Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Much of the European press reports (as uncontestable fact) that fear of being branded "non-patriotic" for daring to disagree with George W. Bush is pervasive in the United States, to the point that it inhibits people's actions. To most anyone (that I know) who actually lives here, that notion is patently absurd. I live near Seattle and won't claim to speak for the entire country, but friends and family in other major urban centers report pretty much the same thing.

The truth is that dissenters here feel far more free to proclaim their views than those who support Bush and/or the war. For example, this truck:

Is regularly parked outside the building I work in or the local Home Depot, and never has a problem. Meanwhile, cars with discrete "W '04" bumper stickers are scratched or otherwise damaged with monotonous regularity.

To see true intimidation, violence, and suppression of free speech in this area, you have to attend an anti-war, anti-globalization, or pro-intifada rally and watch what happens to those who dare to disagree.

What's next? The Qwestagon?

My wife is very upset at Bill Frist's proposal to rename the Pentagon for Ronald Reagan. We both admire President Reagan and have nothing against memorializing him in some other way, but the Pentagon is a potent symbol in its own right. Renaming it is a crass and ultimately pointless gesture that would tarnish the Pentagon without really reflecting the legacy of President Reagan.

I don't have a strong opinion about putting him on a coin or a bill (if pushed I'd probably admit to being mildly positive) but I'd actually most like to see a Reagan memorial.

Update: But not on Mount Rushmore, please.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one brave woman. And a beacon of hope for (Old) Europe.

What did he know, and when did he know it?

Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 raises an unexpected question.

It comes as no surprise that Michael Moore's latest anti-Bush polemic is a big hit at Cannes. What I did find a little surprising was the fact that it reportedly includes footage of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners:

In the light of the current controversy over pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused, his latest film is right up to date in showing American soldiers in the field mocking and posing with hooded Iraqi prisoners.

"This is the first footage of abuse and humiliation of these Iraqi detainees," Moore said.

This raises an interesting question: When was this footage taken and when did it come into Michael Moore's possession? It sure sounds like evidence of violations of the Geneva Conventionts being committed, which should have been reported immediately to the appropriate authorities.

Considering how quickly the military moved to investigate and shut down the abuses at Abu Ghraib once they were reported, it seems likely that they would have responded equally quickly to Moore's material -- possibly reducing or even preventing the abuses that have been splattered across the media landscape for the past few weeks.

Did Michael Moore report his evidence to the authorities? Or did he withhold it, knowing that it would boost his film? How many prisoners suffered unnecessarily for Michael Moore's vanity?

Update: I've since seen a report (in print) that the film was finished just 10 days before screening, so it is possible that the material in question was added at the last minute. I'd still like to know if that's the case.

Inside every silver cloud, a dark lining

The reaction to Abu Ghraib inside of Iraq has been muted in comparison to the rest of the Arab world. According to the LA Times, that's bad news for the coalition.

In the LA Times' view, Iraqi response is muted because Iraqis have experienced firsthand the depravity of the American occupiers and expect no better. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but not very loosely.

Of course, the story was written long ago as far as the LAT is concerned -- the "journalist"'s job now is to fit whatever comes along into the narrative. One rather suspects that if more Iraqis were delighted by harsh treatment for Baathist thugs, the LA Times would take the coalition to task for pandering to their base instincts and maybe sowing the seeds for civil war.

Iraq the Model has another take on the issue, as does his friend linked above. But they're just ordinary Iraqis and can't be expected to understand the Iraqi point-of-view as well as those highly trained journalists at the LAT do.

Update: The archive at Iraq the Model appears to be wonky. If the links above don't work, go to the main page and search for the entries on May 6 & May 8 2004.

Update: Here's another report on Iraqi reaction to the scandal and its aftermath, this time from a Marine Colonel in Iraq.

In a heartbeat.

Me too. (via Greg Piper)

If you're looking for evidence that the Vatican is a political rather than a moral entity, you need look no further than this (article in German).

Vatican: Torture Worse Than September 11th

The abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers is, by Vatican lights, a greater blow to the United States than September 11th. Vatican Foreign Minister Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo told the Italian daily "La Repubblica" that the abuse scandal fuels the hatred of Arabs for the west and, above all, Christianity. (...) The torture scandal makes it even more important that the UN intervenes in Iraq and the US gives authority to Iraqi's as quickly as possible.

It's worth noting that Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo seems entirely preoccupied with political consequences of the two acts and with advancing the Vatican's political agenda (strengthen the UN, weaken the US). Nowhere does he evidence the slightest concern for the immorality of killing more than three thousand innocent people.

A Long and Interesting Read.

The Taguba report is available at GlobalSecurity.org.

The report is detailed and hard-hitting and should put paid to any notion that such abuse is typical or that the military is attempting a coverup. It won't, but that's just politics in an election year (and the press running with the narrative they prefer).

Cognitive Whiplash

If rumors of child abuse at Abu Ghraib turn out to be true, I tend to favor this suggestion, not just because it is appropriate (assuming a very high standard of proof is met) but because of what would likely follow.

In the immediate aftermath, the perpetrators of such heinous acts would be justly condemned by pretty much everyone. The European political class (and much of the American left) would, with their typical hyperbolic flair, go much further -- breathlessly placing them on the chart of historical evil-doers somewhere between Hitler and Pol Pot (though still well below President Bush himself).

Once the offenders were sentenced to death, however, the chattering classes would be required by canon to lionize them as heroes (see: Mumia).

One can only hope that such a rapid transition from "evil incarnate" to "poor, innocent saints" produces enough cognitive whiplash to snap a few necks.

Rachel Lucas comes out of hibernation, and the word "Asshat" suddenly starts appearing all over the place once again. Coincidence? We report, you decide.

In any case, welcome back Rachel - we've missed you.

The word 'Accountability' does not appear in the EU dictionary. MEP attention is apparently focused on the important stuff.

Go read the Messopotamian now for an idea of what was and is required in Iraq.

It'll be much harder now, but maybe it isn't too late. Unless of course the coalition really is planning to cut and run in Fallujah.

Anti-Mullah Secret Weapon: Cooties!
Muqtada al Sadr, You're next.

On the way into work this morning, NPR was reporting a "deal" to solve the Fallujah standoff. According to NPR, US Marines will withdraw to be replaced by "Fallujah Protective Army" (or something like that) that doesn't even exist yet but which will be constructed from former military units. This so-called Army will be far less militarily capable than US units and its loyalty questionable, at best. Even if they make a good faith effort, the Neo-Baath militia will be less effective at stopping insurgents and will likely cause more damage in the process..

This deal seems like the worst possible thing the coalition could do. It would simultaneously:

Reinforce the impression that the US lacks the political will to follow through when the going gets rough. This will cause terrorists both inside and outside Iraq to redouble their efforts. The dictionary entry for Fallujah will read "See: Mogadishu"

Reinforce Iraqi fear that the US will cut and run, leaving them to the tender mercies of a new strongman. Moderate Iraqis will be even more reluctant to work on reconstruction, due to fear that they'll be persecuted for collaboration once the coalition bails.

Legitimize what amounts to a private militia.

I arrived at work both furious and depressed, where I found a report on MSNBC that the Pentagon denies that any such deal has been struck. Wretchard also has another of his typically excellent analyses of the likely military situation in Fallujah.

Between the two, I'm a bit less worried. If Wretchard is correct (and his track record on Fallujah is very, very good) the military situation is close enough to a tipping point that the political manuvering won't matter.

In my most optimistic moments, I can imagine that the announcement of a deal is actually an elaborate psy-op. Actually building a New Baath Army is a really bad idea, but as a threat it seems pretty effective ("work with us, or we'll hand the keys over to the UN and a cadre of ex-Baathists"). I can't say that I genuinely believe that right now, though. We'll see how things play out over the next few days.

Update: MSNBC is now also reporting the possibility of a New Baath Army (also now in the article linked above).

Update: George Willl agrees and Andrew Sullivan is worried too.

Signs of Weakness

This is interesting:

In a written statement the group released with the tape, it demanded Italian citizens organize demonstrations against the presence of Italian troops in Iraq.

The group gave Italians five days to organize the demonstrations. Otherwise, the statement said, the hostages would be killed.

Notice that they aren't calling for the removal of Italian troops or any action by the Italian government, just for street protests in Italy. This is interesting and a good sign in a number of ways.

First off, I get the feeling that world reaction to Fabrizio Quattrocchi's heroic defiance has them a bit reluctant to execute any more Italians. More importantly, it means that whoever is holding the Italian hostages has decided that they're not going to get what they want from the politicians, so now they're trying to undermine them with a direct appeal to the electorate (while looking for a face-saving way to declare victory).

Does anyone know if the usual suspects are organizing a puppet show demonstration?

I think (and hope) the hostages will come home safely regardless, but this move becomes a significant tactical setback for the kidnappers if they end up completely empty-handed. Right now Al Qaeda, et al are trying to train the European public to appease (or, more properly, reinforce their training to appease) and any example of Europeans successfully standing up to terrorist pressure will undermine the appeasement reflex that has been developing so nicely.

Kick Me

I'm afraid I don't understand all of the rejoicing about European leaders rejecting Osama's "truce" offer. Of course they'll all say that -- even Zapatero tries to pretend that he isn't just cutting and running.

The real test comes after they succeed in another major attack in Europe. Will the voters of whichever country is hit (Italy is my guess) stand by their man, or will they denounce him for not accepting bin Laden's generous terms?

I'm usually an optimist, but in this case I'm betting on form.

Bad news, good news

The bad news is that a handful of unidentified Leipzig residents have filed a lawsuit to stop a planned Jewish community center on the grounds that it poses a security risk due to the likelihood of attacks.

The good news is that the citizens of Leipzig have rallied broadly in support of the community center since the lawsuit became known, with hundreds of supporters at a community meeting and more than a thousand signatures on a petition in support of the community center. "It's scandalous to argue that the Jewish community is a security risk," says Pastor Christian Wolff of the Thomaskirche. "We've had 'Jews are a danger' before," he notes.

If only the EU were as clear-headed and straightforward as Pastor Wolff and the citizens of Leipzig.

Update: Here's another straightforward denunciation of terrorism. German bishops used Easter sermons to denounce any attempt to justify terror acts in God's name, describing such acts as "absolutely perverse."

Sorry to just disappear like that, but work and life both got suddenly hectic in a big way. I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel and will be back soon.

In the meantime, keep an eye on the German media with Medienkritik, read Belmont Club or Intel Dump for great coverage of all things military and the ongoing turmoil in Iraq, or go help Michele help the Marines help Iraq.

Ur Tax � @ Work

A European MEP with too much time and too few clues has translated part of the draft constitution into "SMS" language, in a horribly misguided attempt to make it more accessible to youth.

Leaving aside the fact that he's misappropriating a jargon that he's mistaken for slang, this guy sounds like an aging hipster making a desperate and embarassing effort to prove he's still cool and in touch with todays youth.

Update: No, this doesn't appear to be an April Fools joke. At the very least, the EU Observer article and the Lib�ration article it references are dated 7 April.