Andrew Hagen

Iranian Shirin Ebadi won the Novel Peace Prize in 2003. (*)

Recently, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be wiped off the map. (†) Even the UN has derided Ahmadinejad’s comments. (‡)

To her credit, Ebadi has recently spoken out against her government in its detention of a journalist, Akbar Ganji. (§) To date, however, Ebadi has not publicly criticized Ahmadinejad’s blood-chilling genocidal statement.

In her speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Ebadi criticized Israel for not following UN resolutions.

VDH says we don’t have a new age of warfare. This war reminds him of the Peleponnesian War. (*) Limb-lopping, terrorism, hostage-taking, and more all happened before.

The reason we say this is a new age of warfare, though, is not that there are new tactics. Instead, we base the statement on the nature of warfare being linked to the form of the political state. New forms of warfare create a need for people to turn to new and different political entities to protect themselves from war. This is a simplistic statement derived from Philip Bobbitt’s Shield of Achilles.

Military theorists that speak of 4GW (Fourth Generation Warfare) tend to base their take on technological change over time. That turns out to not be terribly dissimilar from Bobbitt’s Shield theory.

The import is that Al Qaeda–a formless, shapeless ideologic-centric organization that nonetheless is capable of leveraging technology in the hands of a few to wreak destruction that previously only large armies could have done–may have found a way to defeat, specifically, the post-Cold War form of the parliamentary democracy. To translate broadly and imprecisely, it is possible that Western liberal democracy is headed for the chopping block unless we rethink and reconstruct the nation state into some other form of state that can defeat an Al Qaeda-like organization.

In Shield, Bobbitt proposes the market state. Here on this web log I’ve stated that I am skeptical of the market state concept, and that we therefore need to keep looking, and in the meantime pound Al Qaeda as hard as we can militarily to buy time to rethink and rebuild our defenses here in the free countries.

NPR is reporting that checkpoints and other measures have helped to reduce attacks on the key road to Baghdad’s airport. (*)

It’s another hopeful sign that we are winning in Iraq.

Update: 6 November 2005. Lara Logan of CBS News “60 Minutes” reports that “attacks continue.” She doesn’t specify whether they are decreasing. (†) It sounds like a classic example of the fog of war. I still find the NPR report more persuasive because it’s more specific.

A ghazw is an Islamic warrior that takes part in gha-ziya. (*) The ghazw raids frontier lands in order to clear the land for jihad and eventual expansion of “the Muslim world” (the umma).

As Tony Blankley notes in a recent audio interview (†), for the past several hundred years, most Muslims have considered North America and Europe to be “neutral,” and not the targets of Islamic conquest. Now, unfortunately, more and more Muslims see North America and Europe as the next targets for Islamic conquest. Thus we have many raids by ghazw warriors intended to soften up the defenses of the intended conquests. At the same time the strategy of dawa is used to ruthlessly exploit multiculturalism, diversity ideology, and “tolerance” on behalf of the overall divide-and-conquer strategy. At last, the Western powers are betrayed from within through the Trojan horse of “benign immigration and refugees” and assorted fifth-columnists, while Islamic powers such as Iran gain the upper hand militarily through the stockpile and use of nuclear weapons. This is the radical Islamic strategy. It is now rapidly becoming popular within Islamic culture.

The purpose of the Global War on Terrorism is ultimately to defeat and discredit radical Islam now, before it gains the upper hand militarily.

The recent bombings in New Delhi, India occurred during Ramadan and now a Kashmiri Islamic terror group has taken responsibility for this cold-blooded mass murder. The current estimate is 59 innocent human lives destroyed. (*)

The context is the recent earthquake that has killed an estimated 58,000 people in the Kashmir region. Trying to exploit lowered security because of humanitarian efforts, or trying to disrupt humanitarian relief operations mark these bombings as utterly ruthless.

Ruthless is the enemy that liberal democracy faces. Ruthless is using a passenger jet as a missle. Ruthless is exploiting Shia-Sunni divisions in Iraq. Ruthless is taking advantage of open borders and racial and religious tolerance in Western countries to wage war on those same countries. Ruthless is using weapons of war against crowded, peaceful markets full of innocent people.

In the wake of publicity surrounding Iran’s poorly concealed efforts to build a stockpile of thermonuclear warheads, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called this week for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” The New York Times has the full text of the speech, translated from the Persian. (*)

Our dear Imam [the Ayatollah Khomeini] said that the occupying regime [Israel] must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks. . . .

The issue of Palestine is not over at all. It will be over the day a Palestinian government, which belongs to the Palestinian people, comes to power; the day that all refugees return to their homes; a democratic government elected by the people comes to power. Of course those who have come from far away to plunder this land have no right to choose for this nation.

Ahmadinejad is not the topmost authority figure in Iran. That position is held collectively by a council of mullahs. The council has backed away from Ahmadinejad’s statement, saying Iran will abide by its UN obligations. (†) Of course, their statement must be considered in the context of the Shia practice of taqiyah. Iran is a Shia-dominated country. Taqiyah is a practice of Shia Islam, and, some say, all of Islam, that commands Muslims to lie and dissemble in order to advance the goal of Islamic world domination.

Let us not play games or hide under a rock. The only sane respose to Ahmadinejad’s vow to wipe Israel off the map is to prepare for a war that would destroy the Iranian regime, allow the people of Iran to live in freedom, and protect other countries.

Since his groundbreaking Shield of Achilles, many of us have looked forward to Philip Bobbitt’s next book. Currently titled Terror : Can We Win This War? it is pushed back to 2006, unfortunately. (*)

Bobbitt has an excerpt from the new book on his web site. († PDF) If it is any indication, Bobbitt will extend the Shield analysis to Al Qaeda as a market state, and generally confirm that his new theory of international relations is superior to those currently in vogue.

The real challenge to Bobbitt’s Shield is whether the GWOT is thinkable as World War IV. If it is, Bobbitt’s argument that The Long War encompassed WW1, WW2, and the Cold War is premature. If the Cold War ended in 1991 with the Peace of Paris, and the GWOT began with 9/11, then it seems odd that the period of peace between the “long wars” was only 10 years when other periods of peace in history since 1500 AD lasted many decades, especially when we had WTC 93, the USS Cole, and so on. Is the GWOT merely a series of skirmishes? Of course not.

A better solution may be to consider the GWOT as part of the Long War. The essential conflict of the GWOT is after all the struggle of parliamentary democracies against the forces of Islamofascism, jihad, and “totaliterrorism,” if you will. Paul Berman has written about Sayyid Qutb providing the ideological link between European totalitarianism and Muslim terrorism. (‡) Perhaps Bobbitt’s Shield theory could build on Berman’s link and find a convincing common thread from WW1 to WW2 to the Cold War to the GWOT, as I believe there to be.

That leads us to solutions. I continue to be uncomfortable with the market state concept because it so often looks more like a disintegration of the old than an architecture of the new. Bobbitt positively blurbed a recent book on how the EU is going to become the dominant power in the 21st century. The EU has no unifying language or traditions. It is a favorite of the old international relations theorists, though, because it fits with a NAFTA/EU/Pacifica/Islam supercontinent approach, but that strikes me as ultimately not different from Orwell’s Oceania and the rest of his 1984 dystopia. The market state also seems too close to the sci-fi cyberpunk “megacorp-dominated future” concept to be at all likely. Surely we can hope for a better future than that.

History shows that political communities do not survive when they get too big. The only way the countries of 300 million to a billion in population are sustainable today is coordination through electronic communication technologies. Loyalty and solidarity does not warmly exist within particularly large communities such as these. When a better opportunity comes along, people will take it. Inevitably, a better, smaller form of political organization will arise and will discredit the market state.

As Bobbitt’s Shield analysis shows, there will arise states or state-like political organizations that show they can advance the interests that people already have. An example is Al Qaeda. This terrorist organization helps fulfill the evil fantasies of its adherents. Can there be such an organization, except dedicated to justice?

This would lead to reviewing basic concepts such as capitalism, race, culture, religion, environment, and the modern industrial state. If technology and science can advance to a new level, perhaps the existing trends can continue. Otherwise, environmental constraints will limit economic growth and result in reduced prosperity, magnifying the chaos. Even if the necessary advances can be made to allow the march of civilization to continue unabated, the fundamental problem remains of catching ethics up with natural science.

To extend Bobbitt’s thinking in the excerpt a bit, one might argue that the entire cause of the GWOT is the presence of WMD in the hands of men of obsolete ethics. Is there not an imbalance between availability of technology and effective ethical demands, especially those on Muslims? Even if you presume that danger naturally comes from Muslims on jihad, the West has not developed the ethical or political armament to defend against a jihadist skyjacker or perhaps a WMD-equipped terrorist. Instead we paralyze ourselves with irrelevant debate on “racial profiling.” Thus we return to the basic problem posed of how human organization can lead us back to a balance of natural science and human ethics. The short answer of reverting to a pre-industrial human state would be a bitter pill. The difficult thing is to find a sociopolitical organization whereby these problems can be resolved.

When Ambassador Paul Bremer led the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, it was US policy to not allow Islamic sharia law into the Iraq constitution. (*) Now that Iraq has its sovereignty, and is governed partially by elected officials, a new constitution is drafted that will make sharia part of the Iraq constitution, significantly reducing women’s rights. (†) The US should tell the government that we will not accept this, and we will remove most of our economic aid to Iraq and accelerate troop withdrawal unless it is removed. Sharia should serve no more than a heritage or background role in Iraqi law.

Women had some rights under Saddam, but those were often unenforced and unprotected.

Most likely, the Bush Administration will not risk offending the Iraqi government. Iraqi women will have a chance to vote down this overmastering draft constitution, however. Let’s hope they do.

The Q and O Blog states that the kill ratio for the US in Iraq is about 100 to 1, and he notes that military planners disregard this ratio as for the most part unimportant. (*) This is probably a decent ballpark estimate. I tend to agree with the kill ratio being unimportant. It was taken as a very important statistic in the Vietnam War, but the focus on that number did not help achieve our war aims there.

I have no military training or experience. Please take this with a trainload of salt.

The basic problem we face in Iraq is that we are not achieving our strategic objectives as quickly as we might. In particular, I’m interested here in the goals of locating and destroying terrorist networks in Iraq.

A common complaint against our Iraq war effort is that we have had too few troops. I take a different position here.

Technology makes for one of the US’s decisive battlefield advantages. In essence, battlefield technology is a force multiplier. Smaller numbers of better-equipped troops have the same or greater effectiveness as larger numbers of poorer-equipped troops.

In a battle with equal numbers of troops to a side, and a technological advantage strongly on one of the sides, that side will have the advantage. Technology is so critical that with sufficiently advantageous technology, a low number of troops can defeat a high number of troops.

In modern, fourth-generation warfare, the holder of superior information has a key battlefield advantage. Information is not limited to hi-tech communication networks, however. Information can traverse low-tech networks, including networks of human couriers, and be managed with various wetware methods.

Superior technology does not necessarily result in superior information. Small groups of committed individuals are more likely to learn new information, particularly wetware information, and more likely to be able to react to the new information quickly. This is one reason why a decentralized command structure is often thought superior in 4GW.

The high kill ratio in Iraq may be evidence that US troops are deployed in units of too great a size for maximum effectiveness. Smaller deployments may result in more rapid information gathering and reactions to terrorist groups. Technology should protect the troops, but the kill ratio would likely decrease somewhat. Smaller deployments could achieve strategic objectives sooner, shortening the war, and resulting in an overall lower death rate for US troops.

In summary, the high kill ratio may be evidence that smaller, more autonomous deployments could be a good choice in thie current context. On the other hand, it might not. Perhaps this could be of some assistance to the war effort.

Again, I am far removed from any expertise or actual knowledge.

This story is somewhat of a blip, but there are two important points. A Saudi prince has purchased 5%, apparently of News Corp., the parent company of the conservative Fox News. This leads to a concern of conservatives that their favorite news source will acquire an Islamist tilt. (*)

Most countries have laws about how much foreign ownership of media properties are allowed. If this investment actually becomes a threat to the free flow of information, or creates an Islamist tilt in the media, then perhaps those laws in the US or elsewhere need adjustment.

More to the point, until we put together an energy independence project, Middle East oil money will continue to result in greater political economic iinfluence for Islamists, and more indirectly, financial backing for terrorists and jihadists.

We can’t win the war while funding both sides.

In a “60 Minutes” report, Pakistani officials state that Osama Bin Laden is cut off from communications with the outside world, except for a penetrated courier network. Bin Laden doesn’t move from a single location on the Afghan-Pakistani border. (*)

The report is believable. Most likely the continued pressure on Osama Bin Laden will continue until he is either captured or is no longer alive. We are already in a new stage in the global war on terrorism and jihad. In this new stage, jihad does not yet have a single identifiable leader. This is an opportunity, a weakness of jihad, that the forces for justice should rush to exploit.

Iraqi President Jalal Talibani writes: (*)

American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and with the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Your soldiers are in my country because of your commitment to democracy. Moreover, [there is the] United States’ complete support for the Iraqi political process toward sustainable democracy, and for the fight to defeat fascist and jihadist terrorism in Iraq.

That commitment to liberty has shaped our opposition to any timetable for withdrawal. There are also two practical, policy reasons to avoid such a scheduled reduction in foreign troop numbers. First, a timetable will aid the terrorists and tell them that all they have to do is wait. Second, military plans must be flexible. We should have the suppleness to respond to the often-changing level of terrorist threat. Indeed, we will require ongoing security assistance in many forms for many years to come.

If we keep progressing at the present rate, Iraqis may be able to take over many security functions from foreign forces by the end of 2006. That is not a deadline, but it is reasonable aspiration. . . .

Americans should be proud of what its soldiers have achieved. The presence of foreign forces has prevented a renewed civil war in Iraq–renewed because there has already been a civil war in Iraq. For 35 years, Saddam and his Baath Party made war on the Iraqi people. The liberation of Iraq ended that civil war. . . .

While the problem of some of our neighbors supporting terrorism is bad enough, we can only imagine what our neighbors might have done if American troops had not been present. Most likely, Iraq would have been transformed into a regional battlefield with disastrous consequences for Middle Eastern and global security.

Without American forces, the vision of American leadership and the quiet fortitude of the American people, Iraqis would be almost alone in the world.

(emphasis added) Let me summarize why we are staying to finish the job in Iraq.

America remains in Iraq because our friends, the Iraqi people, would otherwise face all-out war, jihad, and repression at least as repugnant as that under Saddam.

We are there because Iraqis are our friends and our friends are in need.

Additionally, by helping to cultivate a peaceful and stable Iraq, we cultivate a peaceful and stable Middle East, and a peaceful and stable world.

This is our noble cause in Iraq.

God bless our troops over there, and around the world.

In an unbelievable, shocking outrage, the design of the 9/11 Flight 93 Memorial is revealed to be a gigantic red crescent, a common symbol of Islam, plastered over the field where the commercial passenger airplane crashed. (*)

The wickedness and evil of this desecration is unspeakable. They have painted the symbol of their murderers over the graves of our fallen heroes.

There is no alternative except to overturn this “memorial” and start over with a new designer.

Update: To protest, send a fax to the Superintendent of the National Flight 93 Memorial, National Park Service, (814) 443-2180.

The September 11 Digital Archive is an effort to preserve forever the memory of the mass murder perpetrated on American soil four years ago. (*)

Austin Bay thinks that three dollars a gallon could significantly help the emerging Iraqi government. (*) Current US prices are approaching that level.

They could use the money to finance a quicker defeat of the terrorists.

The Jihad has hit democracy again, this time bombing London trains and transport. An occupied double-decker bus was blasted apart. In all, at least forty innocents are dead and hundreds are injured. (*)

Britain now faces a choice. It can fight back with tougher measures on immigration, refugees, Iraqi insurgents, Iranian nuclear development, and the international Jihad, or it can surrender to the maruaders who have thrown the shining city of London into a massacre of blood and chaos.

(Image source: Instapunk (†))

As thinkers such as Bat Ye’or have noted, Europe was already teetering on the edge of becoming a fiefdom of Islam, of becoming “Eurabia.” (‡) They are achieving this when they bomb free countries. They want to sow disorder, panic, and distrust. Theirs is the toolkit of fear. They want to create an environment in which pitiless villains thrive, such as Zarqawi (the guttersnipe head-chopper) and Bin Laden (the robed coward who directs others to commit mass murder-suicides).

America will stand shoulder to shoulder with Britain and Europe. Ultimately, however, no one can save Britain or Europe except the people of Britain and the people of Europe.

Part of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s statement reads:

It is particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa, and the long term problems of climate change and the environment. Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack, or a series of terrorist attacks, it is also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G8. There will be time to talk later about this.

It is important however that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world. Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world.

(§)

Do not waste time trying to figure out the “meaning” of the attacks. It really does not matter. The only solution to terrorism is to kill off so many terrorists that the rest give up. The forces of freedom have killed many terrorists since 9/11, and a number of our finest citizens and their families have paid a dear price to do so. Today’s attack on London is not so large as to kill thousands, as happened on 9/11. That is a sign of progress.

Now we must continue to forge ahead, ignoring the hysterical cries of the cut-and-run lobby, and smash the Jihad utterly.

For further info, Instapundit has many web links. (**)

There is now a report that the US has attempted to begin negotiations with Sunni insurgent groups. They can be brought into the Iraqi political system, and held accountable at the ballot box. This would exclude Al Qaeda. (*)

Excellent. The end result will be the same, but less can blood will be shed if a deal can be struck.

The insurgent groups might hold off on any committment until after the Iraqi constitution is finalized, and perhaps until after it is ratified by referendum. Assurances from all the principal drafters of the constitution should be just as good, however. This shouldn’t cause much of a delay.

If the Sunni insurgent groups do not wish to negotiate, they will be destroyed.

American troops in Iraq continue to perform at the highest level. They, Coalition partners, Iraqi troops, Iraqi civic leaders, and the Iraqi people deserve our praise.

The Iraq campaign is critical to America’s national interests. It is the first point of attack by Al Qaeda. Iraq is the main battlefield of the Global War on Terrorism. As we learned on 9/11, what goes on in the Middle East has a direct effect on the national security of the United States.

There is recently a public sense in America, however, that the campaign to form a peaceful, secure, and democratic Iraq has become aimless. It has not. Nevertheless, there are calls for a timetable for the withdrawl of American troops. That would be the same thing as simply surrendering to the terrorists.

Our troops will come home when the job is done because then they will have achieved victory. It is victory for which we have strived, and it is victory we will have. Yes. It is happening. It is within reach.

A review is in order of our major accomplishments. Second, a look ahead is warranted at milestones we can expect to accomplish with in the future.

Major accomplishments

• Iraq prevented from conquering Kuwait and other Middle East countries.
• Oppressive regimes of no-fly zones and “oil-for-food” abolished.
• UN and individuals investigated for oil-for-food corruption.
• Iraq liberated.
• Neighboring countries shielded from scud missile attacks.
• Saddam deposed.
• Determination that Iraq did not have a current stock of WMD in any great quantities, or that some WMD may have been destroyed or transferred out of country.
• With Saddam deposed, elimination of the previously plausible potential of Saddam building WMD and giving it to terrorists.
• All US troops withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, eliminating one of Al Qaeda’s major recruiting points.
• UN sanctions on Iraq eliminated, eliminating another of Al Qaeda’s major recruiting points.
• Saddam’s two sons, both murderous criminals, killed.
• Saddam captured. Prosecution for crimes against humanity in a free Iraqi court readied.
• Iraq oil revenue secured for the Iraqi people.
• Prevention of ethnic cleansing.
• Corrupt and tainted Iraq security force structure disbanded.
• New Iraq currency introduced.
• Economic development in Iraq promoted.
• Sovereignty over Iraq transferred to Iraqi government.
• Iranian-backed rebellion of Shia leader Moqtada Al-Sadr quashed. His group is brought into regular, accountable Iraq political system.
• Free elections in Iraq held and leaders are elected.
• Key insurgent strongholds rooted out in Fallujah and elsewhere.
• Many Al Qaeda lieutenants killed or captured.
• In wake of fate of Saddam, Libyan leader Col. Khaddafy voluntarily gives up nuclear weapons program, leading to unraveling of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan’s black market in nuclear weapons technology.
• In wake of liberation of Iraq, Lebanese people emboldened to speak up and resist Syrian oppression. Syria forced to withdraw troops from Lebanon.
• Iran exposed to increased scrutiny over nuclear weapons program, oppression of citizens, and phony elections.

What can we expect in the future as a result of our great efforts and sacrifices in Iraq? What are the milestones that we should expect to see in the future?

Future milestones

• August 15, 2005: new Iraq constitution is due to be submitted.
• Referendum held on new constitution.
• Comprehensive free Iraqi elections to be held and put on normal schedule.
• Iraqi army, police, and security forces rebuit over time.
• Iraqi upper-level military command structure, including generals, rebuilt over time.
• As Iraqi forces grow in strength, training, and number, so that Iraq can defend herself, American and Coalition troop strength gradually reduced over time.
• Baathist insurgents are fought, and possibly offered a deal to break off fighting.
• Increased Sunni participation in Iraq government and public affairs.
• Al Qaeda general Zarqawi captured or killed.
• Growing stability and security in Iraq. Reduced number of terrorist murders over given time periods.
• Reacting to liberty in Iraq, internal political pressure grows on Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
• Lebanon regains self-determination.
• Free elections held in Libya.
• International community emboldened to hold Iranian regime to closer account. Iranian people emboldened to stand up straight for their own freedom.
• Securing of Iraq’s borders.
• Prosecution of Saddam Hussein.

As we reach these milestones, we draw closer to victory.

Our brave and inspiring troops have already accomplished much in the course of this historic campaign. They know how to finish the job and they are capable of doing it. They just need our support.

I want our servicemen and servicewomen to know our thoughts and prayers are with them, and that we back them 100%. They are earning a special place in the hearts of Americans, of Iraqis, and of freedom-loving people around the world. They are leaving their mark, and changing history for the better.

Update: 25 June 2005. Added referendum.

Reports are confirmed that Baathist indigenous Iraqi nationalists have traded fire with foreign fighter resistance units (most likely linked to Al Qaeda). (*) The Baathists are said to dislike Al Qaeda’s targeting of civilians.

Now is the time for the Iraqi government and the Coalition to up the ante and offer the Baathists a deal. Let them come into the system as politically legitimate as long as they drop all insurgent activity and cooperate with securing Iraq. This would be a bitter pill to swallow for both sides, but in the long-run, it will be easier to hold the Baathists accountable at the ballot box then elsewhere. This would prop up badly-needed Sunni suppot for the new government. It will also isolate Zarqawi and Al Qaeda further.

This may be a propitious moment. It would seem that the time is ripe to be bold.

The FBI admits it is not promoting agents on the basis of having international or Middle East experience. (*) FBI Director “Mueller described his top anti-terror managers’ knowledge of dealing with foreign governments, Middle East history, international terrorism and al-Qaida this way: ‘Helpful, not essential.’” This appears to be incompetence, cronyism, or corruption. (†)

Will Congress have the guts to stand up to the FBI and force them to fix their broken organizational culture?