. I imagine it’s because increasing the size of the Navy would mean building more warships, costing more money.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld does not support increasing the size of the active-duty military. His justification is partially on technical grounds. He is also planning to privatize many non-combat jobs in the military. Those military slots can then be re-filled with active-duty troops. In this way, the number of combat troops can be increased without increasing the number of servicemen and women. Rumsfeld is basing his non-support on moving to a partially privatized force. This may be dangerous. Privatized mail carriers, cooks, maintenance personnel and others are critical to the success of missions. Sometimes they will be called to enter deep into the heart of enemy territory. This was what Private Jessica Lynch’s 507th Maintenance company was doing when it was ambushed in Iraq. The rest is history. If the such companies had been civilian units during Operation Iraqi Freedom, numerous civilians could have responded to fear and refused to do their jobs. As civilians, its members could not be forced to enter combat zones. An unexpected walkout would negatively impact the success of the mission. Therefore, I am skeptical of Rumsfeld’s claims (†) that the overall number of active-duty troops can prudently be kept constant. An increase seems in order.

The Washington Post reports that a large number of countries are not effectively implementing economic sanctions against Al Qaeda members. Al Qaeda apparently now has less money, but still enough money to carry out attacks. More is needed to be done in fighting terror financing. (*)

The article does not mention the hawala system.

USA Today breaks down how the dictator of Iraq was located and nabbed. Intelligence gathering techniques were improved. Low-level functionaries and relatives who might have had any information, even trial information, about Saddam were pinpointed. Eventually a lead specified the farmhouse where Saddam was found. (*) Today is a day of triumph for the intelligence community.

Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Interesting.

This collects various responses.

Anne Cunningham passes along the French reaction. Chirac is happy. (*) Very ironic.

Alaa the Mesopotamian calls today “the mother of all days.” (†)

Norman Geras has links to reactions from George Galloway and from Saddam Hussein himself. (‡)

Max Sawicky is happy, but concerned about how Iraq will be governed. (§)

Viking Pundit notes that Saddam’s capture was two years to the day after Al Gore’s concession speech following Bush v. Gore. (**) Somewhat ironic.

Some Arabs can’t believe it. (††)

Omar of Iraq the Model is emotional and eloquent. (‡‡)

CENTCOM’s press release is available. (§§)

Hippercritical links to the antiwar blogger reaction. (***)

Kris Lofgren says it is a big psychological boost for the Iraqi people. He also links to a story that says when he was discovered Saddam tried to bury himself alive in his spider hole. (†††)

Hippercritical links to more Iraqi blogger reaction. (‡‡‡)

America wakes up to great news today. Iraq celebrates the final termination of Saddam’s tyranny of fear.

Carrying out Operation Red Dawn, US troops captured Saddam Hussein near Tikrit. (*) He was found underneath a farmhouse cellar in a spider hole, complete with air vent. (†) The detention was made Saturday evening Iraq time. No shots were fired.

Coalition Provisional Authority administrator Paul Bremer opened the news conference this morning by saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, we got him.” Video of a bearded Saddam with black hair and a black beard with a patch of white drew heated shouts of “Death to Saddam” in Arabic from a few Iraqi reporters at the press briefing.

Saddam was partially identified by marks on his body. He was carrying a pistol. A suitcase with 750,000 US dollars in currency was found on the premises. Two security guards were also arrested, and two AK-47s were confiscated. (‡) It is surprising that he allowed himself to be captured without gunfire. General Ricardo Sanchez, US Army, says he was tired and “resigned to his fate.” Other accounts suggested that Saddam’s dissheveled appearance was matched by his mental confusion.

Iraqis are taking to the streets to celebrate. (§) Fox News reports that members of the 4th Division of the US Army are enjoying cigars.

Iraqi Governing Council member Jalal Talabani says that this ends the financing of the insurgency. (**) Tony Blair looks forward to the trial of the former dictator. (††)

Al Jazeera swallows the bitter pill. (‡‡)

Now that the former dictator is detained, Izzat Ibrahim Al-Duri succeeds as the apparent head of the insurgency fighting coalition forces. (§§) The hunt for him continues. (***)

Saddam Hussein’s capture is tremendous news. Congratulations to the US military and the coalition, and congratulations to the great country of Iraq.

Update: President Bush’s address is online. (†††) Shortly after he finished speaking, a car bomb exploded near the Hotel Palestine in Baghdad. (‡‡‡) No casualties are reported. The Hotel Palestine is known to house many foreign journalists. It appears that the Iraqi insurgency is waging information warfare in the wake of Saddam’s capture, trying to make a show of strength for the news cameras on this, a great day of celebration for the Iraqi people.

Katha Pollitt draws a line between women’s individual rights and the group rights of the limited few cultures for which multiculturalism demands respect. (*) If it is true to itself, feminism cannot tolerate cultural relativism.