Morally paralyzed
By Thomas Sowell

"Moral paralysis" is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.

It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.

Back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing — and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him.

Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today — "negotiations."

No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain — wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own — when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant "peace in our time."

We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.

Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, "There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.

At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 — three years before World War II began — when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.

Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: "France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core."

It was morally paralyzed.

History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly — or not at all — toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the UN to do anything that would make any real difference.

Not only the history of the UN, but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them.

Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best anti-war statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear — and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them.

Iranian leaders today make only the most token and transparent claims that they are building "peaceful" nuclear facilities — in one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, which has no need for nuclear power to generate electricity.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?

Gang-Rape in Annapolis, Saudi Style

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

It is fitting that Condoleezza Rice chose the U.S. Naval Academy for the venue of tomorrow’s so-called Mideast peace conference. The reputation of that extraordinary institution in Annapolis has been sullied in recent years by a succession of rapes of young women. Despite official efforts to low-ball its significance, Ms. Rice’s conclave is shaping up to be a gang-rape of a nation on a scale not seen since Munich in 1938, when the British and French allowed Hitler and Mussolini to have their violent way with Czechoslovakia.

This time, the intended victim is Israel. As with the effort to appease the Nazis and Fascists nearly sixty years ago, however, the damage will not be confined to the rapee. The interests of the Free World in general and the United States in particular will suffer from what the Saudis and most of the other attendees have in mind for the Jewish State – namely, its dismemberment and ultimate destruction.

There will, of course, be no punishments for the perpetrators of the coming gang-rape of Israel at Annapolis. To the contrary, the Bush Administration feels deeply indebted to the Saudi foreign minister for his participation and that of a representative of a country Ms. Rice’s department lists as a state-sponsor of terror: Syria.

In fact, as an inducement for attending, a host of nations who have never formally and concretely abandoned their historic determination to bring about Israel’s liquidation have been assured by their U.S. hosts that they will be able to use this event to promote their agendas. As one American official blithely put it: “No one’s microphone will be turned off.”

Consequently, it seems likely that Annapolis will feature an outpouring of sentiment – in fact, near unanimity – on the following points: Israel must relinquish to its Palestinian and Syrian enemies territory essential to the defense and security of the Jewish State. Hard experience in southern Lebanon and Gaza leaves no doubt that the vacuum thus created will be used by terrorists to attack Israel, and perhaps America.

The gang assembled at the Naval Academy – Europeans, Russians, non-governmental organizations as well as Arabs – will largely insist that the Israelis allow the capital of a new Palestinian state to be established in the section of Jerusalem most holy to Jews (and Christians). Never mind that from East Jerusalem, the Israeli-controlled remainder of the city can be shelled at will with Kassam rockets or even mortars.

At Annapolis, virtually everyone will also agree that Israel must accept some arrangement affording rights to millions of Arabs who have been, as the esteemed historian Bernard Lewis points out in today’s Wall Street Journal, deliberately condemned to refugee status (in some cases, for as many as five generations) by their regional “brothers” and UN enablers. Everyone understands this demand will translate demographically into the end of the Jewish State.

By virtue of its sponsorship of the event and its actions, both there and subsequently, the United States will once again assume the role of “honest broker.” This mutation of Israel’s one ally makes it still less likely that America will block such international demands.

Even before Annapolis, Condi Rice has found it inexpedient to do more than mouth platitudes of the kind that once governed George Bush’s policies vis a vis the Jewish State and its enemies. Today, Palestinians can remain in the terror business – they can even officially and explicitly refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland – and still enjoy the Administration’s political support and access to U.S. military equipment, training and vast amounts of taxpayers’ funds.

The bigger problem is that the government of Ehud Olmert seems disposed to go along with the emerging “international consensus.” Indeed, Olmert has already signaled a willingness to compromise his country’s future security and integrity as a Jewish state in the hope of rescuing his failed premiership and avoiding prosecution for corruption. For their part, his people seem to be sleep-walking, unable to believe that every one of their longstanding national requirements (for example, a unified Jerusalem, secure borders, no “right of return” for “refugees,” etc.) is being abandoned in the pursuit of a “peace” no one can seriously believe is in prospect from the Saudis and their friends.

Sadly, the people of Israel stand to be punished for putting themselves in such a compromising position. Unfortunately for them and for others who will be victimized in the future by Israel’s emboldened Islamist enemies, the penalty for the “process” resuscitated at the Naval Academy and the concessions that will flow from it will not be the lash. It may well prove to be a death sentence.

Middle East War in the Offing?

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

By: Arnaud de Borchgrave

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion runs deep, Saul Bellow once said.

The illusion, yet again, is a Middle Eastern peace conference in November or December that would produce the final outlines and contents of an independent state of Palestine.

Seldom has such a vision appeared more chimera than reality, and yet seldom pursued more vigorously, this time by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has logged eight trips to the region in 10 months, in the elusive pursuit of a legacy other than Iraq.

For advice on the pursuit of what she sees as her Middle Eastern legacy for the history books, Rice has consulted two former presidents (Carter and Clinton), three former secretaries of state (Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Madeleine Albright), and top Middle East negotiators who have made a career out of the "peace process."

She now believes she can reel in a "viable and contiguous Palestinian state" in the next 12 months. But "contiguous" is already unattainable by Israel's 456-mile physical barrier and Jewish settlements that are all inter-connected by roads banned to Palestinians.

Major concessions by ailing (prostate cancer) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, now the subject of seven police and judicial investigations for alleged improprieties, are out of the question. They would only accelerate his decline and the return to power of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who would then promptly restore the status quo ante.

Could the United States then make aid to Israel conditional on a Palestinian settlement? The next president might try what would be a foreign policy first — but a collective congressional holler would force a quick retreat.

The obstacles in the Palestinian camp are equally insurmountable. Palestinians and Israelis have diametrically opposed narratives of their history since the birth of Israel in 1948. And if they can't agree on contemporary history, let alone who was there first 3,000 years ago, how can they possibly agree on what needs correcting and on who owes what to whom?

As Rice met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, the most Westernized of all West Bank cities, where women now wear the veil, both seemed oblivious to the rising threat of Hamas from its Gaza base to the entire West Bank. Islamic fundamentalism is now on the march throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. It's no longer safe for Abbas to enter Jenin or Nablus, the two largest cities in the West Bank. Even his own security forces would not or could not protect him in what were until recently safe areas for Palestinian moderates.

Rice, Abbas, and their Israeli interlocutor, Olmert, are in a state of denial about the insuperable roadblock of Hamas, now a majority Palestinian movement that denies the very existence of Israel and dominates both Gaza and the West Bank. For Olmert, omerta is protection against oblivion. A majority of Israeli lawmakers said any attempt to slice and dice East Jerusalem to accommodate the Palestinian demand for a capital city would be Olmert's last curtain call.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the immensely popular right-wing firebrand, would then be assured of Israel's leadership in early elections — back to square one. Or square two with Ehud Barak, a reborn hawk, now defense minister, who trails Netanyahu in the polls.

Similarly, the billions of dollars the Palestinians will demand as compensation for the 4 million Palestinians denied the right of return (descendants of the 700,000 who left in 1948 "of their own volition," according to the Israelis, or were "terrorized" into leaving, say the Palestinians) will be compensated, not by Israelis as they see it, but by U.S. taxpayers once the haggling stops. So this is yet another non-event.

Three major deal-breakers — a "contiguous and viable" Palestinian state, Jerusalem, and the right of return — defy solution in the 15 months Rice has left to achieve a Palestinian state for posterity. Even a Palestinian miracle would not detract from the specter of "World War III" conjured up by President Bush over Iran's nuclear ambitions — and echoed by oil at $93 a barrel, gold at $800, the dollar at an all-time low, and Egypt announcing its decision to build nuclear reactors (shorthand for something more lethal).

International Atomic Energy Agency chairman Mohammed ElBaradei, who got the Nobel Peace Prize for getting it right in Iraq, now says there is still no evidence of prohibited nuclear-related activities in Iran. And he urged the United States to halt its fiery rhetoric, as there is still time for diplomacy.

"The earlier we go into negotiation, the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody," ElBaradei told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. But the Bush administration insists on talking to Tehran through the EU3 — France, Britain, Germany — while strengthening economic and financial sanctions.

The Korean model requires lots of carrots because Iran can get almost anything it needs from abroad via the free port city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates where falsified third-country labeling is not quantum physics.

One senior American diplomat made a difference with North Korea. But in Washington, speculation about the probability of war with Iran is strangely bereft of desired outcomes and probable retaliatory consequences.

The IAEA says Iran is years away from a deliverable nuclear weapon.

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill went to Pyongyang to nail down the deal whereby North Korea agreed to deweaponize its embryonic nuclear warheads. Shouldn't Hill, or an equally capable diplomat, be dispatched to Tehran to at least explore the possibility of a geopolitical quid pro quo? A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq when conditions ripen; the lifting of all sanctions, diplomatic recognition and a non-aggression treaty should all be in America's diplomatic quiver.

In return, Iran formally agrees to forgo nuclear weapons and grants total access to IAEA inspectors to check whatever they want with little advance notice.

Vice President Dick Cheney and his neocon friends would call this Munich-like appeasement.

Unless bombing of Iran's suspected nuke sites is ordered by Bush before he leaves office, they think the next occupant of the White House, probably a Democrat, will "wimp out." Therefore, they conclude, the time to bomb Iran is now, and hang the consequences. This geostrategic assessment ignores Vladimir Putin's latest gambit — two high-level Russo-Iranian meetings in October.

Regional Middle Eastern war anyone?

Bomb Iran, Strengthen al-Qaida and Radical Islam

Thursday, November 15, 2007

By: Arnaud de Borchgrave

Radical Islam, or Islamo-fascism as conservatives are prone to call it, conveys the impression of a political movement. It is no such animal. Al-Qaida's suicide bombers and assorted gunslingers are not individual al-Qaida terrorists, inspired by Osama bin Laden, who have hijacked a religion. Like it or not, the West is fighting a religion "that arose in enraged reaction to the West," writes Fergus Kerr in "20th Century Catholic Theologians."

The only leader who has called it by its real name, according to Kerr, "is a man wholly averse to war, a pope who took his name from the Benedict who interceded for peace in World War I." Benedict XVI, alone among the leaders of the Christian world, "challenges Islam as a religion, as he did in his September 2006 Regensburg University address," which touched off noisy protests throughout the Muslim world. The pope repeated a question posed by Manuel II Paleologos, an obscure 14th century Byzantine emperor, to a Persian guest at his winter quarters near Ankara. "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The pope did not contradict the emperor's fighting words. He simply said the emperor had spoken with "startling brusqueness," omitting, presumably deliberately, to say whether he disagreed.

Also conveniently ignored were Christianity's many bloody contributions to history, from the 11th to the 13th centuries in nine major crusades against Jerusalem when popes told Christians to fight to repay God for their sins; to the Spanish Inquisition (1476-1834) during which Torquemada, one of Hitler's precursors, tortured, killed and drove out some 300,000 Jews and heretics; to Pope Alexander VI (1492-1505), the infamous Borgia who was the "Monster of Iniquity."

Three world religions with their roots in the Middle East espoused, at some stages of their history, the concepts of "Holy War" and "Just War." Religion generates certainty, which breeds intolerance, which ignites conflict.

An anonymous online reviewer whose experience in intelligence, theology and journalism combined to produce the blogosphere pseudonym "Spengler" (Oswald Spengler's best-known tome was "The Decline of the West," published in 1918) says, "Radical Islam threatens the West only because secular Europe, including the sad remnants of the former Soviet Union, is so desiccated by secular anomie it no longer cares enough about its future to produce children." Demographers can also see Muslims forming a majority in Russia by mid-century and possibly dominating Western Europe at the turn of the 22nd century.

The Islamo-fascism label for al-Qaida's fundamentalist support "to save Islam" justifies the neoconservative campaign to pressure President Bush to order the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities before he leaves office. But there's a slight impediment: The last four CENTCOM commanders, including Anthony Zinni and Arabic-speaking John Abizaid, said any bombing of Iran would push 320 million Arabs into the camp of radical Islam and produce an unmitigated geopolitical disaster for the United States. This, they believe, would also push a moderate Iraqi government into the arms of a "martyred" Iran coupled with a demand that U.S. forces hightail it home.

Thus, those who advocate bombing would unwittingly play into the hands of religious extremists. Israelis say they are faced with an existential crisis that Americans cannot comprehend. The obvious comeback is the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which was also existential for those who lived through it. But we talked to the adversary, conjugating hard and soft power into smart power - and Moscow backed down. Nikita Khrushchev also threatened to bury us at a time when thousands of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles were targeted at every major city and military base in the United States. Again, smart power - otherwise known as the Helsinki process on human rights, freedom of the press and movement of people -- gradually collapsed the Soviet Union.

While countless millions of Americans tune out, Islamist extremists are marshalling their forces, including the hundreds of thousands of young men brainwashed in Pakistan's madrassas into the core belief that martyrdom against the "American Zionist crusaders" is to earn the keys to paradise. Most Muslims feel victimized while fundamentalists seem genetically programmed to understand, even encourage, the youthful urge to violence.

In an e-mail message to this reporter Wednesday, Benazir Bhutto, the embattled Pakistani leader under house arrest, said, "I very much fear the risk of civil war. The longer (President) Musharraf stays, the worse it's going to get. I knew it was bad but after coming here (from eight years of exile), I am shocked at just how bad. The militants are spreading everywhere not because people want them but because the administration unilaterally withdraws without a fight leaving the people of the town or village at the mercy of the long-haired, bushy faced barbarians who terrorize the local population and subdue them by shooting and killing randomly. I am just wondering how long it's going to be before the militants march on Islamabad."

Twice prime minister in the 1980s and '90s, Bhutto continued, "It may sound dramatic but the picture here is frightening. Pakistan is slowly disintegrating and it seems everyone is paralyzed into ignoring the calamity that is coming. The district headquarters of Shangla Hills fell today. The local population was ready to resist but didn't have the resources. The government didn't send any reinforcements and the local administration disappeared. In fact, it seems like the buddies of the militants had already been appointed."

The Pakistani army ceased operations a month ago against the Taliban and al-Qaida in the tribal areas on the Afghan border. Army units dispatched to the scenic Swat Valley, inside the Northwest Frontier province, have met strong resistance as more militants arrive from nearby towns and villages. Pakistan, one of the world's eight nuclear powers, is the ultimate nightmare scenario. The army is the custodian of secret nuclear weapons sites, deep underground. But the army is in disarray and the widely despised army chief and president, Pervez Musharraf, clings to power by enforcing martial law.

The Perils of Pakistan

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 9:36 AM

By: Arnaud de Borchgrave  

One of the world's eight nuclear powers, Pakistan is now a failing state out of control where Taliban, al-Qaida, and their supporters have secured their privileged sanctuaries in the tribal areas on the Afghan border; reoccupied the Red Mosque in the center of Islamabad; launched suicide bombers in widely scattered parts of this Muslim country of 160 million.

More than any other country, Pakistan is the breeding ground of Islamic terrorism. Yet it enjoys the status of "major non-NATO ally" of the United States. Now 60 years old, Pakistan has lived under military dictatorship for half its life.

In 1999, Gen., Pervez Musharraf, the army chief of staff (the country's supreme military commander), seized power and decreed martial law.

Last week, with Pakistan spinning out of control, Musharraf staged his second coup, decreed a state of emergency (tantamount to martial law), dismissed the Supreme Court, suspended the constitution, arrested some 1,500 politicians, lawyers and human rights activists, closed down all 50 TV channels except the one controlled by the government, imposed self-censorship on the print media and appointed new supreme court judges willing to follow orders.

Twice deposed as prime minister, Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan Oct. 18 after eight years of self-imposed exile, in what she thought was a power-sharing deal with Gen. Musharraf.

He had agreed to doff his uniform and run for president in a free election. As head of her Pakistan People's Party, Pakistan's most popular, Bhutto would run in elections scheduled for January and if her party won a majority, she would become prime minister.

Musharraf also guaranteed the deletion of a little constitutional impediment — political leaders are barred from serving three times as head of government. Everything began to unravel when two suicide bombers attacked her triumphal homecoming parade, killing 142 and injuring more than 400.

Musharraf, meanwhile, got himself re-elected president by a majority of members of four provincial assemblies, the federal assembly and the senate — but all opposition parties boycotted the balloting and Musharraf feared the Supreme Court would not validate his election.

His second coup d'etat followed.

Bhutto flew back to Dubai, her residence in exile, to reassure her three children who had watched the attack on television.

She returned to Karachi as security forces deployed throughout major cities. In a Nov. 3 e-mail to this reporter, Bhutto said, "Those who support the Taliban and oppose me continue to have high positions in government. Musharraf doesn't remove them nor has he kept any of the promises he made guaranteed by third parties. Yesterday [before Musharraf's state of emergency], television channels broadcast a meeting in Bajaur [one of the seven tribal agencies that border Afghanistan] by a mullah claiming that he and his group will kill me in Rawalpindi [where she was scheduled to attend a PPP rally, now banned]."

Bhutto's e-mail added, "The fact that militants hold open meetings without fear of retaliation proves the Musharraf regime is totally inept, unwilling or colluding in their expansion.

"Our rapprochement talks with Musharraf have foundered in the quicksand of his failing promises. There is no move towards democracy. It's either back to dictatorship [1999] or back to a rigged election [2002]. Or Musharraf is replaced with a pliant interim government for two years run from behind the scene by the same military hard-liners. They claim in two years they can push NATO out of Afghanistan and replace president [Hamid] Karzai with one of their own, betting that the U.S. will be caught up in presidential elections for one year and it will take another year for the new administration to settle in."

By way of conclusion, Mrs. Bhutto's e-mail said, "The situation is grim, the risks are high, but I have faith in the people to turn around the problem if we can get a real election." That horizon seems to be receding.

In recent opinion polls, Musharraf was in single digits, President Bush in the teens, and Osama bin Laden close to 50 percent. Pakistan's extremist militants reject a woman as the nation's leader, as well as an alliance with America.

Mahmoud Al Hasan, a leader of the extremist Hezb-ul-Mujahideen, the militant wing of the religious Jamaat-e-Islami party, described Bhutto and Musharraf as "slaves" of the United States. Bhutto had the added distinction of being labeled an infidel. "What should be the reaction of jihadis?" Al Hasan asked. "They should definitely kill her. She is an enemy of Islam and jihadis."

There are several hundred, if not thousands, of jihadis willing to commit suicide to assassinate Bhutto.

This, in turn, could trigger a civil war in a country with an estimated 50 nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The military are convinced Mr. Bush compelled Musharraf to deploy some 100,000 troops in the tribal agencies on the Afghan border to eradicate Taliban and al-Qaida infrastructure. But their heart was never in it. And Musharraf himself confirmed U.S. pressure in his memoirs "In the Line of Fire." More than 1,000 Pakistani troops were killed, over 3,000 injured and almost 300 captured. A number chose to stay with the Taliban fighters and the others were released after pledging not to attack their "brothers."

With Taliban and al-Qaida sanctuaries now secure in the foothills of the Hindu Kush, the NATO campaign to whittle down Taliban's guerrilla units in Afghanistan could last for years. But those doing the fighting with U.S. units — Canadian, British and Dutch contingents — were beginning to lose political and public opinion support at home. Logistics were costly, with no end in sight. What they originally thought might be a two- to three-year peacekeeping commitment could now take five to 10 more years. The Afghan army, according to a Canadian assessment, won't be able to manage security till 2015.

Even German, French and Italian units, stationed in relatively peaceful zones far from the Afghan border, could feel growing reluctance on their respective home fronts to keep them there. The narco-state stigma also rankled opposition politicians in Berlin, Paris and Rome. But opium is critical to the Afghan economy.

Gen. Sir David Richards, who commanded the Afghan mission until last February, said, "there are too few troops to conduct the operation in a manner that meets the basic rules of a counterinsurgency campaign" and that "we need a doubling of forces — and probably a lot more than that — if we are to achieve minimum goals." That would double the 41,000-strong NATO force to more than 80,000.

The future of NATO hangs in the balance.

Ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto Targeted

Monday, October 29, 2007 2:26 PM

By: Arnaud de Borchgrave

No sooner did Benazir Bhutto narrowly escape a two-man suicide bombing attack than she faced the next death threat of many more to come.

Like paparazzi chasing down a celebrity, would-be assassins will be dogging her every step as she leads her Pakistan People's Party in the coming election campaign to reclaim Pakistan's prime ministership, from which she was deposed in 1990 and again in 1996.

Five days after 140 people were killed and some 400 wounded in Bhutto's brush with martyrdom, she received a two-page handwritten letter in Urdu from a "friend of al-Qaida" that threatened to eliminate her "by any means."

Frighteningly long lists of plots are being hatched by a wide variety of extremist organizations and groups. And there is no shortage of killers and volunteers for suicide bombings, martyrs anxious to die for a new global caliphate. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf himself has been the target of nine assassination attempts, two by suicide bombers. Conspiracy is Pakistan's middle name.

Government sleuths reassembled body parts to get a lead on the would-be assassins. Released to the media were ghoulish photos of the severed head of what the police were certain was one of the perpetrators. Pakistani intelligence from a northern tribal territory reported another 30 suicide bombers had been assigned to "high-value political targets."

Radical groups pollute Pakistan's political scene. Since Sept. 11, 2001, when Musharraf, under U.S. pressure, dumped his Taliban proteges, extremist groups, once encouraged by the all-powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency for the "liberation" of Indian Kashmir, were ordered to shut down. Many of them had offices in the major cities that were closed only to reopen with a different name a block or two away.

The most ominous warning of all for Bhutto came from the federal railways minister, Sheik Rashid Ahmad. He accused her of "raising the flag of imperialism" (i.e., Bush administration support), which means she "will have to face suicide attacks. We have already conveyed to her that the ground realities have changed (since she was last in her country eight years ago)."

This perennial cabinet minister ran a jihadi training camp in the 1980s. He also served in the previous military government under President Zia ul-Haq. As Musharraf's information minister, he was known as a champion spin doctor who affects an always-in-the-know image. This time he inadvertently validated Bhutto's claim that some elements in Musharraf's government collude with militant radicals assigned to sabotage her political comeback.

Ahmad is a close friend of retired Gen. Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief who acts as strategic adviser to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal coalition of six politico-religious extremist parties that governs two of Pakistan's four provinces (Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier province).

Gul hates the United States — and anything Washington favors — with a passion. He assisted the creation of the Taliban in the early 1990s and to this day believes the Sept. 11 al-Qaida attacks were a plot engineered by Israel's Mossad, the CIA and the U.S. Air Force. ("How come no fighters were scrambled to take on the planes you say were hijacked?" he asked this reporter.)

From al-Qaida and Taliban sanctuaries in the tribal areas on the Afghan border to Karachi, a teeming port city of 15 million some 600 miles away, there are tens of thousands of fanatics who would love to see Bhutto dead.

To lengthen the odds, the government banned political rallies and street demonstrations. But she will still have television, now accessible to 60 percent of the country. The privately owned ARY television network has 12 24/7 channels for news and commentary and for everything from food to fashion. ARY Chief Executive Officer Salman Iqbal was in Washington and New York this month to recruit "intellectual talent" for a new a "think tank" channel, directed by Ammar Turabi. It will focus on counterterrorism, human rights and distance learning.

Despite the newly acquired accoutrements of modernity, a large part of Pakistan is still stuck in the past.

More than half its 160 million people are illiterate. And aligned against Bhutto's return to power are renegade ISI cadres; the nationwide MMA coalition of extremists throughout the country; supporters of the late military dictator ul-Haq, who seized power from Bhutto's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and then ordered him executed by hanging (Zia himself died in a mysterious plane crash in 1988 and Benazir became prime minister in a restored civilian government); and the countless flat-Earth clerics and their followers who regard a female leader as an abomination.

Yet Bhutto's popularity in this deeply divided society remains high. And her Pakistan People's Party is the country's largest, backed and funded by a burgeoning middle class in a country with an annual growth rate of 7 percent. Her power-sharing deal with Musharraf called for corruption charges against her to be dropped as she returned from self-imposed exile in London and Dubai, in exchange for which Musharraf would doff his general's uniform after the Supreme Court certifies his election to another five-year term. He seized power in a bloodless military coup eight years ago.

Several hundred lame-duck lawmakers from four provincial assemblies, the federal Assembly and the Senate re-elected him recently; all opposition parties boycotted the balloting.

Assuming all goes according to plan — always a big "if" in Pakistan — the big question will be who will wield the most clout on defense and internal security matters? Bhutto believes the seven troubled tribal areas on the Afghan border, now under the sway of al-Qaida, the Taliban and assorted jihadis from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, can be brought to heel by introducing political parties and election campaigning to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Today only the MMA is authorized to recruit and propagandize in the FATA. The MMA is pro-Taliban and its leaders are self-avowed admirers of Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist. Pakistan's mainstream political parties are not welcome in North and South Waziristan where the Taliban and al-Qaida rule and where Pakistani troops are loath to fight.

Pakistani intelligence reported from the northern tribal territories another 30 suicide bombers had been assigned to terminate high-value political targets.

Bhutto is now the target with the highest value. The late ul-Haq once said his greatest mistake was not killing Bhutto the daughter as he had ordered the execution of her father. Benazir's assassination would relegate Pakistan to "failing nuclear state."

On Iraq

Most Liberals blame US Policy for the attacks on the US and the conflict in Iraq - what about the Terrorists? This attitude dangerous to the safety and future well being of America.

While most comparisons to Viet Nam are specious...one is becoming more and more real: media coverage is forcing the military to fight with less than appropriate vigor. Americans are compassionate...War is ruthless. Had World War II been fought under the same media microscope being used in Iraq, tactics which were vital to victory would never have been implemented. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo...the clearing out Japanese pillboxes with flame throwers in the South Pacific...the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...all these would not have happened and the bloodiest conflict in history would have lasted years longer and killed millions more had we not been willing to totally crush our enemies.

A sharp knife cuts quickest and hurts least...the ruthless pursuit of war in the name of humanity is a virtue, not a vice. Though no one defends the actions in that Iraqi prison in and of themselves, war is fought by people and people are human...they make mistakes. Sometimes, men and women in war make dumb decisions. That is what happened here.

But calls for resignations at the highest echelons of America's military are unfair...they might even be called traitorous. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is an honorable man and would never condone or cover-up these abuses. Democrats, like Delaware Senator Joe Biden, are taking advantage of these isolated incidents to paint a picture of incompetence and corruption that threatens to shake our troops morale...something more important to our troops' survival than any equipment they use.

This war is winnable... but only if we are willing to do everything it takes to win. An enemy is never truly defeated until he knows he has been beaten. In World War II, Germany was ground to dust between the colossal grindstones of the Allied and Red armies. A full-scale invasion of Japan was only avoided by using a weapon so terrible that the Japanese were thunderstruck into surrender. Even then, it took two atomic bombs to make that point.

Opponents of the war point to casualties and to the low-scale attrition which are wearing away at the morale and fighting ability of our troops. They forget that post-World War II, Nazi's were a problem for years and we had to occupy Japan for more than 30 years to pacify the population. The American occupation of Germany continues to this day. Yet, the nation building accomplished in both Europe and Asia during the Cold War resulted in both these defeated nations rising from their ashes, Phoenix-like, to become industrial and economic giants. Not to mention they are shining examples of Democracy...a form of government neither had experienced before.

Everyone agrees...mistakes were made at the Iraqi prison, and the American men and women who perpetrated these decidedly "un-American" acts are being punished...even as I write this. But it would be fatal to the war effort...fatal to Iraq's budding Democracy...and fatal to future U.S. interests to allow this scandal to balloon beyond it's true parameters. Democrats and those against the wart are looking to use any lever...at any cost...to pry George W. Bush out of the Presidency. For the sake of every man, woman and child who loves freedom...don't let them. - By John Gilliland

How Did Ahmed Mohamed Get In?
The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 27, 2007

The newest evidence revealed in the case against former University of South Florida student Ahmed Mohamed is positively frightening.

Translated from Arabic, the video shows Mohamed encouraging would-be terrorists to use remote-controlled toys to detonate bombs.

What remains unanswered in this unfolding case is how Mohamed, who had been at USF since January, passed security checks before entering the country on a student visa issued by the U.S. State Department. Prosecutors believe the video was made after he arrived here.

Surely, Mohamed did not go from mild-mannered doctoral student to bomb-making instructor in the mere eight months between his arrival at USF and his arrest with fellow student Youssef Samir Megahed. The two were caught with explosives in their car near the Navy weapons station at Goose Creek, S.C.

USF did its part in ensuring Mohammed actually attended doctorate courses in engineering, but it relied on the federal government to determine whether he was a security risk. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department should explain how it keeps students with radical tendencies out of the country.

Clearly something is afoul with security if an Arab bomb-making instructor can roost comfortably at an American university and teach others how to become more efficient killers. The public is due an explanation of how this occurred.
 
Reader Comments
Posted by ( Willis ) on November 27, 2007 at 10:46 a.m.

Our Universities, especially private schools, seem to prefer foreign students to American Citizen Students.

Could it be the guaranteed tuition and monetary gifts given by Middle East and Asian governments in return for educating their students? Is it any wonder that foreign nationals make up most of our graduate level students?

American students, working hard and struggling to meet the ridiculously growing tuition costs, are being out-bid by money rich governments for the limited graduate school slots.

As foreign governments become more aggressive and our universities continue to base their admission policies on greed and a displaced sense of political correctness, expect more of these undesirable students to enter our boarders. Also expect more American Students to be displaced from our own schools.

Separate Trials Denied For USF Duo
By ELAINE SILVESTRINI, The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 30, 2007

TAMPA - A federal judge refused to order separate trials for two University of South Florida students accused of transporting explosives.

Youssef Megahed's lawyer filed a motion in U.S. District Court on Nov. 9 seeking to have his case severed from Ahmed Mohamed's. Both were charged with transporting explosives after their car was pulled over Aug. 4 in South Carolina.

Mohamed, however, also was charged with trying to help terrorists by teaching or demonstrating the use of explosives. Authorities say he acknowledged posting a video on the Web site YouTube in which he showed how to use a remote-controlled toy to detonate a bomb.

In his motion to separate the cases, assistant federal public defender Adam B. Allen argued, "To not grant a severance of defendants would result in reversible prejudice to Mr. Youssef Samir Megahed, because he would run the high risk of being found guilty merely by association with defendant Mohamed."

Allen also wrote, "Given the current post-9/11 climate and this country's current entrenchment in the Iraq War, any terrorist-related evidence is highly prejudicial and will result in an unfair trial" for Megahed.

The prosecution opposed separate trials, saying the two cases were linked and speculation about possible prejudice did not justify severance.

"The implicit 'connection' between the videotape lessons and the 'explosive materials' which the defendants actually transported a short time after the production of that video well establishes that the charges contained in this indictment are part of the 'same series of acts or transactions,'" Jay Hoffer, an assistant federal prosecutor, wrote in a reply.

U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday issued a one-page order Thursday afternoon finding for the prosecution and denying the motion for separate trials.

Megahed's father, Samir, has said he wants his son's case tried separately from Mohamed's because he doesn't want his son tied to the terrorism accusations. He also said his son's case will be ready for trial much sooner than Mohamed's, and he doesn't want his son waiting behind bars. Both defendants are being held without bail.